Special Notices to All Who Deny Two-Seedline, Part 23

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

  • Christogenea Internet Radio
CHR20171208-CAE-SpecNotice23.mp3 — Downloaded 4285 times

 

Special Notices to All Who Deny Two-Seedline, Part 23

It was 9 years ago today that I was released from a halfway house in Binghamton, NY, to home confinement in Norwich, after just about 12 full years in prison. The last three months I spent in home confinement, during which I used most of my time to build several Christogenea websites. Five days after my release, on December 13th, I did my first podcast on Talkshoe with someone whom I will not now mention here. That was over 1,100 podcasts ago, and maybe closer to 1,200.

Now according to our DNS provider, Christogenea had over 120,000 unique visitors to the website during the month of November, and around 200,000 total visits. Website traffic has been up over 20 percent each of the last two years. It has been a long, slow climb to get to this point and of course there is no guarantee that we will continue doing so well. As we can prove through documentation, our website traffic is lied about by the companies that profit from publishing such figures, and Google and other search engines actively suppress many of our pages in their search results. But for what we have been able to do, we praise Yahweh for that, and we pray that we continue to grow in spite of our opposition. Ever since I was released from prison, my only endeavor has been to place our Christian Identity truth on as solid a footing as I am capable of elucidating, and to get our message to as many people as possible.

This is what we should all be doing; this is our obligation to Christ: to proclaim the Gospel of the Kingdom and the message of Elijah to as many of our racial kindred as possible, whether they accept it or not. Christian Identity truly is the Elijah ministry, but even Elijah never sought to be a ruler. So while we should preach the true Gospel of the Kingdom, none of us should truly desire to be king.

Last week I was reading a Social Media page on Google+ which belongs to someone that I count as a friend, and I became quite disappointed when I saw him complain in one of his posts that Christian Identity does not have a “real leader”. That is news to me, as I never imagined that we did not have a “real leader”. Thirty-five centuries ago, our people rejected Yahweh as their King, and they demanded an earthly king, as it is recorded in 1 Samuel chapter 8. Our people demanded an earthly king, and Yahweh gave them one. Then He warned them just how much they would suffer under such a king. But they didn’t care, they demanded one in spite of the warning. So four hundred years later, after earthly kings drove both the houses of Israel and Judah ioff nto sin, in Hosea He said “9 O Israel, thou hast destroyed thyself; but in me is thine help. 10 I will be thy king: where is any other that may save thee in all thy cities? and thy judges of whom thou saidst, Give me a king and princes? 11 I gave thee a king in mine anger, and took him away in my wrath.”

It was a sin for our people to ask for a king, and we have no reconciliation to God until we repent of that sin. Now Christ is King, and He is our only legitimate King. Even Paul of Tarsus set such an example in his second epistle to the Corinthians, where after he chastised them for certain things which they had done wrong he said “24 Not for that we have dominion over your faith, but are helpers of your joy: for by faith ye stand.” Paul only taught them the Scriptures, and he expected them to be able to correct themselves. That is because Christ is King, as Yahshua Christ told us in the Gospel of Matthew, “8 But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren. 9 And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven. 10 Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, even Christ. 11 But he that is greatest among you shall be your servant.”

The Christian assemblies of Rome and Corinth were small and local home churches formed around extended families and neighborhoods which chose their own leaders from their own community elders, from the natural patriarchy, and Paul of Tarsus would not rule over any of them. Neither should any of us seek to rule over our own brethren. Identity Christians should have only Christ as their King, and not seek positions of power or authority for themselves. Rather, we should only seek to serve one another, as Christ had said, aspiring to the idea that “he that is greatest among you shall be your servant”, as He was our servant.

All those who set themselves up to emulate popes or archbishops as the denominational churches do are wrong. It is one thing to support a cause or a teacher, but it is quite another to imitate the worldly denominational churches, whose rulers have typically sought to regulate the lives of their members. In my opinion, all those who strive to be the leader of what is called “Christian Identity” are wrong. Not only that, they are stupid and therefore they don’t deserve to be a leader of anything. We do not need a leader. We do not need to emulate the world. We do not need a personality cult. We do not need a pope of our own. We have no political solution, so why should we emulate political entities? We do not need to endlessly repeat the errors of the past. We already have Christ. We need to learn from the parable of the trees of the forest in Judges chapter 9, that those who delight to rule over others usually have no ability to do anything for themselves. That is why in that same parable the bramble-bush had come to rule over all of the noble trees of the forest. We can have various pastors and teachers and ministers of one gift or another, WORK but we already have a King, and we do not need any other. We instead need a community of brethren who all recognize that Christ is King and for that reason are willing to cooperate with one another without seeking to rule over one another. When we get to that point, only then will we have repented from the error of our fathers who demanded an earthly ruler. I pray my friend is listening.

