Special Notices to All Who Deny Two-Seedline, Part 2

  • Christogenea Internet Radio
CHR20170414-CAE-SpecNotice02.mp3 — Downloaded 3277 times
 
00:00

 

Special Notices to All Who Deny Two-Seedline, Part 2

Here we are going to continue with our presentation of Clifton Emahiser's series of special notices challenging all of those who deny what we often refer to as Two-Seedline. For my part, I would often rather call it two-treeline, as the Bible begins with a story of two trees and we may quite confidently assert that those trees must represent races of people: the Tree of Life, and the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. In the end, there is only one tree left standing, and all of the goat nations are thrown into the Lake of Fire. Anyone who looks at these things objectively must understand that the account of the end clarifies the purposeful obscurity of the account of the beginning, as Yahshua Christ had come to “utter things which have been kept secret from the foundation of the world. ”

For the short term, we plan to continue this presentation next week, when we will present part 3 of Clifton's series. Then over the months or years to come we will continue to present Clifton's 24-part series until we see it through to completion, if Yahweh God affords us the opportunity. Doing this, we believe it will be a useful presentation explaining the many fundamentals of our two-seedline understanding of Scripture, which we believe is the only true understanding, and we hope it will give us the opportunity to help to clarify as well as to augment Clifton's important work.

As Clifton had adeptly pointed out in part one of this series, the wheat were planted in the garden by Yahweh at the beginning, and that wheat represents the race of Adam. The devil came in rather immediately and planted tares among the wheat. In another place Yahshua Christ, in Revelation chapter 12, identified that that devil, the old serpent, with the fallen angels which therefore must have been here on earth as Yahweh created the Adamic man. Therefore while the serpent was representative of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, the tree itself must represent that entire cast of fallen angels and whatever corruptions they may have introduced ever since their fall. It is for that reason that we believe all of the world's non-Adamic races, the goat nations of the parable of Christ, have the same exact fate as “the devil and his angels” in Matthew chapter 25. Yahweh never took credit for the creation of the goat nations in Genesis or in any later Scripture. All of those who deny these Scriptural basics purposely cloud the issues and seek to obscure the battle-lines in this great war which our race has been confronted with ever since the events described in Genesis chapters 3 and 6 took place.

Here we shall present and offer some of our own commentary on Clifton Emahiser's

Special Notice to All Who Deny Two-Seedline, Part 2

After finishing my Special Notice To All Who Deny Two Seedline, #1, I realized there was much more evidence which could be presented on the subject, so I decided to post another paper concerning it. In that paper, I reminded everyone concerned of the fact that we are in a 7,000-plus year-old WAR. The Book Of Enoch, 22:6-7 speaks of this WAR where it says:

6 Then I inquired of Raphael, an angel who was with me, and said: Whose spirit is that, the voice of which reaches to heaven, and accuses? 7 He answered, saying: This is the spirit of Abel, who was slain by Cain his [dizygotic] brother; and he will accuse him, until his seed be destroyed from the face of the earth.”

Here Clifton seems to have been quoting a slightly modified version of Richard Laurence's translation of the Book of Enoch the Prophet, or 1 Enoch. The same passage translated by the Rev. R. H. Charles reads very similarly. Clifton added the word dizygotic in brackets, which he discusses below. Not all of the books of Enoch are to be equally esteemed, and even within 1 Enoch there are several very different books written at diverse times which were later concatenated into a single book. Those several books should not be equally esteemed. But there certainly was a legitimate Book of Enoch at one time, as it was quoted by the apostles, and particularly cited by Jude.

For my part, I believe that legitimate Enoch is best represented in part in the Dead Sea Scrolls, whereas we must be very careful citing the Ethiopic Enoch. Unfortunately, the portions of Enoch in the Dead Sea Scrolls are very fragmented and incomplete. It cannot be determined with certainty whether or not this particular passage was found in the original Enoch literature, but there are portions of the Dead Sea Scrolls which are similar to this account, where Raphael is described as having explained such things to Enoch. This is found in the scroll designated 4Q530, Fragment 2. Other significant portions of 1 Enoch are not represented in the Dead Sea Scrolls at all, and are very questionable. Continuing with Clifton:

I added the word dizygotic” to the above quote inasmuch as Cain was only a half brother. Because Cain’s descendants (the “Jews”) have as yet to be totally destroyed, Abel’s blood is still crying from the ground! I know there are some in Israel Identity who claim that Abel, because he shared the womb with Cain, was of polluted seed. I do not share that premise, for my Bible says Abel was Righteous”, (Matthew 23:35). Abel could not have been considered Righteous if he was of polluted seed. We read in Genesis 4:25 that Seth was appointed as another seed in place of Abel. Therefore, Seth was the same identical seed as Abel. The word Seth” is #8352 in the Strong’s Concordance and means substitute.” Substitute for whom? If Seth were of pure seed, he couldn’t have been a substitute for polluted seed, could he?

