- Christogenea Internet Radio
Last week, presenting Part 7 of this series, I had made some extemporaneous remarks in response to Jack Mohr's claim that Satan is not mentioned in Genesis chapter 3. His claim is not true, and Satan is indeed mentioned in Genesis chapter 3, only by another name. Because Yahweh God chose to keep certain things secret from the foundation of the world, as Christ Himself professed in Matthew chapter 13, we cannot imagine that Genesis is a complete revelation of everything which happened during the ages of Creation. Saying that, Christ informed us that the devil had planted tares in the field shortly after Yahweh God had planted the wheat, but we do not learn that the serpent of Genesis 3 is Satan until we get to Revelation chapter 12. That is why we were granted the Revelation, that the truth of Yahweh and man would be completed in Yahshua Christ, who was both God and Man.
In Matthew chapter 13, in the Parable of the Wheat and the Tares, we find that a devil sowed tares among the wheat, and that those tares are the children of the devil, who were sown among the children of God. Revelation chapter 12 helps to identify this same devil as that old serpent in the Garden of Eden. So if tares were sown among the wheat at the beginning, appearing nearly as soon as the wheat had sprouted, and we have a parable in Genesis chapter 3 of sexual seduction and the result of two opposing seeds, then we see that Cain and Abel are of two opposing natures. But in that same account we also see that there was an entire Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, which is distinguished from a Tree of Life. This Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil can only be every plant which Yahweh did not plant, which Christ informs us shall be rooted up. The serpent was representative of that Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, the corruption of God's Creation. That is why, in the end of the Revelation, after the victory of Christ in His revenge against all of His enemies, there is only one tree left, the Tree of Life, and it bears 12 fruits: the tribes of the children of Israel.
In the parables of the Gospel, these two trees are represented by various different allegories, as sheep and goat nations, as wheat and tares, as sons and bastards, as those going into the Lake of Fire and those entering into the City of God. If we do not divide correctly the Word of God, when the Bridegroom knocks at the door the we may find ourselves among the bastards, and left out of the party.
Now we shall present Clifton's Emahiser's
Special Notice To All Who Deny Two Seedline, #8
This is a continuation in a series of papers proclaiming that: “We have an enemy.” It’s unpleasant enough that we must live under the political, religious and monetary system of the enemy, but it is intolerable, while all this is happening, to have distracting, booing, detractors on the sidelines proclaiming [that] there is no enemy; that somehow they, the “Jews”, (Rev. 2:9 & 3:9) are simply ordinary people who happened to go bad. I don’t know how those gainsaying disputants discount the fact that they and their continued lineage, remain corrupt generation after generation, for thousands of years. It is quite obvious that the “Jews” have retained an inbred, genetic trait which is built into their very being, clearly inherited from their ancestors. Thus, there are two genetic peoples at WAR with each other, according to the declaration of Genesis 3:15, and this WAR will not terminate until one side or the other is completely destroyed. At the moment, our side is speedily going down to defeat.
When I first found Christian Identity, I actually contemplated the concept of what is called Two-Seedline for at least a year, examining it from every angle. It was not that I was skeptical, but rather, my approach was to look at all of the Christian Identity claims and arguments with healthy criticism, because if anything was true, I wanted to be able to prove it to myself, and eventually to others, and prove it empirically rather than merely hypothetically. By the second or third year of my studies, I was confident that I could prove Two-Seedline through Scripture, but that alone may always be argued and can only be considered hypothetical. However with the historical observation that Clifton refers to here, with an understanding of the behavioral patterns which the Jews and the other non-White races have displayed generation after generation, the truth is indeed proven empirically: there is no conflict between the Word of Yahweh our God, the Creation of god, and what we observe happening every day in the real world. Two-Seedline, if I have to call it that, certainly is true, and there is no other way to properly look at the Scripture or at the world itself.
But one of the first things which the naysayers claim is that White people, our Adamic race, can do evil just as much as the Jews and non-Whites do evil. That is true. Anyone who follows the carnal mind can fall into the most grievous sin. However only the Adamic race has the Spirit of Yahweh our God. White people can do evil like everyone else. But when sufficient White people follow the Spirit, rather than the flesh, the Kingdom of Heaven materializes on earth. All people can do evil, but only White people collectively have the ability to do good: that is, to build entire societies based upon the rule of God's law, to systematically care for and nurture one another young and old, strong and weak, in communities where the Spirit of the law of Yahweh prevails. No other race has ever so consistently exhibited the fruits of the Spirit of God, and we are therefore known by our fruits. Whites have built one advanced society after another, regardless of the environment or geographical location in which they dwell. Left to their own devices, the Jews as well as all of the non-Adamic races only fall into decay, death and destruction. All people can be bad, but only Whites can build the Kingdom of Heaven.
Clifton continues in reference to history and the Jews:
Evidently, the anti-seedliners have never read Josephus, Wars 2:8:2. Josephus makes it quite clear that the Pharisees and Sadducees were essentially non-Israelites by birth. Let’s now read this passage:
“For there are three philosophical sects among the Judeans. 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 Judah by birth, and seem to have a greater affection for one another than the other sects have.”
It would appear that of these three sects mentioned, only the Essenes could claim to be pure blooded Israelites; that many, perhaps a majority of the Pharisees and Sadducees, were neither true Israelites, nor, of the true Tribe of Judah. Why didn’t Josephus mention the Pharisees and Sadducees as being Judah by birth? I know that in John 8:33 & 37, it is apparent from that rendition, that the scribes and Pharisees could possibly be true Israelites. Sure, the Arabs can claim Abraham as their father. We know, also, that the “Jews” of Messiah’s day had absorbed Edomite blood, and therefore could claim both Abraham and Isaac as their fathers. The Shelanite-Judahites could even claim an affinity with Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and Judah, yet that doesn’t make them of the true Tribe of Judah.