With this we shall begin our presentation of Clifton A. Emahiser’s Special Notice To All Who Deny Two Seedline, #23. Clifton prepared this paper for publication on January 26th, 2003. It is his next-to-last in the series. Here he opens up with a theme which he has carried throughout the entire series, reflecting upon the enmity of Genesis 3:15 which our race has always endured:

SPECIAL NOTICE TO ALL WHO DENY TWO SEEDLINE, #23

Again, the subject of Two Seedline must be brought to the forefront of our attention. Because the agenda of the enemy is to destroy the White Israel Race, we find ourselves in a WAR, and this subject cannot be passed over lightly. We observe this unnatural phenomenon going on wherever we turn. We cannot go shopping or eat out at a restaurant without seeing this shameless manifestation of the race-mixing that is ever on the rise. The reason for bringing this dilemma before you anew is because the positions of those who oppose Two Seedline teaching are wittingly or unwittingly assisting the enemy in their cause. Once again, I will point to Stephen E. Jones, Ted R. Weiland and their whole wrecking crew as the principal offenders.

Throughout his entire series Clifton has been singling out certain so-called “Christian Identity Pastors” who not only deny what we call Two-Seedline, but who are essentially little more than denominational preachers who have come to understand something of the identity of the children of Israel in modern times. So they take the new patch of Identity understanding and they affix it to the old worn-out cloth of denominational churchianity, thinking that alone to be sufficient. But it is our opinion that real Christian Identity beliefs would require one to identify all of the parties of the Old Testament historically, since they all have descendants here among us today, and to identify today’s people in relation to who their ancestors were in Biblical times. Anything short of that is not proper Christian Identity. Christ informed us that there are wheat, and there are tares, there are sheep, and there are goats, there are good fish, and there are bad fish. To identify only the wheat, sheep and good fish is only half of the necessary equation if we are to apply His parables in our modern lives. His parables are meaningless if they are not relevant to our modern lives. But they certainly are not meaningless. Returning to Clifton:

Their chief crime (and I do mean crime) is to place Cain on an equal footing with Abel. They continue to quote Genesis 4:1 as support for their untenable view, never checking any authority on the Hebrew to verify their suppositions. As a result of their misjudgments they incorrectly direct the blame for all of today’s miscegenation problems on the “flesh” rather than on the agenda of the genetic-satanic-seed of Genesis 3:15. Thus, they are misdirecting blame for our greatest racial problem, and helping to create a racial catastrophe of gigantic proportions. Therefore, we Two Seedliners dare not be silent. To show there is a problem with Genesis 4:1, I will again quote The Interpreter’s One-Volume Commentary On The Bible by Charles M. Laymon, page 6: “... under circumstances which are obscure (vs. 1b can scarcely be translated, still less understood).” That hardly seems like clear-cut evidence that Adam was Cain’s father, does it? I have yet to hear or read an anti-seedliner comment on the Hebrew of Genesis 4:1. By the way, I purchased this book from E. Raymond Capt. I would also remind you, the 12 volume Interpreter’s Bible Commentary has a similar comment on Genesis 4:1 which I have quoted before.

Throughout this series we have heard Clifton on Genesis 4:1 and the Aramaic Targums, which tell a very different story that the conventional texts. First, if all one has is one witness to prove any point, one must acknowledge that his position is tenuous, at best. When that one witness has numerous opposing witnesses, circumstantial or not, the position becomes even flimsier no matter how explicit or even authoritative the one witness may seem.

But to show how difficult to understand the text of Genesis 4:1 was for even the earliest interpreters of Scripture, we will repeat what we have seen in the Hexapla of Origen, a parallel presentation in six-columns of six different Old Testament versions, one Hebrew, one transliterated Hebrew, and four Greek, including the Septuagint. While complete versions of Origen’s Hexapla are lost, many fragments are extant and volumes have been published since the 19th century. We have a copy of the edition published by Frederick Field in 1875 available in a pair of PDF files which are posted at Clifton’s website. Field’s edition reproduced both the Hebrew and a reading from the Latin Vulgate for each passage, along with each of the four Greek versions found in the Hexapla. Translating both the Latin and the various Greek interpretations of the Hebrew of Genesis 4:1b 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" (The text says Ioue, or Jove, which is 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 concerning Genesis 4:1, as there is more to the story, they do support the assertion that the text of Genesis 4:1b was rather problematic even to the earliest translators of the Hebrew into Greek. For that reason, Clifton turned to the Aramaic Targums for an indication of how certain Hebrew scribes of that same era understood the passage. There is a body of other apocryphal literature, as well as many passages in the New Testament, which also support his assertions. Clifton continues under the subtitle:

!! PROOF POSITIVE: ADAM WAS NOT CAIN’S FATHER !!