Now I must say, that here Clifton has followed a long line of Identity pastors and teachers who have oversimplified the concept of the seed of the serpent to the jews alone. But the Canaanites from which the Edomites Jews had sprung, and the Kenites and Rephaim before them, as well as the entire tree of the knowledge of good and evil which the serpent originally represented, had clearly spread far and wide long before the modern Jews had developed.

Whether or not one wants to believe that Cain and Abel were twins is actually immaterial. Here Clifton seems to suggest that they were, and later on in this lesson he shows how the original Hebrew language itself supports that suggestion. There is an early myth found in the poetry of Hesiod which tells a very similar tale about the birth of Heracles the son of Zeus and a twin half-brother named Iphicles who was born of a mortal man, which I believe was actually inspired by the account in Genesis chapter 4, although the literary connection may never really be proven. However Clifton's statements here are still accurate even if Cain and Abel were not twins.

There are older two-seedline pastors who rather unnecessarily teach something called telegony, whereby a child from a second husband is infected with the characteristics of previous husbands with which the woman had children. However an understanding of the female reproductive system and genetics completely refutes the possibility of telegony, which has no scientific basis whatsoever. In February of 2016 we made A Presentation of Clifton Emahiser's Telegony, Fact or Fiction?, and here we shall only assert that telegony is fully refuted, and does not belong to sound Christian Identity understanding of Scripture. Even worse, those in Christian Identity who teach telegony make the ridiculously unscrupulous claim that Seth was somehow the seventh pregnancy which Eve had after Abel, and therefore with seven gestations her womb was purified. All of this is a lie which is by no means supported by Scripture or by reality. Yet Dan Gayman and many other charlatans and sectarians continue to promote these lies, and discredit our cause with their fables. Continuing with Clifton:

For a moment, let’s consider the argument the anti-seedliners put forth that Cain was a full-blooded son of Adam. Let’s just stop and think for a moment: (1) Cain and Abel are born, (2) Cain kills Abel, (3) Cain is kicked out of the family, (4) There are no qualified heirs for Adam. If, then, Seth were a substitute, he would, by Law, have to be a substitute for the disinherited firstborn Cain. Why, then, does Genesis 4:25 indicate Seth is a replacement for Abel instead of Cain? Even if Cain was disqualified for the act of murder, Seth legally would have to be a replacement for Cain, the firstborn son.

We will discuss the text of Genesis 4:1 in detail in part this evening, and as this series progresses. For now, I would also assert that if Cain were disqualified only for his act of murder, perhaps the inheritance would have rightfully fallen on the eldest of Cain's sons, and not on Seth. But Scripture never even mentions a part for Cain's descendants in the inheritance of Adam. They are never even considered even where they are listed. Yet even the descendants of Shelah, while they were not counted as the first-born, were permitted to remain with Judah, ostensibly for the purpose of God and not for the benefit of Israel. Back to Clifton:

If you will remember, in the case of Judah and his Canaanite wife, he had three sons by her, yet Pharez, his fourth-born son by Tamar was considered his firstborn! Actually, Cain was a son of Adam, a stepson, for when Cain was born of Eve his wife, Adam became his legal father, just as in the case of Mary, the Messiah became the legal stepson of Joseph. And, just as in Matthew 13:55, James, Joses, Simon and Judas are called Yahshua’s brothers when they were only half brothers, or maybe, only legal brothers if they were children of Joseph by a former marriage.

Here, trying to explain the existence of the half-brothers and half-sisters of Christ, Clifton evidently may not have considered that they could not have been children of Joseph by a former marriage, because Christ being accepted by Joseph was also designated as the heir to Joseph's holdings. If Christ had older step-brothers, that would not have been possible. Rather, the brethren of Christ seem to have been His half-brethren on the side of Mary with another husband, Alphaeus, from events which evidently happened during those 18 missing years of the life of Christ.

