Special Notices to All Who Deny Two-Seedline, Part 16

Christogenea is reader supported. If you find value in our work, please help to keep it going! See our Contact Page for more information or DONATE HERE!

  • Christogenea Internet Radio
CHR20170901-CAE-SpecNotice16.mp3 — Downloaded 5667 times


Special Notices to All Who Deny Two-Seedline, Part 16

Melissa and I leave for Ohio in the morning, hoping to see Clifton Emahiser complete his physical therapy so that we may relocate him to Florida. Clifton seems to be in good spirits and is looking forward to the move and to having our company.

Here in our Bible studies I would not normally offer a summary of things I have said in a Saturday program which mostly concerns recent political and social issues. But on this occasion, to begin with such a summary may be appropriate.

Last week, presenting our recent program In the Wake of Charlottesville, I began with a discussion of the historic basis in America for what is now called White Nationalism. Now let me state that when I use the term nationalism I am referring to a strictly ethnic nationalism and not any false so-called civic nationalism. Ethnic nationalism is the only valid form of nationalism, and civic nationalism is entirely artificial, unnatural, and can only be enforced by tyranny. It is empiricism and not nationalism at all.

So I began by explaining that the American Union was first founded for the benefit of a particular group of White and Christian men and for their posterity, meaning their descendants. That fact alone demonstrates that this Union was originally intended to benefit one particular race of people exclusive of all others. Then I explained that when that element of the Union was undermined following the War of Northern Aggression, even some of the Yankee states had refused to ratify the constitutional amendments which facilitated such a treachery. Later, speaking of more recent events, I showed that even within the last decade modern international courts and treaties recognized the rights of a people to self-determination based upon “traditions and culture, ethnicity, historical ties and heritage, and a sense of identity or kinship”, among other things.

As I had also explained last Saturday, I did not make such a presentation because I think that we are going to achieve justice based on the ideals expressed by governments, but rather, I wanted to demonstrate the hypocrisy of the current liberal establishment, which only a few years ago bombed a certain European nation to uphold those very ideals which White Nationalists espouse today. The world is hypocritical. We must understand that we have no political solution. But my purpose was to show that Nationalists do indeed stand on principles which have been recognized throughout history.

So I made that presentation with the purpose to demonstrate some of the historical basis for Nationalism. It is only with an understanding of that basis that we can realize just how far the world which we now perceive through the media has departed from historic norms. But the world was not always perceived as we now perceive it.

In chapter 12 of his treatise On the Jews and Their Lies, Martin Luther said the following concerning the apostolic age: “They interpreted the writings of the prophets with power and correct understanding; in addition they performed such signs and wonders, that their message was accepted throughout the world by [Judaeans] and Gentiles.” Then in Chapter 13 he said: “It is a great, extraordinary, and wonderful thing that the Gentiles in all the world accepted, without sword or coercion, with no temporal benefits accruing to them, gladly and freely, a poor Man of the [Judaeans] as the true Messiah, one whom his own people had crucified, condemned, cursed, and persecuted without end.” The Jews were not really “his own people”, but Martin Luther was evidently ignorant of the large Edomite presence among the Judaeans, and especially among their rulers.

Now Luther said these things in an age of exploration, where he knew full well that there were countless non-White people on the planet who had not accepted the Gospel of Christ, or who had not even heard of it. He was also very well familiar with the Mohammedan Turks who were making war upon Christendom as he wrote. Therefore Luther could not have considered those non-White races and regions to be a part of his “world” of so-called “Gentiles”, or he could not have honestly stated that the Gospel had already been accepted throughout the world. Luther’s world was clearly not the entire planet.

The modern electronic media and the current ease of travel over great distances has forced upon us a changed perspective of what constitutes the world. However what we now consider the world is not the world of Scripture. The Bible represents a series of covenants between Yahweh God and a certain family of man, a family which was prophesied to become a group of nations. These covenants made with a specific people – the house of Judah and the house of Israel as Paul attests in Hebrews chapter 8 – cannot be disannulled or added to, as Paul explains in Galatians chapter 3. The Bible also tells us, in Genesis 3:15 as well as in Revelation 12:17 and 20:8, that a certain serpent, also called the dragon, the devil or Satan, would wage perpetual war against the “seed of the woman”, which is later called the “Camp of the Saints”, which are those same nations that are subject to those covenants with God, and which turned to Christ in the apostolic age or soon thereafter, as the Gospel spread through that world and as Luther had acknowledged. These chapters of the Revelation also inform us that the serpent would send a flood from its mouth to devour the woman. That flood is, ostensibly, the same phenomenon which is also described as the gathering of other, alien, nations from the four corners of the earth in an attempt to destroy the seed of the woman which is inhabiting the Camp of the Saints.

The historical portions of Scripture, as well as the prophecies concerning the children of Israel, prove that the nations of Luther’s world are indeed the Camp of the Saints, the people subject to the covenants of God, and the Gentiles to whom the Gospel was presented. Both Genesis and Revelation describe the war which these people, the seed of the woman, would be caught up in because of the sin of their first parents. So if this enmity between the seed of the woman and the seed of the serpent is confirmed in the Revelation, then we had better understand that these nations which Satan gathers against the Camp of the Saints are from the part of the serpent, and have no part with the woman. That is how they are described, as a flood spewing forth from the mouth of the serpent, in Revelation chapter 12. The chapter concludes by saying “17 And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.” That dragon being “that old serpent”, as it is explained earlier in that same chapter, we see the enmity of Genesis 3:15 confirmed in the Revelation of Christ, and beyond the crucifixion of Christ where the dragon continues the enmity with the seed of the woman.