All one need do to verify this significant Biblical fact is to turn to Jude 14, which states: “And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these saying, ‘Behold Yahshua cometh with ten thousands of his saints’.” Then, if you will turn to both Genesis 5:1-18 and Luke 3:37-38, and count from Adam to Enoch, you can clearly see there are only six listed. Jude didn’t make a mistake when he pointed to Enoch as being the seventh from Adam, for he was including [the prophet] Abel in his calculations (Hebrews 11:4). It should be noted that Jude didn’t say the seventh “generation” from Adam for Enoch was the sixth in that category. Many commentaries agree on this point, but how can this be?

If Abel is included, a proper list would then be thus: (1) Abel, (2) Seth, (3) Enos, (4) Cainan (5) Mahalaleel, (6) Jared, and, (7) Enoch. It should be noted that both the Genesis and Luke accounts have a missing man, which can only be filled with Abel. Should one try to force Cain into Adam’s genealogy, Enoch would then be the eighth from Adam! At this juncture, one has only one choice of two: Cain or Abel. To exclude both Abel and Cain is also damning, for it makes Enoch the sixth from Adam. Some will argue that one should start counting with Adam as number one, but the Greek doesn’t support that idea [ἕβδομος ἀπὸ ἀδὰμ]. Wittingly or unwittingly, the antichrist, anti-seedliners have chosen Cain to fill that spot, for they spuriously claim [that] Cain was Adam’s authentic son. A second witness to the fact that Abel should be listed as the missing man is Genesis 4:25 which says: “And Adam knew his wife [yet] again (not again and again, #5750 Gesenius’); and she bare a son, and called his name Seth: For Elohim, said she, hath appointed me another seed instead (in the place) of Abel, whom Cain slew.” If, as some claim, Cain was kicked out of the family for murdering Abel, Seth would have been a replacement for Cain, not for Abel. Evidently the anti-seedliners have a problem counting to seven!

By the Biblical laws of inheritance, if Cain were Adam’s legitimate son it would have indeed been Cain who needed a replacement, but never Abel. Enoch could certainly not have been the seventh person from Adam, as each generation of patriarchs went on to have “sons and daughters” after siring their first-born. So Clifton is correct, that Enoch being “seventh from Adam”, as the Greek reads without doubt, either Cain or Abel would have to be inserted into the “first from Adam” position in order for Jude’s words to be accurate, and we cannot honestly claim that the apostle was inaccurate – especially if all we need to do to perceive his accuracy is to insert either Cain or Abel into the list. With Seth being a replacement for Abel, we must insert Abel, and therefore Cain cannot have been Adam’s legitimate son because it was not Cain for whom Seth was a replacement. The very name Seth means compensation, as he was a replacement for Abel. Cain, not being Adam’s legitimate son, did not need any replacement. Shortly, Clifton will inform us as to why Jude was compelled to mention Enoch by the number of those “from Adam”. Clifton continues:

Matthew 23:35 indicates that Abel was among the “righteous.” Abel was righteous for the same reason as Noah: he was perfect in his genealogy (generations). At this point, it might be well to quote again the 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.”

As we have asserted in the past, we shall repeat here, that the Targums show that several early interpreters of Scripture esteemed there to be inconsistencies in the text of Genesis 4:1, and they sought to compensate, or to fill in the proverbial blanks, reflecting what they believed the account should read. Clifton now continues under a subtitle which, over nine years later in March of 2012 he had made another essay:

THE BATTLE FOR THE PRIESTHOOD

Many surface-readers of the Bible read Genesis 4 and never comprehend the struggle between Cain and Abel for the birthright and priesthood. The firstborn son is always considered in line for ruler and priest of the family. Genesis 4:7 definitely states that Abel would be subservient to Cain, and verses 1 & 2 clearly indicate that Cain was the firstborn of Eve. Now Yhwh told Cain that if he didn’t “do well”, sin lieth at his entry into life by way of his birth. Let’s repeat again the Strong’s definition for “door”: “Door — #6607 pethach, peh’-thakh; from 6605; an opening (literally), i.e. door (gate) or entrance way:— door, entering (in), entrance (-ry), gate, opening, place.” I have yet to read or hear any of the anti-seedliner’s explanation for the Hebrew word “door.” I suppose they might try to idiotically claim that it was the “door” of Cain’s heart! (Ha!) In fact, in his Seed of Satan, Literal or Figurative?, Jack Mohr dim-wittedly made that very statement on page 14.