But the point which Clifton makes concerning the sons of Judah is certainly valid. The three sons he had with the Canaanite woman were in fact Judah's natural offspring, but because they were bastards they could not receive any recognition as sons, even if they were permitted to remain with their father. If they received recognition as sons, they would have to have had the place of the first-born which they obviously did not have. Neither did Cain have any part inn Adam's inheritance, and his progeny were not counted among Adam's sons, because unlike Judah and Shelah, Cain was not the natural offspring of Adam. Clifton continues:

Before we quit this concept of Seth’s seed being a replacement for Abel’s seed, let’s look into another aspect of this thing. In the Bible there is a thing called the Levirate Law. If an Israelite wife’s husband was killed in battle, and they had no children, the Law required a brother to supply his seed so the widowed wife might be able to raise up seed (children) to her deceased husband. Because both the husband’s and brother’s seed were identical, it was considered her husband’s seed. The only way Abel’s blood can be crying from the ground for revenge is: if Seth is the identical seed as Abel, and that Seth’s seed will, in the end, destroy Cain’s seed. If what I am saying here is true, we, as Israelites, are descendants of Abel as well as Seth. Thus, we must avenge Cain on behalf for Abel’s seed!

So, as Clifton quoted from 1 Enoch at the beginning of this essay, Abel's testimony in his blood will accuse Cain “until his seed be destroyed from the face of the earth.” This is the story of the Bible, the struggle between the seed of the woman and the seed of the serpent, which is most fully described in the Revelation of Yahshua Christ – where all of the goat nations, the world's non-Adamic races, are clearly on the side of the serpent. Back to Clifton:

Here are some excerpts concerning Cain and Abel taken from Matthew Henry’s Commentary, volume 1, pages 38, 40, 41 & 43 on chapter 4 of Genesis. In these separate quotations, you will notice several very outstanding observations which could constitute individual lessons in themselves:

The Pharisees walked in this way of Cain, when they neither entered into the kingdom of God themselves nor suffered those that were entering to go in, Luke 11:52” ... A fruit of the enmity which is in the seed of the serpent against the seed of the woman. As Abel leads the van in the noble army of martyrs (Matt. 23:35), so Cain stands in the front of the ignoble army of persecutors, Jude 11. So early did he that was after the flesh persecute him that was after the Spirit; and so it is now, more or less (Gal. 4:29), and so it will be till the war shall end in the eternal salvation of all the saints and the eternal perdition of all that hate them. ... Thus, in Cain, the devil was both a murderer and a liar from the beginning. ... In the original the word is plural, thy brother’s bloods, not only his blood, but the blood of all those that might have descended from him; or the blood of all the seed of the woman, who should, in like manner, seal the truth with their blood. ... He [Cain] went and dwelt on the east of Eden, somewhat distant from the place where Adam and his religious family resided, distinguishing himself and his accursed generation [the 18th century way of saying race] from the holy seed.”

We must state that Matthew Henry was not two-seedline, but even he could not help to distinguish Cain and Abel by their seed, rather than merely by their behavior alone. We do not find it just, however, to compare Ishmael and Isaac to Cain and Abel. Ishmael was indeed a son of Abraham, and of the flesh of Abraham. He was not, however, the son which Yahweh had appointed, which was to come from the womb of Sarah. Clifton continues:

The anti-seedliners point to Genesis 4:1 quoting: “And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain ...” and say: “that settles the matter, Adam was Cain’s father.” The problem is: they are reading the account in English and it was originally written in Hebrew. In the original Hebrew, there were no punctuation marks; no capital letters at the beginning of a sentence nor periods at the end; there were no vowels; nor were there any chapter and verse divisions as we know them today. Therefore, we have to hope that the translators put all of these things in their proper places. Yet we know that they didn’t always do that, for many times part of a topic is given at the end of one chapter, and continued into the first part of the following chapter. So, if they were inconsistent with the chapter and verse divisions, so might they also be on these other things.

In Ralph Woodrow’s Babylon Mystery Religion, page 146, there is a footnote which reads: Note: When the Bible was originally written, commas (and other punctuation marks) were completely unknown. Punctuation marks were invented by Aldus Manutious in the Fifteenth Century. Since the original manuscripts had no punctuation marks, the translators placed commas wherever they thought they should go — based entirely on their beliefs ...”

With this, you can begin to see the problem we are up against with the interpretation of Genesis 4:1! We must give the translators credit though, as they placed a semicolon (;) between, And Adam knew Eve his wife” (;) and she conceived and bore Cain.” A semicolon indicates the greatest degree of separation possible within a sentence before dividing it into two separate sentences. It is my opinion that the translators should have used two separate sentences in this case as Adam knowing Eve, in this particular case, had nothing to do with Eve bearing Cain. Should it have two sentences, or one? Once we begin to understand that Eve was pregnant with Cain before Adam ever knew her, we can realize Adam knowing Eve didn’t have anything to do with Eve bearing Cain. It’s the old concept of cause and effect. I could say I went to a movie one evening and the sun rose the next morning. If this was said, it would be true. But, even though it was true, it does not mean that the sun rising the next morning had anything to do with my having gone to a movie.