Properly, nations are people groups, ethnicities, and not governmental or geographical entities. We have a historic basis for Nationalism, and here we have a traditional Christian basis for Nationalism. But from a secular perspective, nationalism has no moral basis by itself, because outside of an acceptance of the God of Scripture, morals become relative. So this proper interpretation of the Christian Scriptures is the only sound moral basis for Nationalism. This is why to the Jew, Christians are “Nazis” and must be eradicated, and Identity Christians are the biggest “Nazis” of all. Once we realize the true intentions of our enemies, only then do we realize that there is no middle ground for us to stand on.

Therefore Identity Christians must reject all so-called teachers and pastors who refuse to acknowledge that this war is ongoing, and who refuse to properly identify the modern nations with the descriptions of them in ancient Scripture. Identity Christians must reject, and sharply rebuke, any so-called Identity teacher or pastor who seeks middle ground. That is what Christian Identity is: a proper identification of the parties of Scripture with their modern counterparts in the world of today. If we do not properly identify these parties, we may end up as victims in this war which is being waged against our Adamic and Israelite race, rather than being counted among the victors. In turn, if we deceive others with any misidentification of these parties, we make ourselves into accomplices in the murders of our own brethren. There is no middle ground in this war. One may be either hot or cold, but if one is lukewarm, our Christ will spew him out of His mouth, as He Himself had warned in Revelation chapter 3.

With this we shall commence with Clifton Emahiser’s


Once more, I will reiterate [that] We are at WAR, and I am not referring to the war between the “spirit and the flesh” as the anti-seedliners do. Yes, there is a war between the spirit and the flesh, and I wouldn’t discredit it in the least, but the WAR I am speaking of is an entirely different conflict. The WAR I’m addressing is the WAR between the “seed of the serpent” and the “seed of the woman.” How can anyone deny there are two seeds mentioned in Genesis 3:15? But deny it they do!

This is what it means to be a Christian soldier. Putting on the armor of God we put away the deeds of the flesh, overcoming in the struggle with our fleshly lusts and carnal desires, and only then are we fit for Yahweh in the battle against His enemies. As we have stated, the war which is prophesied in Genesis 3:15 is confirmed in the Revelation in chapters 12 and 20. And if we properly interpret and identify the characters in that war, as well as the identity of the recipients of the promises of Yahweh God to Israel, then we have the key to the meanings of the parables of Christ, and we can come to an understanding of the identity of the sheep nations and the goat nations, the wheat and the tares, and the good fish and the bad fish in the net. This is rather simple: the sheep nations are the nations of which consists the Camp of the Saints. The goat nations are the nations which Satan gathers to encompass the Camp of the Saints. The wheat are the children of God, and the tares are the bastards which resulted from the deceit of the devil. So also with the good and bad fish, and all of the similar parables of Christ. Continuing with Clifton’s discussion of the anti-seedliners:

They use some of the most fantastic arguments in an attempt to disprove that fact [the fact that we are engaged in a war which began in Genesis chapter 3 - WRF]. Most anti-seedliners trace the bad fig “Jews” back to Esau, with which I do not disagree. But, if one will notice the various wives whom Esau married, one will discover they were mainly from the ten Canaanite nations of which the Kenites were a part (Genesis 15:19). If one will check the Strong’s number for Kenite, one will see that it is #7017 and 7014. Then checking those numbers, they will be found to mean Cain [or the tribe which descended from Cain], the one who murdered Abel. Now whether you believe that Satan or Adam was Cain’s father, Scripture definitely proves that Esau’s children had Cain’s blood flowing in their veins. This fact is confirmed by [the] Messiah Himself, ([in] Matthew 23:35).

Actually, Esau’s first two wives were a Hittite and a Hivite, which I am persuaded is a scribal error for Horite. His third wife was an Ishmaelite. But then he and his descendants dwelt in Mount Seir, which is also called Mount Hor, with the Horites, which was another branch of the race of the Canaanites. Here Clifton cites Matthew 23:35, but we would rather cite the version offered by Luke (chapter 11), which is free of suspected interpolation, and where Christ had told His adversaries: “50 That the blood of all the prophets, which was shed from the foundation of the world, may be required of this generation; 51 From the blood of Abel unto the blood of Zacharias, which perished between the altar and the temple: verily I say unto you, It shall be required of this generation.” Where the King James Version has generation, speaking of children and fathers both near and remote, the word is much better interpreted as race, which is the primary meaning of the corresponding Greek term. Only the descendants of Cain could be held responsible for the blood of Abel, as Yahweh is just in the execution of His law. So Clifton continues with an example:

The very nature of Cain displayed itself in Doeg the Edomite’s killing [of] 85 of Yahweh’s priests of the “linen ephod” at king Saul’s command, 1 Samuel 22:17-18. This leaves the whole matter dependent on Genesis 4:1 for which both the Masoretic and Septuagint texts are ambiguously obscure. Thankfully, we have a witness which is much clearer than the usual, accepted rendering of that verse, and which is contextually in agreement with the rest of Scripture. Let’s take a look at it:

Targum of Jonathan on Genesis 4:1: “And Adam knew his wife Eve, who was pregnant by the Angel Sammael, and she conceived and bare Cain; and he was like the heavenly beings, and not like earthly beings, and she said, I have acquired a man, the Angel of the Lord.”