Thankfully, I think, this time Clifton spared us from hearing what Jack Mohr actually had to say, and continues under another subtitle:

CONTEST FOR THE BIRTHRIGHT AND PRIESTHOOD

In verses 3 & 4, we are told that both Cain and Abel brought offerings unto Elohim [or God], and that there was respect for Abel’s but no respect for Cain’s. Now only a priest can offer a sacrifice, so both Cain and Abel were priests. Therefore, Abel was the firstborn of Adam and Cain was the firstborn of Satan [with Eve]. Abel’s sacrifice was accepted of Yhwh, not because he was first born of Eve, but because he was the firstborn of Eve to Adam. When we get that straightened out in our minds, we can comprehend that Enoch was the seventh priest from Adam. Abel was priest #1 from Adam; Seth was priest #2 (as a replacement for Abel) from Adam; Enos was priest #3 from Adam; Cainan was priest #4 from Adam; Mahalaleel was priest #5 from Adam; Jared was priest #6 from Adam; and, Enoch was priest #7 from Adam. As for Cain: he was the firstborn priest of Satan birthed by Eve. Now there were many more sons born to all these patriarchs between Adam and Enoch, but only the first sons were born to the priesthood, except Seth who was a substitute in place of Abel.

Unless Abel fulfilled some accountable role during his lifetime, he would not be counted and Jude may have informed us that Enoch was sixth from Adam. Then concerning the line of first-born inheritance he would have been correct, as Abel was an heir, but Seth was necessary to replace him, since Abel did not live to become the patriarch after his father. But all of the others down to Enoch did, and that made Enoch sixth from Adam. However if Abel fulfilled some function during his lifetime, Jude had a purpose for including him, and from all that we actually have in Scripture, this must have been that function: the function of family priest. So Clifton continues:

Let’s rephrase all this in a different manner: First, to count Enoch “seventh from Adam” (ἕβδομος ἀπὸ ἀδὰμ) is an ambiguous statement, since each male in the list “begat sons and daughters”, [which] means Enoch is but the sixth generation and not even close to being the seventh male from Adam. Again, Enoch is the sixth generation of his own line, and other unmentioned lines may have [had] even more after that. Jude can only mean that Enoch is the seventh high priest from Adam, since only a firstborn son is a family priest. If Cain were Adam’s son, Cain’s line would have [had] the family priesthood by Law, regardless of Cain’s actions. Had Adam been Cain’s genetic father, the priesthood would have followed from Adam to » Cain » Enoch » Irad » Mehujael » Methusael » Lamech » Jabal! Instead, this is the lineal high-priesthood of Satan! Had Cain been removed from the priesthood for murdering Abel, then Enoch of Cain’s line should have been the priest “appointed” instead of Seth, and after that all of his lineal firstborn descendants. Had Abel been the second-born of Adam, Abel would never have offered a sacrifice, for Cain would have offered it for him. When we fully grasp the line of the priesthood, then we can understand why Adam’s and Cain’s lines are given separately, and no mention of Cain is alluded to in the line of Adam.

We must also grasp the function of the priesthood as it is described in Scripture, as in Numbers chapter 3 where the Word of Yahweh says: “12 And I, behold, I have taken the Levites from among the children of Israel instead of all the firstborn that openeth the matrix among the children of Israel: therefore the Levites shall be mine…” That firstborn males were dedicated to the service of God is evident in Exodus chapter 13, even before the giving of the law at Sinai, where we read Yahweh command “12 That thou shalt set apart unto the LORD all that openeth the matrix, and every firstling that cometh of a beast which thou hast; the males shall be the LORD'S.” We would assert that these two instances represent Adamic tradition from the beginning, as Peter had referred to Noah as the “eighth preacher of righteousness”. Saying that, Peter did not count Abel, Enoch or Lamech, as none of those men actually outlived their fathers by which they may have inherited that title. Now Clifton continues under another subtitle:

EVE WAS IN THE TRANSGRESSION, 1 TIMOTHY 2:14

1 Timothy 2:14: “And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.”

We more accurately translate this passage to say: “And Adam was not deceived, but the woman had been thoroughly beguiled when the transgression occurred.” So Clifton continues and says:

Some commentaries make the argument that the deception was a matter of relativity – that both Adam and Eve were deceived and were in the transgression, but that Eve’s deception was more intensified than Adam’s. However, the Greek doesn’t support that opinion, and one must read into the text something that isn’t there. The Greek simply states that Eve was deceived and in the transgression [PERIOD].