I do not remember the exact timing of all of Clifton's papers, and when I presented part 1 of this series, I was actually about 6 months off in my memory of when these 24 Special notices were written, something which Clifton helped me clarify the next morning. This series began in May of 2001, and this particular essay was dated for June of that year. It would not be for another two years, in June 2003, that Clifton, diligently pursuing this topic, would write his essay The Problem With Genesis 4:1, where he would establish from The Interpreter's Bible that Genesis 4:1 contains a gloss which cannot be accurately translated with any degree of certainty. Doing that, Clifton also demonstrated from the early Aramaic Targums that early interpreters of Scripture attempted to fill in the blanks so to speak, with an account that shows that Cain was not the son of Adam, and Eve was indeed sexually seduced by a so-called fallen angel. There are many scriptures which support this, most of them found in other apocryphal literature. More recently, in April of 2016, I added a section to Clifton's paper on Genesis 4:1 showing from the Hexapla of Origen that many early translators of the Old Testament into Greek had also struggled with Genesis 4:1, with several different results which helps to substantiate what Clifton found in The Interpreter's Bible concerning this passage.

In part, we added the following to Clifton's paper as an addendum:

Origen's Hexapla, a work of the 3rd century AD which placed his own Greek translation of the Hebrew, the Latin, and various other extant Greek translations of the Bible all side-by-side in columns, shows many variant readings in the Greek versions of Genesis 4:1, which help to elucidate the problems that the earliest translators had with this verse.

Translating the various Greek interpretations of the Hebrew into English, the following readings are found (all translations are my own, possible variations are in brackets):

Latin: "I got a man to help Yahweh"

First Greek reading: "I have acquired a man through [by] God" (Definite article indicates "the God", or a particular God.)

Second Greek reading: "The Hebrew and Syriac: I have acquired a man with [by] a god." (No article would indicate no particular god, indefinite article added..)

Third Greek reading: "I have acquired a man with a lord" (Again, no definite article, no definite Lord, indefinite article added.)

Fourth Greek reading: "I have acquired a man, a lord" (the two nouns each being singular and in the accusative case with no prepositions are both the object of the verb, and therefore they refer to the same object, a man who is a lord)

While these readings do not directly support Clifton's entire thesis presented in this paper, they do support the assertion that the text of Genesis 4:1 was rather problematic to the earliest translators of the Hebrew into Greek. For that reason, Clifton turned to the Aramaic Targums for an indication of how the Hebrew scribes of that same era understood the passage.

We will NOT be convinced that the Masoretic Text upon which most modern Bible versions is based, and which came along nearly 800 years after Origen, is a better or more authoritative version of Genesis 4:1. In fact, it still reflects all of the troubles which the early translators had with this passage.

So while Clifton's statements here are rather rudimentary, and do not reflect the much fuller understanding of the problems with this passage which we have today, as this series progresses we will make an exhibition of the proof that Genesis 4:1 is a corrupt and unreliable witness to the parentage of Cain, and since there is no second witness that Adam was the father of Cain, we cannot accept it as a fact, especially since there are more witnesses to the contrary. For now, we shall continue with Clifton's essay, where he argues that:

EVE HAD TWINS

Genesis 4:2 says, “... she again bore his brother Abel.” The word in Hebrew for “again” is #3254 and means “to continue something or to add.” In other words, after she bore Cain, she “continued” bearing Abel. I have heard some say that Abel wasn’t born for several years after Cain, but the Hebrew doesn’t support such an idea. The Hebrew word #3254 can also mean “conceive again”, but this does not seem to fit the context.

Now Clifton does not tarry on that argument, but continues with the New Testament:

MORE ON JOHN 8:44

We will again quote this verse from Smith & Goodspeed as we did in Special Notice To All Who Deny Two Seedline, #1. With this rendition, there can be little doubt the Jews” are the genetic descendants of Satan:

The devil is the father you are sprung from, and you want to carry out your father’s wishes. He was a murderer from the first, and he has nothing to do with truth, for there is no truth in him. When he tells a lie, he speaks in his true character, for he is a liar and the father of them.”

This is what The Wycliffe Bible Commentary has to say concerning this verse, page 109: “The true reason for their [the Jews] failure to receive him [Yahshua] was their kinship with the devil. He was their father. No wonder they acted as he does (cf. Mt 23:15). His special sins are lying (seen in connection with the temptation in the garden) and murder (in the incitement of Cain to slay his brother — 1 Jn 3:12).”