Whether or not we agree with this rendering depends on how badly we want to correlate this passage to correspond with, and measure up to the rest of The Word. If the anti-seedliners don’t accept this rendering, one would think they would at least recognize that the “Jews” are the descendants of Cain! They simply don’t believe their Bible. They, therefore, demand that the Almighty accept their personally contrived dogmas and opinions on Scripture.

Clifton was obviously happy to have found this material from Scott Stinson regarding the Targums, he found it through Weiland himself, and he is going to carry it as far as he can. But Clifton is not really asserting that the Targum has the authority of Scripture. Rather, it only reflects how one interpreter of Genesis 4:1 understood that the verse should be interpreted. Not necessarily accepting that particular interpretation, we must nevertheless acknowledge that there are other early interpreters who had held a similar opinion, and not only in the Targums.

For instance, we read the following which was written about a mother in distress, in 4 Maccabees chapter 18, from Brenton’s Septuagint: “7 And the righteous mother of the seven children spake also as follows to her offspring: I was a pure virgin, and went not beyond my father's house; but I took care of the built-up rib. 8 No destroyer of the desert, or ravisher of the plain, injured me; nor did the destructive, deceitful snake, make spoil of my chaste virginity; and I remained with my husband during the period of my prime.” While it is apocryphal, 4 Maccabees is by no means a Jewish or Talmudic work, but an early Christian work. And very much like Paul’s second epistle to the Corinthians, in that we see a clear analogy referring to the virginity of Eve as having been spoiled by a deceitful serpent, which, as we learn in the Revelation or in the epistles of the other apostles, was actually a so-called fallen angel. So while the Targum may have been an innovation upon the Scripture, it was certainly in line with the way that at least some early Christians had thought about the Scripture. Therefore if Genesis 4:1 alone leads you to believe that Cain was a son of Adam, that belief is soundly challenged, and that verse is demonstrably corrupt, so it should be subject to serious reconsideration. A doctrine should not be made without two or three sound and incontestable witnesses, and Genesis 4:1 has no second witness. Clifton continues his discussion with another example from the Gospel:

One such passage of Scripture the anti-seedliners take vehement exception to as proving Two Seedline doctrine is [found at] Matthew 13:24-30, 37-43, about the “wheat and the tares.” While Stephen E. Jones and Jeffrey A. Weakley avoid comment on this topic, Lt. Col. Jack Mohr and Ted R. Weiland jump right in where angels fear to tread.

Before examining Matthew 13:24-30, 37-43, it would be advisable to read it: “24 Another parable put he forth unto them saying, The kingdom of heaven is likened unto a man which sowed good seed in his field: 25 But while men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat, and went his way. 26 But when the blade was sprung up, and brought forth fruit, then appeared the tares also. 27 So the servants of the householder came and said unto him, Sir, didst not thou sow good seed in thy field? from whence then hath it tares? 28 He said unto them, An enemy hath done this. The servants said unto him, Wilt thou then that we go and gather them up? 29 But he said, Nay; lest while ye gather up the tares, ye root up also the wheat with them. 30 Let both grow together until the harvest: and in the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, Gather ye together first the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them: but gather the wheat into my barn ... [That is the parable, and now Clifton offers the interpretation where the apostles had begged of Christ to explain it to them:] 37 He answered and said unto them, He that soweth the good seed is the Son of Man; 38 The field is the world; the good seed are the children of the kingdom; but the tares are the children of the wicked one; 39 The enemy that sowed them is the devil; the harvest is the end of the world; and the reapers are the angels. 40 As therefore the tares are gathered and burned in the fire; so shall it be in the end of this world. 41 The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity; 42 And shall cast them into a furnace of fire; there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth. 43 Then shall the righteous shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father. Who hath ears to hear, let him hear.”

[Clifton now responds and says:] It’s simply fantastic the various interpretations the anti-seedliners put on this passage, most of which they have brought with them out of Jew-deo-unchristian churches and seminaries. Lt. Col. Jack Mohr, a vehement anti-seedliner, comments thus in his Seed of Satan, Literal or Figurative?, [on] page 15, concerning the words “tares” and “children” in this segment of Scripture in Matthew 13: “Apparently the disciples were intrigued by this parable, but could not understand its meaning. So Jesus explained it to them and told them that the ‘tares’ (#2215 — ‘zizanion’, a false grain called ‘darnel’, which looks like wheat), were the ‘children of the wicked one.’ The word ‘children’ in Greek is (#5207 — ‘huios’ and means ‘immediate, remote or figurative kinship.’ So if the word can refer to ‘figurative kinship’, why are the SEEDLINERS so adamant in stating it means ‘literal kinship?’”