The Greek also plainly states that Adam was not deceived at all, not merely to a lesser extent, but that his sin must have been made consciously. Continuing with Clifton:

The word “transgression” in the Greek requires an act, rather than only a mental seduction as the anti-seedliners claim. The word for “transgression” in 1 Timothy 2:14 is #3847 in Strong’s, and is the Greek word parabasis: to transgress, wrongdoing, lawbreaking. In other words, there must be something to transgress before there can be a transgression. If Eve’s “transgression” was a thought crime, as the anti-seedliners allege, then we are all in trouble! The progression of sin is explained in James 1:14-15:

14 But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed. 15 Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.”

The anti-seedliners declare that this passage is in error, and that thought enticement alone “bringeth forth sin.” I’ll guarantee that every committed act of “transgression” called “sin” (including Eve’s), follows the above route! Enticement is only mental, but “transgression” is an act fulfilled. Scripture declares that Eve’s sin was an act of “transgression”, no matter what the anti-seedliners fallaciously contend. In short, there is no way under heaven to apply the Greek word parabasis to anything other than an act (not a mental violation). Whatever else the Greek parabasis can be applied to, it cannot be utilized for anything mental (only an act of breaking a law).

The idea that there are thought crimes in Scripture is quite ludicrous. There are wicked thoughts, but they are never punishable crimes until they become wicked deeds. If the thoughts themselves were sins, then one cannot even contemplate the law without sinning, as one thinks the thoughts that the law suggests just by reading the law! For instance, one must think about lust when one reads the law “thou shalt not covet”, and one must think of the act of murder when one reads the law that says “thou shalt not kill”, and on and on ad infinitum. Thankfully, thoughts by themselves are not punished, and Christians are encouraged to rein in their thoughts. Only actions are punished in the law. Clifton continues:

Yet in spite of all this, Ted R. Weiland in his book Eve, Did She Or Didn’t She? says the following on page 29: “The Bible is always its own best commentary, and it clearly attests to the fact that Eve was mentally deceived, not sexually seduced.” No, Mr. Weiland, I don’t think the word “transgress” makes it all that “mentally clear.” Then on page 94, he repeats his spurious conclusion again: “The seedliners teach that the beguiling of Eve was physical, whereas 2 Corinthians 11:3 declares that the beguiling of Eve was mental.” Again Mr. Weiland, what are you going to do with the Greek word parabasis meaning “transgression” (1 Timothy 2:14)? Mr. Ted R. Weiland is manipulating the English context of 2 Corinthians 11:2 & 3, but the Greek doesn’t support his conclusion. A better rendering of verse 3 directly from the Greek would be: “But I fear lest in any way, as the serpent had thoroughly beguiled Eve in his villainy, in that manner your thoughts would be corrupted from that sincerity which is with the Anointed.” Weiland, by insisting on a mental only seduction of Eve, effectively removes the idea of “a chaste virgin” from verse 2! Once the significance of “a chaste virgin” is removed, there is no longer any redemption for Israel! I noticed also in his “Scripture Index” on page 132, he entirely skipped over 1 Timothy 2:14. (I wonder why?)

Here, in January of 2003, where he says “a better rendering”, Clifton was quoting from a preliminary version of what would later become the Christogenea New Testament. According to my own records, that first translation was made in December of 2000, following the Majority Text, but it was revised a little over a year after this paper was written, in April of 2004, to follow the older manuscripts as they are recorded in the Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece, so there are two slight differences in the current reading of the CNT. Our current version has the verse to say: “But I fear lest in any way, as the serpent had thoroughly beguiled Eve in his villainy, your thoughts would be corrupted from that sincerity and that purity which is with the Anointed.” The words “in that manner” are wanting and the words “and that purity” appear in the older manuscripts. Clifton continues, turning his attention to yet another circus clown:

In Stephen E. Jones’ book The Babylonian Connection, page 42, he says this: “We conclude then that when Eve explained to God that the serpent had ‘beguiled’ her, she meant that he had mentally deceived her. He corrupted the truth of God’s Word by preaching another Jesus (God), another spirit, and another gospel, just as Satan’s ministers have done all through the ages. And when Eve believed Satan’s doctrine, she too was corrupted. Nawshaw, as used in Genesis 3:13, had nothing to do with physical seduction.” [Clifton responds:] While Jones does not avoid 1 Timothy 2:14, as did Weiland, on page 48, he takes it entirely out of context and engages in some nonsensical “Jewish” style double-talk. But the main thing [which] Jones avoids on 1 Timothy 2:14 is explaining the Greek term parabasis, meaning “transgression.” Had he taken parabasis into account, it would have destroyed his entire premise. Therefore, like Mr. Ted R. Weiland, Mr. Stephen E. Jones is not the great Bible student he pretends to be.