Please notice the word “kinship” here. It’s not talking about something “spiritual”, but literal and genetic. Matthew Henry’s Commentary understands it this way also, volume 5, page 999:

Having thus disproved their relation both to Abraham and to God [Yahweh], he comes next to tell them plainly whose children they were: You are of your father the devil, v. 44. If they were not God’s [Yahweh’s] children, they were the devil’s, for God [Yahweh] and Satan divide the world of mankind; the devil is therefore said to work in the children of disobedience, Eph 2:2 ... All wicked people are the devil’s children, children of Belial (2 Cor. 6:15), the serpent’s seed (Genesis 3:15), children of the wicked one, Matt. 13:38. They partake of his nature, bear his image, obey his commands, and follow his example ...”

Before continuing with Clifton's remarks on this passage, we have to answer the scoffers. There are those who say that “oh, if that were true then all men would belong to the devil, since all men sin”. But as we are told in rather simple language in 1 John chapter 2, when the children of Israel sin they have an Intercessor in Yahshua Christ. But the children of the devil have no such intercessor, and they cannot be saved because they themselves are sin. So John also said that the Adamic man cannot sin because “his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.” As Matthew Henry stated, Christ showed that His opponents the Jews were not born of God: they were Edomite and Canaanite infiltrators, as they were also described by Peter and Jude. So Clifton says concerning both the remarks of the Wycliffe commentary and Matthew Henry that:

These last two quotations are simply brilliant, yet slightly flawed. I believe it is simply amazing that these commentators had moments of inspiration, for the message of Two Seedline and Israel Identity were not to be revealed until the end times according to Matthew 13:37-43. This passage indicates (1) the tares will be gathered and burned, and then, (2) the wheat will be gathered into the kingdom. Here the tares are those of the Satanic-seedline, while the wheat are true Israel. While both of these messages are important, for the moment, the Two Seedline message has priority, for the majority of Israelites will not understand their Identity until after the tares are cast into the fire. With the Two Seedline message coming to the forefront, they are, at the present time, beginning to feel the heat. If you haven’t, as yet, grasped the Two Seedline message, maybe it isn’t your time to understand it. If you do fathom this message, I would encourage you to promote it, for it is the message of the hour.

It is true that our interpretation of Scripture is most despised by the enemies of Christ, who exert much effort to obscure it, to pervert it, to ridicule it, and to keep it from becoming better known. Clifton continues:

For yet another comment on John 8:44, I will use the Jamieson, Fausset & Brown Commentary On The Whole Bible, page 1046: Ye are of your father the devil — This is one of the most decisive testimonies of the objective (outward) personality of the devil. It is quite impossible to suppose an accommodation to Jewish [Hebrew] views, or a metaphorical form of speech, in so solemn an assertion as this’ [Alford]. the lusts of your father — his impure, malignant, ungodly propensities, inclinations, desires, ye will do — are willing to do; not of any blind necessity of nature, but of pure natural inclination.

The tree is known by its fruits.

We will now consider some of the passages quoted here by these various commentaries, starting with Matthew 13:38 which reads: “The field is the world; the good seed are the children of the kingdom; but the tares are the children of the wicked one.”

The word “children”, in this passage, is the Greek word #5207, and means “legitimate sons” as opposed to #3541 “illegitimate sons.” How fitting is the use of this Greek term in this particular verse, for this is exactly what this passage is speaking about. In other words, it is addressing the legitimate (lawfully begotten) sons of Adam-Israel and the legitimate (lawfully begotten) sons of Satan. While it is true there was nothing “legitimate” or “lawful” concerning the birth of Cain, nevertheless the Greek words make it quite clear there are a genuine and counterfeit children spoken of. It might be said, more or less, in this manner: “the unlawful and illegitimate sons of Satan are his lawful responsibility.” The Wycliffe Bible Commentary has the following to say in respect to this verse:

The field is the world. Not the Church. Children of the kingdom. As in the explanation of The Sower, the seed is here regarded as having produced plants (13:19). The springing up of Christ’s true followers in this world is counterfeited by the devil, whose children often masquerade as believers (2 Cor. 11:13-15).” [Verses 13:8 & 23 would be more relevant than 13:19.]

The Wycliffe commentary cites 2 Corinthians 11, where Paul writes of the enemies of Christ seeking to entrap Christians, and reads: “13 For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ. 14 And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light. 15 Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works.”