Throughout the Scripture, the planting of seed or trees is used as an allegory for races and families of people. This is true, for example, in Genesis chapter 3, in Jeremiah chapter 2, and in Ezekiel chapter 31. But where the parable is explained, the words in the explanation must be taken literally, or the explanation is not an explanation. If the words in the explanation are to be interpreted figuratively, then is the explanation of the parable only another parable, which needs to be further explained? If Christ had meant followers, he would have had to have said followers, since he was explaining the original parable to His apostles, and not merely giving them another parable. Such is the childish sophistry found in the denial of the anti-seedliners. Clifton responds to Jack Mohr and says:

Had Lt. Col. Jack Mohr checked with the Thayer Greek-English Lexicon; The Complete Word Study Dictionary NT by Spiros Zodhiates; or An Expository Dictionary of NT Words by W. E. Vine, instead of the limited definition found in Strong’s, he would have found the primary meaning for the word “children” #5207, means: “(A) A male offspring ... (B) In a wider sense a descendant, pl. descendants, posterity.” (This definition is from Zodhiates, and the others agree.) There is a secondary figurative sense which can apply and I will give you an example: The disciples were called “sons of thunder.” [Since thunder cannot have literal children, the word sons must be interpreted figuratively - WRF] Had Mohr read Strong’s more carefully, he would have noticed that it mentioned “immediate kinship” first. One’s immediate kinship would be one’s own son. Strong’s gave Mohr three choices, and he rejected the first two and implied that “figurative kinship” was the only one mentioned [or better, the only one relevant - WRF]. Such a maneuver is hardly honest! It is apparent, [that] Mohr already had his mind made up what he thought it should be.

Secondly, Mohr forgets that Messiah Himself said “seed are ... children.” Therefore, “seed” and “children” cannot be separated. Consequently, it is highly essential to find out what the word “seed” means. The Greek word for “seed” is #4690, and is sperma. This is where we get the English word “sperm.” According to Zodhiates, page 1304, sperma ... Also figuratively used of living beings as the seed of man; i.e., of posterity or descendants.” In this case “figuratively” means comparing man’s seed to agricultural seed, and that is exactly what this parable is doing in comparing Satan’s offspring to tares (darnel).

Again, if Satan’s seed, or children, were merely men who chose to follow Satan, Christ would have had to use the term followers in His explanation of the parable, or the explanation would not be an explanation at all. Clifton continues to address this and says:

Thirdly, we must check out the one responsible for planting the darnel-like [tare-like] genetic people. In the parable of the wheat and tares the word “wicked” is #4190 [poneros], and is used with the definite article “ho” in Matt. 13:19; Eph. 6:16; 1 John 1:13, 14; 3:12; 5:18, and [it] means “Satan” [“the wicked one”]. Thus in 1 John 3:12 where it says: “Not as Cain, who was of that wicked one ...”, it means exactly what it says, “Satan”. Furthermore, the word “wicked”, #4190, in that same verse [1 John 3:12], according to Zodhiates, page 1198, is used with the definite article “ho”, and means: “... the evil one, Satan ...” [just as it is in Matthew 13:38].

Additionally, I would assert that it could also refer to any one particular individual from a large collection of entities whose origins are described in Revelation chapter 12 and who are in irreconcilable opposition to God. Therefore they are a permanent and collective “Satan”. Continuing with Clifton:

The book Synonyms of the New Testament by Richard Trench confirms what Zodhiates says about the word “wicked” (Greek #4190) on page 330: “Satan is emphatically ho poneros as the first author of all the mischief in the world.” In his Greek-English NT Lexicon, George Ricker Berry, [on] page 82 describes ho poneros as “... the wicked one. i.e., Satan ...” W. E. Vine in his An Expository Dictionary of NT Words under “wicked” on Matthew 13:38 states: “... and in the following [verse just cited], where Satan is mentioned as ‘the (or that) evil one’ ...” (Don’t waste your time with Strong’s on this one.) Another way to verify [that] the “wicked” of Matthew 13:38 is speaking of Satan is to go to Matthew 13:19 where the same Greek word #4190 is used saying: “... then cometh the wicked one ...” Then compare the parallel passage in Luke 8:12 which says: “... then cometh the devil ...” Conclusion: the “seed” or “children” in Matthew 13:38 planted by the “wicked” one are the genetic offspring of Satan!

The alternative being that the explanation of the parable is only another parable, which would mean that Christ did not explain it at all, in spite of the fact that His explanation was at the request of the apostles who desired for Him to explain it. So, if He explained it, then the children are literal children.

In his attempt to spiritualize and take a figurative view of the “tares” in Matthew 13, Ted R. Weiland in his Eve, Did She Or Didn’t She? in a rebuff of a quotation by James E Wise, makes this statement: “Furthermore, if the seedliners’ interpretation of the wheat and tares parable is accurate, and if the tares in Matthew 13 represent all the seed line of Satan through Cain, then there is no alternative but to accept that the wheat represents all the physical seed line of Eve through Seth. The wheat in this parable depicts the sons of the kingdom, and by this interpretation, the wheat would automatically be sons of the kingdom by their heritage, that is, they would be saved by their race or lineage. If this is true, then Yahshua’s death, burial and resurrection were wholly unnecessary. Of course, this hypothesis flies in the face of the entire Bible ...”