The apostles originally believed the doctrines of the Sadducees, but they were not ever considered to have been corrupted. Rather, they were reformed in the teachings and Gospel of Christ. If Eve merely believed the devil, why didn’t Yahweh simply preach her and Adam back into conformance? They were punished in a manner that was commensurate with their actual crime, and their actual crime constituted a punishable act, plain and simple. If anyone has a mind corrupted by the devil, it must be Stephen Jones. Now Clifton continues in reference to yet another clown:

In Mr. Jeffrey A. Weakley’s book The Satanic Seedline, Its Doctrine and History, he says the following on page 8: “When all these definitions are taken together as synonyms, the conclusion one comes to (if he is seeking to be honest) is that Eve was deceived in the mind, NOT SEXUALLY SEDUCED! ... So the first point of the Satanic Seedline doctrine does not agree with the Scriptures – Eve was not sexually seduced, but rather she was mentally deceived.” [To this Clifton responds and says:] I would ask Mr. Jeffrey A. Weakley what he is going to do with the word parabasis in the Greek, which means “transgression” in 1 Timothy 2:14? It would seem that Weakley is no better a Bible student than Weiland or Jones, for parabasis is an act, not a mental condition! Now who’s not being honest?

Clifton is right, and Weakley isolated the word ἐξαπατάω and offered alternate meanings, but doing so he took it out of context. Putting it back into the context of the loss of chaste virginity (2 Corinthians 11:2-3), we can see exactly what Paul was referring to, and there being a transgression, as the word παράβασις indicates (1 Timothy 2:14), the transgression must have cost Eve her virginity! Now Clifton addresses yet another clown:

Mr. Jack Mohr, in his Seed of Satan, Literal or Figurative? says this on page 10: “In 2 Cor. 11:3, the same Scripture writer indicates that Eve was beguiled in her mind, not in her sexual parts.” [To this Clifton says:] We must allow somewhat for Mr. Jack Mohr’s difficulty in accurately appraising a subject, and his inability to keep things straight. We must further overlook his tendency of contradicting himself from moment to moment when he is speaking, or page to page when he is writing. But Mohr, like Weiland, Jones and Weakley, completely overlooks parabasis [or] “transgression” in 1 Timothy 2:14. I have now given you four examples of how, whether by ineptness or on purpose, the anti-seedliners key in on one passage and completely ignore the rest of Scripture. ([Now Clifton makes a parenthetical remark aimed at these four men:] Shades of Bozo the clown!) The reason I’m out for blood is because this kind of teaching is helping the “Jews” in their effort to destroy our White Israel Race. The next time you go past a playground, you’ll see what I mean! Admittedly the “flesh” is a problem, but to misdirect our people from realizing the major enemy is a criminal offense! And that is what they continue to do! I would be derelict in my duty as a watchman should I not take these foolish arguments to task. Note: The sexual beguiling or deception is in the mind. It is the transgression which takes place physically. The “sexual parts” are not capable of thought, but merely engage in the action [that] the mind conceives.

Now Clifton continues under another subtitle:

MORE EVIDENCE [THAT] EVE WAS SEDUCED SEXUALLY

The next Scripture we are going to use to show that Eve was seduced physically rather than only mentally is Proverbs 30:20: “Such is the way of an adulterous woman; she eateth, and wipeth her mouth, and saith, I have done no wickedness.” The “mouth” spoken of in this verse is not the mouth on the face that consumes food, but the vagina. Also the word “eateth” in this verse is the same Strong’s Hebrew #398 as used in Genesis 3:6 where it says: “... she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat ...” If you’ve read this passage of Proverbs in the past and assumed it was speaking of the “mouth” on the face, you were desperately confused for your assumption was badly flawed. Not only do we know what this “adulterous woman” did, but also what she ate. It was an apple, of course!

As we have pointed out, the same analogy of eating fruit was used rather explicitly to describe the act of sexual intercourse in the Epic of Gilgamesh, which is an ancient Sumerian work. This epic poem was extant during the lives of Abraham through Moses and beyond, its title character is mentioned in the Dead Sea Scrolls, and Abraham is first found in Scripture in the land of Sumer, in Ur of the Chaldees. So the ancient Hebrews must have been familiar with the both the literature and the idioms which the literature employs, and those same idioms appear in their own literature, such as in Clifton’s examples here from Proverbs. Now he continues in a rather graphic manner:

In ancient times, the testes of a man was analogous to an apple hanging from a branch of a tree. Anyone who has taken a knife and cut an apple in half knows there are seeds in the core. So is it with the testes of a man. The ancients had other ways of comparing things of a sexual nature. The mandrake, for instance, was considered the “devil’s apple.” There were the “apples of Sodom” (also known as “grapes” in Deuteronomy 32:32) [this analogy is unknown to me]. To show you this, I will quote from The Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia, volume 4, page 66:

Mandrake. Mentioned 5 times in Genesis 30, and once in Song of Solomon 7:13. Mandrake is generally accepted to be the ‘love apple.’ The mandrake was obviously rare, and was supposed to have aphrodisiac properties. The old-fashioned name of the tomato (Solanum esculentum) was love apple. It is thought that the mandrake is Atropa mandragora, which is like the deadly nightshade, and therefore a member of the same family. This plant bears yellow fruits, somewhat smaller than the tomato, and has an ‘acquired’ pleasant taste. Because of its ‘sex’ reputation, it is called by Arabs ‘a devil’s apple.’ The description in Genesis of Rachel’s conversation with Leah certainly gives the impression that the mandrake was thought to be a love potion. Its near relation, Atropa belladonna, is, of course, the source of Atropine, an important medicinal drug. The Royal Horticultural Society’s dictionary names the plant Mandragora officinarum, and describes the fruit as a globose berry. It gives the alternative name as ‘devil’s apple’ ...”

This is substantial evidence that ancient cultures understood the temptation of Eve in the Garden of Eden to be of a sexual nature rather than mental only as the anti-seedliners declare! This also shows that the sexual seduction of Eve had nothing to do with a Babylonian religion as Stephen E. Jones claims in his book! After all, the Arabs have been around for a long time. It should be noted that some of the Arabs descended from Joktan, brother of Peleg, and son of Eber, Genesis 10:25. Many others descended from Ishmael. The word “Arab” simply means “mixed”, so the Arabs, or any mixed group, are far from being our cousins! The fact that the anti-seedliners do not comprehend the significance of Proverbs 30:20, verifies they do not understand the first principles of Biblical interpretation.

Of course, Clifton is referring to the eating of fruit as an analogy for sexual intercourse, and is insisting that the Arabs understood the connection because of the names they used for certain fruits. Of that I must admit that I am not quite certain. He continues by explaining his allusion to the “apples of Sodom”, about which we had wondered:

To give you further input on what the “apples of Sodom” are about, I will quote from the 1980 edition of the Collier’s Encyclopedia, volume 2, page 358: “APPLES OF SODOM, a phrase used figuratively to describe anything disappointing. Various ancient writers told of beautiful fruits which, when plucked, proved to be full of ashes. Apples growing by the Dead Sea, sometimes called Dead Sea fruit, are described by the French traveler Jean Thévenot and also by Josephus, Strabo, and Tacitus. They may have referred to gallnuts produced by the sting of the insect Cynipes insane. The small tomato-like yellow fruits of the spiny shrub Solanum sodomeun are often called apples of Sodom.” It is interesting to note that sometimes these are referred to as gallnuts, as the testes of a man are also sometimes termed “nuts”, and fifty years ago this term was considered in very bad taste, and if used in a disgraceful manner, one might expect to receive a slap across the mouth by one’s father or mother. Once we understand this kind of allegory, we can better comprehend Deuteronomy 32:32 mentioning our enemy: “For their vine is of the vine of Sodom, and of the fields of Gomorrah: their grapes [testes] are grapes of gall, their clusters [seed] are bitter.” Further, it gives us some insight on Acts 8:23, speaking of a “Jew” with “the gall of bitterness”, and John 1:47, “an Israelite indeed, in whom [there] is no guile.” Nathanael had none of Cain’s satanic blood, as some of the other Judaeans of that time! “Gall” is in the genetics and not in the mind as the anti-seedliners would have us to believe. It’s just natural for Satan’s children to be scheming and crafty, as it is their biological disposition! What did you think “gall” or “guile” in these cases meant?

In The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible, volume R-Z, [on] page 786, it says the following under the heading “Vine” (listed under Vine of Sodom at the top of the page): “… And the Jews are symbolized by the wicked tenants of a vineyard who beat those sent by the owner (God) to collect some of the fruit; finally they killed even the owner’s son (Christ) in order to gain control of the vineyard. Naturally the tenants were put to death and the vineyard was rented to others… (Matt. 21:33-43; Mark 12:1-11; Luke 20:9-17). Of greater significance, however, is Jesus’ description of himself as the ‘true vine’ and his Father as the vine-dresser (John 15:1-11). Jesus is probably comparing himself [in opposition to] to the vine of the Jews which has become degenerate…” [To this Clifton responds:] We can understand this last statement about the “Jews” being “degenerate”, for many had race-mixed with the Canaanite nations. When we read Jeremiah 2:21, this is the message we get. This is a factor that the anti-seedliners continue to deny. Time after time after time after time, Ted R. Weiland in his book Eve, Did She Or Didn’t She?, identifies the Canaanite variety of “Jews” as being of true Judah. That alone completely disqualifies him as any kind of authority concerning Scripture. Caution should be advised with all his tapes and books, for one listens to and reads them at his own peril.