Clifton made the remark that Matthew 13:8 & 23 would have been more appropriate than where the Wycliffe commentary points to Matthew 13:19 stating that “the seed is here regarded as having produced plants.” Those other passages speak of the seed which fell into the good ground. But the parable of the sower is an entirely different analogy from the parable of the tares of the field, and the seed all being of one kind, only the children of God are meant to hear the Gospel in the of the parable of the sower in the first place, as Paul also suggests in 2 Corinthians 11. The ministers of Satan mentioned in 2 Corinthians 11 are indeed the wicked who snatch the Word of God and corrupt it who are mentioned as a collective singular in Matthew 13:19, where the King James Version adds the word one to the text and reads: “When any one heareth the word of the kingdom, and understandeth it not, then cometh the wicked one, and catcheth away that which was sown in his heart. This is he which received seed by the way side.” Continuing with Clifton:

As 2 Corinthians 6:15 was referred to by Matthew Henry, let’s take a look at that one next. We will quote verses 14, 16 & 17 as well, for they are pertinent to the passage. While this passage strongly commands we are not to have common ground with people of a different race or species, it also charges us to have no fellowship with the wicked unbelievers, especially the “Jews.” If you will check your center reference, you will notice that it takes you to Deuteronomy 7:2-3 where we are instructed not to mingle with the Canaanites representative of today’s “Jews.” Apparently, the anti-seedliners haven’t learned this very important lesson yet:

14 Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? 15 And what concord hath Yahshua with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel? 16 And what agreement hath the temple of Yahweh with idols? for ye are the temple of the living Elohim; as Yahweh hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their Elohim. and they shall be my people. 17 Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith Yahweh, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you.”

Clifton's presentation of the passage rather appropriately scratches the added word thing from the text, as the unclean of 2 Corinthians 6:17 are indeed the them who the children of Israel are urged to come out from among earlier in the verse. If the entire passage were correctly translated, the racial character of the message is even more startling: “14 Do not become yoked together with untrustworthy aliens; for what participation has justice and lawlessness? And what fellowship has light towards darkness? 15 And what accord has Christ with Beliar? Or what share the faithful with the faithless? 16 And what agreement has a temple of Yahweh with idols? For you are a temple of the living Yahweh; just as Yahweh has said, 'I will dwell among them, and I will walk about; and I will be their God, and they will be my people.' 17 On which account "Come out from the midst of them and be separated," says the Prince, and 'do not be joined to the impure, and I will admit you'. ” We will not have time here to give a full exposition of our reasoning behind the translation, but have already done so in part 7 of our commentary on Paul's second epistle to the Corinthians. Clifton continues to discuss this passage and says:

We will now take a survey of what some various commentaries state on this passage. As this is a very important part of the Two Seedline message, we should take special note of the following:

The Believer’s Bible Commentary by William MacDonald, page 1845: “This section of 2 Corinthians is one of the key passages in all the word of God [Yahweh] on the subject of separation. It is clear instruction that the believer should separate himself from unbelievers, iniquity, darkness, Belial, idols ... Neither can light have communion with darkness. When light enters a room, the darkness is dispelled. Both cannot exist together at the same time.”

The truth of Clifton's remarks in conjunction with this statement is only made fully evident once it is realized that Christ came only for the lost sheep of the House of Israel, and that a bastard shall not enter into the congregation of Yahweh. He continues:

The Adam Clarke’s Commentary on the Bible, abridged by Ralph Earle, page 1140: “Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers. This is a military term: keep in your own ranks; do not leave the Christian community to join in that of the heathens ... As righteousness cannot have communion with unrighteousness, and light cannot dwell with darkness.

The Jamieson, Fausset & Brown Commentary On The Whole Bible, page 1243: “... As Satan is opposed to God [Yahweh], and Antichrist to Christ; Belial being here opposed to Christ, must denounce all manner of Antichristian uncleanness [Bengel]. — he that believeth with an infidel — Translate, ‘a believer with an unbeliever’.”

One significant mistake which is commonly made is to confuse those outside the faith with unbelievers. Only the children of Israel are within the faith, since Abraham only believed in promises made to his seed, and Christ came to fulfill those promises. Everyone else is without the faith, or faithless, and their active belief or unbelief does not matter. Continuing with Clifton:

The Wycliffe Bible Commentary contributes this on page 1273: “The word concord (sunkatathesis) is found only here in the New Testament. The holiness and purity of Christ [Yahshua] cannot harmonize with the wickedness and impurity of Belial (a synonym for Satan). Cf. 1 Cor. 10:21 ... The word agreement (sunkatathesis) climaxes the four previous words that Paul used to express sinful union between the sons of God [Yahweh] and the children of the devil. This word suggests a sympathetic union of mind and will in a plan mutually agreed to ... God [Yahweh] cannot lovingly entertain those who are knowingly and willingly involved in evil.”