Of course, Paul of Tarsus himself explained that the Adamic race is indeed saved by its heritage, or race, where he said in 1 Corinthians 15:22: “For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.” Christ was manifest to reconcile His entire race to God, and among other things and in several aspects, to demonstrate the importance of keeping the law of God to His people. But Weiland seems to profess a works salvation, which the Scripture clearly refutes. Clifton responds to Weiland and says:

Well, what do you know, except for the last two sentences, Weiland got something right! After all, Hebrews 12:8 says we are either “sons” or “bastards”, and there isn’t anything in-between. And all this bull manure about being “born again”, (John 3:3), is totally an incorrect translation and interpretation. That verse is not saying “born again” but “born from above.” Actually if one will check that verse out, it is saying [that] one must be “born of the correct race.” To show you this, we will investigate the meaning of the word “born” as used in John 3:3 which has the Strong’s number 1080 [gennao] in the Greek. For this we will go to The Complete Word Study Dictionary NT by Spiros Zodhiates, [on] page 364. Zodhiates tells us this word means “generation, kind, offspring” ... and the primary definition is: “Spoken of men, to beget” ... “Spoken of women, to bear, bring forth” ... “To be begotten” ... “To be born as used generally ...” In other words, when an Adamic White person is born in the flesh, he is also born of the Spirit. Other races are not “born” of that Spirit, nor can they ever be. Zodhiates points out that “born” as used here (#1080) gennao, is from #1085, genos, which in turn means “offspring, posterity ... family, lineage, stock ...” You can also check this with Strong’s, but you must follow-through to #1085 to get the entire meaning. If you should check only the word #1080, gennao, you will not understand the full implications, for it is speaking of race. John 3:31 makes it clear there are “heavenly” people from above and people “that are of the earth ... earthly...” Our Redeemer told the Jews, John 8:23: “Ye are from beneath; I am from above: ye are of this world, I am not of this world.” Thus, like us, He was also born from above; i.e., of the White race.

I don’t want to leave the impression that we should not be converted though. It’s not a matter, as the Babylonian prostitute preachers imply, that one should “accept the Lord Jesus Christ as our personal Savior.” It’s not a question of whether we accept Yahshua, but whether or not He accepts us. Inasmuch as He died two thousand years ago for our Redemption, He has already accepted us. To be truly converted, we must accept His Redemption, which brings about communion! Conversion does not consist of being “regenerated by the Spirit”, but of being “turned around” (an about-face). Where in the past we were “sinners” (breakers of Yahweh’s Law), we do a “180” and start, to the best of our ability, to keep His Laws.

Psalm 51 informs us that such conversion is something which we hope for upon repentance from sin: “9 Hide thy face from my sins, and blot out all mine iniquities. 10 Create in me a clean heart, O God; and renew a right spirit within me. 11 Cast me not away from thy presence; and take not thy holy spirit from me. 12 Restore unto me the joy of thy salvation; and uphold me with thy free spirit. 13 Then will I teach transgressors thy ways; and sinners shall be converted unto thee. 14 Deliver me from bloodguiltiness, O God, thou God of my salvation: and my tongue shall sing aloud of thy righteousness. 15 O Lord, open thou my lips; and my mouth shall shew forth thy praise. 16 For thou desirest not sacrifice; else would I give it: thou delightest not in burnt offering. 17 The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit: a broken and a contrite heart, O God, thou wilt not despise. 18 Do good in thy good pleasure unto Zion: build thou the walls of Jerusalem. 19 Then shalt thou be pleased with the sacrifices of righteousness, with burnt offering and whole burnt offering: then shall they offer bullocks upon thine altar.”

Ultimately, such conversion is not in the hands of man. Rather, it is only in the hands of God Himself. Notice the words of the Psalm where it says “Create in me a clean heart, O God; and renew a right spirit within me.” In Deuteronomy chapter 30 we have the following promise: “1 And it shall come to pass, when all these things are come upon thee, the blessing and the curse, which I have set before thee, and thou shalt call them to mind among all the nations, whither the LORD thy God hath driven thee, 2 And shalt return unto the LORD thy God, and shalt obey his voice according to all that I command thee this day, thou and thy children, with all thine heart, and with all thy soul; 3 That then the LORD thy God will turn thy captivity, and have compassion upon thee, and will return and gather thee from all the nations, whither the LORD thy God hath scattered thee. 4 If any of thine be driven out unto the outmost parts of heaven, from thence will the LORD thy God gather thee, and from thence will he fetch thee: 5 And the LORD thy God will bring thee into the land which thy fathers possessed, and thou shalt possess it; and he will do thee good, and multiply thee above thy fathers. 6 And the LORD thy God will circumcise thine heart, and the heart of thy seed, to love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, that thou mayest live.”

This process is summarized in 1 Peter chapter 5: “10 But the God of all grace, who hath called us unto his eternal glory by Christ Jesus, after that ye have suffered a while, make you perfect, stablish, strengthen, settle you.” Paul of Tarsus described this similarly in 1 Thessalonians chapter 3: “11 Now God himself and our Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ, direct our way unto you. 12 And the Lord make you to increase and abound in love one toward another, and toward all men, even as we do toward you: 13 To the end he may stablish your hearts unblameable in holiness before God, even our Father, at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ with all his saints.” Where Yahweh establishes our hearts, which we see here in Paul and also in Peter, we read in Deuteronomy that “the LORD thy God will circumcise thine heart, and the heart of thy seed, to love the LORD thy God with all thine heart”. So while men may seek repentance, finding it and being established in it is solely by the grace of God. Remember that Esau sought repentance, and he did not find it, as Paul explained in Hebrews chapter 12, because for him Yahweh had another purpose.