Jeremiah 2:21: “Yet I had planted thee [Judah] a noble vine, wholly a right seed: how then art thou turned into the degenerate plant of a strange [hybrid] vine unto me?” What is there about this verse [that] the antichrist, anti-seedliners don’t understand? — and no amount of soap can wash that hybridization away!

Saying this Clifton cites the very next verse, which says “22 For though thou wash thee with nitre, and take thee much soap, yet thine iniquity is marked before me, saith the Lord GOD.” Race-mixing is the unforgivable sin, because the result of race-mixing cannot be accepted, and therefore it is the sin which cannot be cleansed. So Esau could not repent, even where he sought repentance as Paul said in Hebrews chapter 12, ostensibly because he had no legitimate offspring he did not get repentance. So Paul wrote: “ 16 Lest there be any fornicator, or profane person, as Esau, who for one morsel of meat sold his birthright. 17 For ye know how that afterward, when he would have inherited the blessing, he was rejected: for he found no place of repentance, though he sought it carefully with tears.” Selling his birthright did not make him a fornicator, but the Canaanite women he married certainly did make him a fornicator. Having no legitimate offspring, he could not inherit the birthright. No Clifton continues under the subtitle:

CAIN’S STATUS AND OCCUPATION NEVER CHANGED

In the Old Testament, Cain was a vagabond, and in the New Testament he remained the same. In Acts 19:13-19, we read: “13 Then certain of the vagabond Jews, exorcists, took upon them to call over them which had evil spirits the name of the Sovereign Yahshua, saying, We adjure you by Yahshua whom Paul preacheth. 14 And there were seven sons of one Sceva, a Jew, and chief of the priests, which did so. 15 And the evil spirit answered and said, Yahshua I know, and Paul I know; but who are ye? 16 And the man in whom the evil spirit was leaped on them, and overcame them, and prevailed against them, so that they fled out of that house naked and wounded. 17 And this was known among all the Judaeans and Greeks also dwelling at Ephesus; and fear fell on them all, and the name of the Sovereign Yahshua was magnified. 18 And many that believed came, and confessed, and shewed their deeds. 19 Many of them also which used curious arts brought their books together, and burned them before all men: and they counted the price of them, and found it fifty thousand pieces of silver.”

Evidently even at this early time the Jews were busy spreading their proto-Kaballistic mysticism, and bilking people with over-priced books. Clifton continues:

On another occasion, Paul rebuked a “Canaanite-Jew” thus, (Acts 13:9-10): “9 Then Saul, (who also is called Paul,) filled with the Holy Ghost, set his eyes on him, 10 And Said, O full of all subtilty [guile] and all mischief, thou child of the devil, thou enemy of all righteousness, wilt thou not cease to pervert the right ways of Yhwh.”

The interesting thing about Acts 13:10 is the fact that the center cross-reference takes us to both Matthew 13:38 and 1 John 3:8 which reads as follows:

Matthew 13:38-39a: “38 The field is the world; the good seed [of the woman] are the children of the kingdom; but the tares [seed of the serpent] are the children of the wicked one. 39 The enemy that sowed them is the devil [the serpent of Genesis 3:15] ...”

1 John 3:8: “He that committeth sin is of the devil [serpent of Genesis 3:15]; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God [Yahshua] was manifest, that he might destroy the works of the devil [Satan and his son Cain along with all their progeny].”

But as we have concluded more recently, and I am certain that Clifton would agree, the tree of the knowledge of good and evil had many more branches on it besides Cain himself, and all of these non-Adamic races have their origins somewhere in its branches. Now Clifton concludes:

Scripture instructs us at Romans 16:17 as follows: “Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them.” Further, we are admonished to scrutinize those who use “good words and fair speeches” to “deceive the hearts of the simple.”

And it certainly does. Our work would be a lot easier if so many of our Identity brethren would refrain from entertaining clowns. Ted Weiland, James Bruggeman, Dave Barley, Jack Mohr, Stephen Jones, none of these clowns are proper Identity Christians, not one. They are not Identity Christians until they learn and accept Two-Seedline, as Christ Himself had said, as it is recorded in Matthew chapter 13: “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.” If we cannot properly distinguish the Wheat from the tares, how can we walk with Christ and avoid the fate of the devil?

CHR20171208-CAE-SpecNotice23.odt — Downloaded 101 times