Even with that, we must say, they seem to confuse genetics and behavior. This is always oversimplified in the minds of men. In truth, the children of the devil can do nothing but evil, even if they appear to do good. The children of God can sin, or they can endeavor to do good, but they are nevertheless children of God for which reason they will ultimately be forgiven. Clifton continues:

From the Matthew Poole’s Commentary On The Holy Bible we get the following, volume 3, page 618: It is a metaphor drawn from horses or oxen; which should draw together, being in the same yoke, neither standing still, nor yet holding back. It is a general precept, prohibitive of all unnecessary communication and intimate fellowship with such, as either in matters of faith or worship, or in their lives and conversations, [who] declare themselves to be unbelievers ... And what concord hath Christ with Belial?, Christ, who is the Head of believers ... and to him who is the head of all unbelievers, and the god of the world ... therefore we ought to have no unnecessary communication with such who manifest themselves to be of their father the devil ...”

Rather, the metaphor is taken from the law which shows that men of different races should never be yoked together. Again, Clifton continues:

The Matthew Henry’s Commentary has this to say concerning this passage, volume 6, page 625: It is an unequal yoking of things together that will not agree together; as bad as ... to have ploughed with an ox and an ass or to have sown divers sorts of grain intermixed. What an absurdity is it to think of joining righteousness and unrighteousness, or mingling light and darkness ... and what comfortable communion can these have together? Christ [Yahshua] and Belial are contrary one to the other; they have opposite interests and designs, so that it is impossible there could be any concord or agreement between them ... therefore, the exhortation is (v. 17) to come out from among them, and keep at a due distance, to be separate, as one would avoid the society of those who have the leprosy or the plague, for fear of taking infection ...”

From all of these commentaries one aspect upon which they all seem to agree is fully evident: that there is identified in Scripture a class of men who have no opportunity to repent or to ever be converted or to be saved, but from whom Christians are to remain distinct, not even to evangelize. Once it is admitted that there are people here on earth who are never to be evangelized, the two-seedline truth becomes inevitable. Clifton then comments on these, where there are few better examples of the wicked who would steal in among the good seed and corrupt the Word in their hearts, and he says that:

There probably is no better an example of fellowship of “light” with “darkness” than the blatant organization “The International Fellowship of Christians and Jews”, 309 W. Washington Street, Chicago, Illinois. [I think they have a satellite office in that same city at 4901 West Oakdale Avenue which is assigned to Christian Identity.] They say their aim is: “Working to strengthen Christian-Jewish understanding on issues of shared concern.” Supporters of this organization are people like Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, Pat Boone, Jack Hayford, Rabbi Yechiel Eskstein, Senator Joseph Lieberman, Charles Colson, Sallai Meridor, Yuli Edelstein, Zvi Raviv, and Ehud Olmer among others. And, let’s not forget John Hagee, as he is really in bed with the “Jews.” They promote a program called “On Wings Of Eagles” where they dupe the ignorant Christians into donating money to fly a “Jew” from Russia to Jerusalem, and help them to get established with a job, home and food when they get there.

Ted R. Weiland, an anti-seedliner, in his booklet: Eve, Did She Or Didn’t She?, page 94, went so far as to say the scribes and Pharisees of Yahshua’s time were true members of Jacob’s household as follows: “Acts 4:5-10, 24-35 and 7:2-52 declare the Pharisees were Judahites of the seed line of Jacob/Israel. While it might be true that there were still a smattering of pure-blooded Judah left in that area, they would have been significantly few. To equate these few with the scribes and Pharisees would be like saying, in effect, the scribes and Pharisees were and are children of light rather than children of darkness. Revelation 2:9 & 3:9 make it quite clear there were both true and false members of the Tribe of Judah. No doubt, Weiland is a product of the Judeo-Christian college, “Christian Leadership Bible College” in Denver, Colorado, where he attended for four years, as he makes mention on page 133 (a college for fellowship of “light” with “darkness”).

To answer Weiland’s preposterous statement that ...the Pharisees were Judahites of the seed line of Jacob/Israel”, I will use Colossians 2:15: And having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a shew of them openly, triumphing over them in it.”

Quoting now from the Adam Clarke’s Commentary on the Bible, abridged by Ralph Earle, page 1200. Let’s see if what Clarke has to say agrees with Weiland: It is very likely that by the principalities and powers over whom Christ [Yahshua] triumphed the apostle means the nesioth and roshoth, who were the rulers and chiefs in the Sanhedrin and synagogues, and who had great authority among the people, both in making constitutions and in explaining traditions. The propagation of Christianity in Judea quite destroyed their spiritual power and domination.”