Returning to Clifton, he also explains this in another manner:

I know that many who are reading this have experienced conversion. Whatever kind of prayer we made at that time, it was necessary for the Spirit to intercede on our behalf, (Romans 8:26). It’s only conjecture what kind of “groanings” the Spirit might have “uttered”, but perhaps it might have gone something like this: “Here is an Israelite under the Covenant of Abraham who has come to the realization that he/she is a Lawbreaker and wishes to plead the blood of Redemption on his/her behalf. He/she promises hereafter, based upon the light of the written Word, do his/her best to reject the leaven of the Pharisees, and to return to the faith of the Patriarchs.” Don’t worry about the exact words you might have prayed at your conversion, for the Spirit interceded and presented them before the Throne in an appropriate manner! Also, don’t distress yourself about all the members of your family kin who were never converted. If they were not converted in this life, they will be in the next, for it is written: “... every [Adamic] knee shall bow to me, and every [Adamic] tongue shall confess to God”, (Romans 14:11). Some of us Adamite-Israelites send our sins ahead to the Judgment, while for other Adamite-Israelites, their sins will follow them to the Judgment, (1 Timothy 5:24). And that is no sign the latter are going to be assigned to a burning hell. They will be in the kingdom too. But aren’t you glad you settled the account ahead of time?

From what I have in my files, this paper was published for April, 2002. Here we see that fifteen years ago Clifton was professing what we still profess today, that salvation is by race apart from works, and that ultimately, all Israel shall indeed be saved. Clifton continues:

To show you Ted R. Weiland is still holding the position on the parable of the wheat and the tares which he learned at his Christian Leadership College in Denver, Colorado, I will quote a ludicrous statement [which] he made in his Eve, Did She Or Didn’t She?, [on] page 72: “Instead, this parable [of the wheat and the tares] is simply contrasting righteous Israelites with wicked Israelites ...”

[Clifton responds and says:] To believe such a thing, Weiland is implying that agriculturally wheat has the same genetics as darnel [tares]. If, as he contends, the only difference between wheat and darnel are “righteous” and “wicked” Israelites, in essence he is claiming wheat and darnel are genetically identical. It would seem, with this conclusion, that Messiah is somewhat incompetent in presenting His teachings by way of parables. Or rather, could it be that Weiland is the one who is incompetent in understanding them?!?! The truth is, the wheat and tares are NOT genetically identical, and neither are the seed of the serpent and the seed of the woman whom the wheat and tares represent. They may have had the same mother, but they surely had different fathers! By such spurious teachings as this, Weiland is doing more damage to Israel Identity than he is doing good! (Which might be intentional.)

If the wheat and tares had the same origin, how could the devil have planted them? And if they have the same origin, what is “every plant which My Heavenly Father hath not planted”? Yahweh took credit for everything He created even after it went astray. But there are others which He denies, rather than taking credit for, as Christ said to His adversaries, “If God were your Father...” Now Clifton turns to address another anti-seedliner:

Jack Mohr gets his two cents worth in by saying in his Seed of Satan, Literal or Figurative?, [on] page 15: “In no way does this Parable [of the wheat and the tares] point to specific people by race, who are literal descendants of Satan, coming from his union with Mother Eve.” Moreover, on pages 15-16, Mohr has his own convoluted idea of what he thinks the parable of the wheat and tares is all about: “The ‘tares’, those who disobey God’s law and refuse to be reconciled to Him, will be gathered at this time by the reapers, who will be ‘angels’, not ‘white Israelites, bent on vengeance’ ... This is one of the biggest problems with the SEEDLINE people. They are more concerned with ‘pulling up the tares’, whom they say are the Jewish people, then [sic. probably than] in getting their own house in order and their own Israelite people in a right relationship with God, so that He can do the ‘rooting out work.’ As a result, we find the SEEDLINERS doing exactly what Jesus warned them not to do, ‘rooting up the wheat along with the tares’ ... I can assure you from the Word of God, that when the ‘rooting up’ process takes place, there are going to be ‘white Israelites’ among the ‘tares’ who will be rooted up along with God’s other enemies’.”

But rather, Christ had promised that not one wandering sheep would remain lost. The racial message of Scripture is important because we must correctly identify the enemies of God, the flood from the mouth of the serpent, and the people of God, so that we can properly heed the call to “Come out from among them, and be separate … and touch not the unclean”, which Paul informs us is required of us in 2 Corinthians chapter 6. How do we “come out from among them”, if we do not know who is who? Clifton responds to Jack Mohr and says:

I have two questions: Where in the Bible does Mohr get his evidence to substantiate these claims? Where is his verification [that] this parable of the wheat and the tares is not racial in nature? As already documented in this Special Notice both the words #4690, “seed” and #5207, “children”, mean “kinship” and “posterity.” How much more racial can it be?!?! Furthermore, if one will read some of Jack Mohr’s other publications, one will find that he has a very peculiar position on race and talks out of both sides of his mouth on that subject. Remember, Scripture says: “A double minded man is unstable in all his ways”, (James 1:8).

We do not know which of Mohr’s papers Clifton refers to, but many of them are still available online at israelect.com. Clifton continues and says:

Further evidence concerning the meaning of the term “seed” is found in The Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible, volume Q-Z, pages 328-329: “SEED ... is used to indicate both agricultural and human seed, the latter both in a narrow physical sense and as a description of the descendants of a common ancestor ... [T]he Israelite was commanded not to mix his seed in any field or vineyard, but to plant only one crop (Lev. 19:19; Deut. 22:9), [there is] a stricture [critical remark] parallel to that regarding the mixture of human seed by intermarriage with other nations.” [In light of this definition, Clifton then remarks:] In the parable of the wheat and the tares, the common ancestor to the “wheat” is Seth, the son of Adam. The common ancestor of the tares is Cain, the son of Satan through Eve.

We would further assert that while the tares are actually the bastards among us, that does not preclude the idea that the non-Adamic nations also have their origin in the so-called “tree of the knowledge of good and evil”, and they are the goat nations whose fate is that same fate as the “everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels”. Clifton continues by discussing the tares:

While many commentaries address the topic of “tares”, a very good description for the term is given by The Westminster Dictionary Of The Bible by Henry Gehman, page 591: “Tares. The rendering of Gr. zizanion in Matt. 13:25-27, 29, 30; R.V. marg. darnel. The tare (Vicia sativa), a vetch, with pinnate and purple-blue or red papillionaceous flowers, would be easily distinguished from the wheat. The Gr. word zizanion, which is probably of Semitic origin, corresponds to Arab. zuwan., which denotes Lolium, and to Talmudic zonin. The bearded darnel (Lolium temulentum) is a poisonous grass almost indistinguishable from wheat while the two are only in blade, but which can be separated without difficulty when they come into ear (cf. vs. 29, 30).”

The poison from the “tares” is caused by a fungus. “The darnel is host to an ergot-like smut fungus which infects the seeds. The fungus is a serious poison if eaten by animals or man.” (Pictorial Bible Dictionary by Merrill C. Tinney, page 668.).

From this description, we can easily apply the term “tares” to the “Jews.” [Unwittingly, the term “smut fungus” is absolutely befitting of the Jews. - WRF] You will notice that when the darnel comes into flower the colors are “purple-blue or red.” Because the “Jews” represent a few members of the Tribe of Judah who didn’t keep their bloodline pure, they would naturally appear as a counterfeit royal-blue, which in turn, serves to identify them with the tares. But the color red is even more significant, as it can represent Communism, for which the “Jews” are the inventors. Not only that, but it is the color of Esau from whom they also descend. It is also the color of the “red dragon” of Revelation 12:3 which represents Herod, the “Jewish” Edomite-racial proselyte who attempted to murder the Emmanuel-child [Christ] shortly after His birth. (For Herod’s father’s and mother’s lineage, check Josephus’ Wars 1:6:2; 1:12:3; Antiq. 14:1:3; 14:8:1; 14:7:3; 14:12:1.) [Josephus attests in several places that Herod was an Edomite after both of his parents.] Furthermore, the poison from the darnel seed would be representative of the poison; “leaven of the Pharisees” which churchianity today is so infected with. Who says the “tares” don’t represent the “Jewish” people?!?!

We must say, that the allegory of the tares very well represents the Jews and all bastards among us, as the “seed of the serpent” extends well beyond Jewry alone, to include Arabs, Mexicans, the other bastards of Mesopotamia, and others with whom they have become mingled. Clifton continues by citing a woman writer with whom we are not familiar:

Della Stanley in her book Adam’s Tree, (1975) pages 170-173, puts it very nicely about the parable of the wheat and the tares at the end of chapter 34 and the beginning of chapter 35, entitled “Pharisees and Scribes — a Generation of Vipers.” I will quote excerpts from these few pages as a critical review in order to counter the anti-seedliners’ arguments:

... Jesus gave the people another parable concerning wheat and tares. He compared the kingdom of heaven to a man that sowed productive seed in his field. But while his men or servants slept, an enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat. When the plants came up and brought forth fruit, the tares came up also. The servants wanted to go and gather out the tares, but the man said wait until harvest time. Then he instructed the reapers to gather the tares first, and bind them in bundles to burn them; and gather the wheat into his barn. (Matthew 13:24-30) ...

... When Cain killed Able he was cursed and banished from the presence of God, and the curse was never lifted. And at this time the seed of man was divided into two groups: the descendants of Seth that replaced Abel which were the children of God; and the descendants of Cain which became the children of the devil.

It is clearly evident that Della Stanley did not understand Genesis chapter 3 the way that we do, meaning that she did not have an understanding of Two-Seedline. Also, there were other races already extant, which we believe were descended from the sins and corruptions of the fallen angels, such as those which are described in 1 Enoch and other writings, but they would certainly not be counted among the “seed of man”. Clifton continues with his citation from Della Stanley:

Generations later, Canaan, the son of Ham, was cursed. And the curse was never lifted, therefore his descendants became the children of the devil [by admixture with Kenites, Gen. 15:19 – CAE].

It is clear that the Canaanites had mixed not only with the Kenites, but also with the Rephaim-giants of Genesis chapter 6, and also with several other tribes of unrecorded and ostensibly non-Adamic origin. Again continuing with the citation from Della Stanley:

Nimrod was another descendant of Ham; and he built cities, among them Babylon. When the Israelites under Joshua pushed a portion of the Canaanites out of the land of Canaan, they dispersed and some went to Babylon. Later still, there were the Shelanites, descendants of Shelah the son of Judah of the house of Jacob, whose mother was a Canaanite ... neither were they allowed to rule through the house of Judah.

The remarks concerning Babylon here seem to be mere conjecture. There were already Canaanite tribes spread as far east as Babylon, which are known from inscriptions. Continuing once more:

The people that returned to Jerusalem from the sixth century B.C. captivity were not of the house of Israel, but were a remnant of the house of Judah. But it was [of] the royal house of Zedekiah and his followers that God said, ‘I will deliver them to be removed into all kingdoms of the earth for their hurt, to be a proverb, a reproach, a taunt, and a curse ...’ it was mostly the members of Zedekiah’s house and his followers that intermarried with the cursed descendants of Canaan [which had also mixed with the Kenites, the descendants of Cain – CAE].