The Wycliffe Bible Commentary portrays the picture on this verse [to an even] greater extent on page 1341: “Spoiled, or better, stripped (apekdyomai) is a compound not essentially different from another Pauline expression ekdyo. The latter, as used in the LXX (and classical Greek) of the defeating or stripping of enemies in war, provides a clue to the meaning here. In Old Testament times captives were stripped of most or all clothing. This action came to symbolize defeat, and for the prophets it signified the judgment of God [Yahweh] (cf. Ezk 16:39; 23:26). In the New Testament this idea moves into the realm of ‘last things’, when the righteous will be clothed, in contrast to the wicked, who will stand stripped and naked under God’s [Yahweh’s] judgment (cf. Mt. 22:11; Rev. 3:17,18; 16:15; 2 Cor. 5:3,4).”

Matthew Henry’s Commentary, volume 6, page 759 describes this verse as follows: He spoiled them, broke the devil’s power, and conquered and disabled him, and made a show of them openlyexposed them to public shame, and made a show of them to angels and men ...”

The Matthew Poole’s Commentary On The Holy Bible, volume 3, page 718, comments on this passage thusly: ... delivering his subjects from the power of darkness, Col. 1:13, according to the first promise, Genesis 3:15. He made a show of them openly; yea, and Christ [Yahshua] did, as an absolute conqueror, riding as it were in his triumphal chariot, publicly show that he had vanquished Satan and all the powers of darkness ...”

The Interpreter’s Bible, volume 11, page 199, makes the following observations concerning this passage: “The mighty spirits [Jewish control] which once held men in their ‘dominion of darkness’ (Colossians 1:13-14) are now reduced to impotence ... Paul depicts the breaking of their dominion under the figure of a military defeat, and the parade of the vanquished in the triumphal procession of the conqueror. God [Yahshua] has stripped them of their arms, displayed them in public as his trophies of victory, leading them in captive chains at his chariot wheels.”

While these commentaries all did well, and correctly connect the powers of darkness to the principalities and powers which Yahshua stripped, they seem to have failed to connect the most important statement of Christ, where he said in John chapter 12 that “31 Now is the judgment of this world: now shall the prince of this world be cast out” and in John chapter 14 “30 Hereafter I will not talk much with you: for the prince of this world cometh, and hath nothing in me.” None of the true guardians of the Mosaic covenant could have been considered in this manner. Clifton continues to discuss Colossians 2:15, where Paul states of Christ that “15 ... having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a shew of them openly, triumphing over them in it”, and he says:

Many commentaries try to connect Colossians 2:15 with Yahshua dying on the cross, but this refers rather to Messiah’s encounters with the scribes and Pharisees, and His open denunciation of them. If the Satanic “Jew” scribes and Pharisees are not meant here, who, then, pray tell, is it speaking of? To help answer this, let’s find out who the scribes and Pharisees are, and are not. For this we will read Josephus’, Wars 2:8:2: “For there are three philosophical sects among the Jews [Judaeans]. The followers of the first of whom are the Pharisees; of the second the Sadducees; and the third sect, who pretends to a severer discipline, are called Essenes. These last are Jews [Judaeans] by birth, and seem to have a greater affection for one another than the other sects have.”

It would appear from this, that of these three, only the Essenes could claim to be pure blooded Israelites of the Tribe of Judah. Why didn’t Josephus mention the Pharisees and Sadducees as being Jews [Judaeans] by birth? Evidently, Weiland believes himself more of an authority on the origin of the “Jews” than Josephus; and more of an authority than even Yahshua Himself.

Ted Weiland, in his denial of so many aspects of the New Testament and the history of Judaea in the centuries leading up to the ministry of Christ, is indeed no better than the typical and deceived Judeo-Christian. If the Essenes were Judaeans by birth, Josephus fully insists within the context of his own work that the Pharisees and Sadducees had both admitted Edomites and Canaanites and others into their ranks. In our series of commentaries on the Book of Acts, especially in Acts chapter 4, but also in the commentary on Acts chapter 5, the very passages which Weiland cites to support his spurious claims, we showed not only that the high priests from the time of Herod were all Sadducees, who denied both angels and spirits, and who also denied that Yahweh God had any care in the sins of men, but we showed also that they were not even Israelites. There is no point in Christian Identity at all when the various parties in Scripture are not properly identified, or are purposely misidentified, as Ted Weiland seems to be doing.

CHR20170414-CAE-SpecNotice02.odt — Downloaded 48 times