This is almost true, as they were to be delivered to the “bad figs” along with others of the house of Judah as we read in Jeremiah chapter 24: “8 And as the evil figs, which cannot be eaten, they are so evil; surely thus saith the LORD, So will I give Zedekiah the king of Judah, and his princes, and the residue of Jerusalem, that remain in this land, and them that dwell in the land of Egypt: 9 And I will deliver them to be removed into all the kingdoms of the earth for their hurt, to be a reproach and a proverb, a taunt and a curse, in all places whither I shall drive them.” So we see that Zedekiah and his princes, along with “the residue of Jerusalem” and the Judahites that had thought to escape to Egypt were all punished in this manner. Once again continuing with the citation from Della Stanley:

After the return of the Jews [properly Judaeans] to Jerusalem, there emerged a number of sects called the Pharisees, the Sadducees, the Herodians, and the Scribes ... John the Baptist called these people a generation [race] of vipers. Jesus called them hypocrites and children of the devil; and cautioned His disciples to beware of their doctrine. He speaks of Satan and his kingdom in Luke 11:18 ... And everywhere He went the Scribes and Pharisees followed and opposed everything that He did.

Again, this is an oversimplification. Perhaps over three hundred years after the return of the Judaeans to Jerusalem the sects of the Pharisees and Sadducees had emerged, and maybe almost another hundred years after that, the sect of the Herodians. The scribes were a sort of class and a vocation, but not a sect. Returning to Clifton’s citation of Della Stanley:

There was quite a division among the Jews [properly Judaeans] for the sayings of Jesus. Some believed and some did not. They came to Him and said, ‘How long dost thou make us to doubt? It thou be the Christ, tell us plainly.’ Jesus replied, ‘I have told you, but you believe not ... because ye are not of my sheep. My sheep hear my voice ... and follow me. And I give them eternal life ... and I and my Father are one’ (John 10:24-30) And the Jews took up stones to stone him ... But Jesus said, ‘If God were your Father, then ye would love me: for I came from God ... ye are of your father the devil, and the lust of your father ye will do ...’”

This is another oversimplification. There was quite a division among the Judaeans for the sayings of Yahshua. Those who believed Christ accepted Christianity and lost their identity as Judaeans, as Paul had told them that Christians were one in Christ and neither Judaean nor Greek. Those who did not believe ultimately became today’s Jews. Clifton concludes where he speaks of Della Stanley’s shortcomings:

What Della Stanley failed to explain was: Of the two factions (one favoring diplomacy with Babylon; the other with Egypt), the house of Zedekiah favored the latter. After Nebuchadnezzar captured Zedekiah, and killing his seventy sons and gouging out his eyes, the remainder of his surviving household forced Jeremiah to accompany them to Egypt for which he had forewarned them against. After Jeremiah sailed to Britain with Tea Tephi [or at least, he must have sailed West with the daughters of Zedekiah - WRF], the remainder fell under the judgment of a third dying by the sword, a third by pestilence, and a third being captured and taken to Babylon. Actually, one small group ended up in Elephantine in Egypt where they built a temple after the fashion of Solomon’s Temple (check Elephantine Papyri), and intermixing with African Cushite types (i.e., Sammy Davis Jr.) they became half-breed Falasha (black) “Jews.” [These were most likely mercenaries hired out of the people of Judah by the slightly later Persians who later mixed with negrosWRF, Clifton continues:] You can’t find a more rotten “bad fig” than that! How foolish then is Ted R. Weiland’s remark, already quoted from his Eve Did She Or Didn’t She?, [on] page 72, but this time I will finish it: “Instead, this parable [of the wheat and the tares] is simply contrasting righteous Israelites with wicked Israelites, much the same as the good and evil figs of Jeremiah 24.” [Clifton responds to Weiland and says:] You can see from this, Weiland hasn’t the slightest clue why the house of Zedekiah was considered “naughty figs.” While Della Stanley did quite well, she should rather have linked the “bad figs” primarily with Elephantine in Egypt.

We would not go so far as to say that the “bad figs” were the later Jews of Elephantine. The Jews of Elephantine were not the Jews taken captive into all nations after 70 AD. Furthermore, it is evident in Scripture that Nebuchadnezzar later invaded Egypt, and probably captured the Judahites which fled there, bringing them to join their countrymen in the Babylonian captivity. As we have said, the Jews of Elephantine were mercenaries stationed there in the later Persian period.

Actually, Clifton almost reaches the mark here, but Della Stanley falls shorter and Ted Weiland falls far shorter. Many people mistakenly interpret Jeremiah chapter 24 as if it were saying that the Judahites to be punished were already the “bad figs”, but that is not true. They were not considered to be “bad figs”, but for their punishment they were to be given over to the bad figs, which is a very different situation. There are three parties involved in the prophecy: good figs, bad figs, and Judahites who were going to be punished by being given over to the bad figs. Being given over to the bad figs, it is evident that they had ultimately mingled their seed with the Canaanites and Edomites, and were indeed driven into all the countries of the earth for a reproach and a proverb, a taunt and a curse, as we read in Jeremiah 24:9.

CHR20170901-CAE-SpecNotice16.odt — Downloaded 373 times