This is probably the first passage in the writings of Josephus which Clifton had cited in reference to the identity of the Judaeans, or Jews. I prefer to call the Judaeans of the post-apostolic era Jews, because by that time if they were still identified as Judaeans then they were very likely of those who continued to reject Christ, and the people from whom the modern Jews are descended. If Josephus insists that out of the several sects of Judaea, only the Essenes were “Judah by birth”, then it is fully evident that the words of Christ are true, where He said to the scribes and Pharisees that “ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves.” The scribes and Pharisees must have therefore been converting people who were not Israelites by birth into Judaism. So we see the truth of Christ where He later told His adversaries that “ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep...” This conversion of proselytes will be a major theme in this portion of Clifton's discussion this evening.
There is plenty of evidence in Scripture that the Edomites had moved into the land of Judah and Israel after the deportations, which we see as early as Ezekiel chapter 35, and that they had eventually come to adopt what is called Judaism, which we see in Romans chapter 9. However Josephus assures us that the interpretations of Scripture in this manner are correct, and Josephus has corroboration from Strabo of Cappadocia, who attested more than once in his Geography that in Judaea there were Edomites and others who all shared in the same customs. Later in his papers, Clifton would begin quoting at length from Josephus' Antiquities Book 13 in reference to the actual historical descriptions of the conversion of the Edomites in the time of John Hyrcanus and his son, Alexander Janneus. But here Clifton continues from another perspective:
For evidence that the “Jews” are not who they claim to be, I will now quote from A Commentary on the New Testament from the Talmud and Hebraica by John Lightfoot, volume 2, pages 7-9:
“... Common persons, as to the priesthood: such whose fathers, indeed were sprung from priests, but their mothers unfit to be admitted to the priest’s marriage-bed ... such as were born in wedlock; but that which was unlawful ... bastards: such as came of a certain mother, but of an uncertain father ... Such as were gathered up out of the streets, whose fathers and mothers were uncertain. [Here Clifton has a note advising us to see Ezra chapters 9 &10.]
“A defiled generation indeed! and, therefore, brought up out of Babylon in this common sink, according to the opinion of the Hebrews, that the whole Jewish seed still remaining there might not be polluted by it ... Therefore he brought them to Jerusalem, where care might be taken by the Sanhedrim [Sanhedrin] fixed there, that the legitimate might not marry with the illegitimate ...
“How great a care ought there to be in the families of the pure blood, to preserve themselves untouched and clean from this impure sink; and to lay up among themselves genealogical scrolls from generation to generation as faithful witnesses and lasting monuments of their legitimate stock and free blood!
“Hear a complaint and a story in this case: ‘R. Jochanan said, By the Temple, it is in our hand to discover who are not of pure blood in the land of Israel: but what shall I do, when the chief men of this generation lie hid?’ (that is, when they are not of pure blood, and yet we must not declare so much openly concerning them.) ‘He was of the same opinion with R. Isaac, who said ... A family (of the polluted blood) that lies hid, let it lie hid. Abai also saith, We have learned this also by tradition, That there was a certain family called the family of Beth-zeripha beyond Jordan, and a son of Zion removed it away.’ (The Gloss is, Some eminent man, by a public proclamation, declared it impure.) ‘But he caused another which was such’ [that is, impure] ‘to come near. And there was another which the wise men would not manifest.’
To us it seems that these early rabbis were certainly rationalizing the bastards, something which Jews have always tended to do in one way or another. Returning to Clifton's citations from Lightfoot:
“... When it especially lay upon the Sanhedrim, settled at Jerusalem to preserve pure families, as much as in them lay, pure still; and when they prescribed canons of preserving the legitimation of the people (which you may see in those things that follow at the place alleged), there was some necessity to lay up public records of pedigrees with them: whence it might be known what family was pure, and what defiled. Hence that of Simon Ben Azzai deserves our notice: ‘I saw (saith he) a genealogical scroll in Jerusalem, in which it was thus written; ‘N., a bastard of a strange wife.’ Observe, that even a bastard was written in their public books of genealogy, that he might be known to be a bastard, and that the purer families might take heed of the defilement of the seed ...”
Clifton then comments in response to Lightfoot's remarks, and says:
It should be obvious from this that the Judaeans which returned from the Babylonian captivity up until the time of the Messiah were not keeping their family genetics pure. Can you now see how far off the mark Ted R. Weiland was in his book Eve, Did She Or Didn’t She? when he erroneously tried to prove that the scribes and Pharisees were true Israelites by making the following statements?:
Page 68: “Seedliners claim that because the Pharisees and their progenitors were charged with the murders of all the righteous from Abel to Zacharias, they cannot be Israelites but instead must be Cainites of the seed of Satan. The truth is that because the Pharisees and their forefathers were indicted for the murder of the righteous martyrs, they cannot be Cainites but instead must be Israelites.”
Page 94: “The seedliners teach that the Pharisees were Cainites of the seedline of Satan, whereas Matthew 3:7-8, 27:6-10, John 7:19, 8:28-37, Acts 4:5-10, 24-35 and 7:2-52 declare that the Pharisees were Judahites of seed line of Jacob/Israel.”
While Ted R. Weiland is off the mark, he is not entirely wrong. However, his error is serious to the point of disaster. To clear up the matter, I will refer again to the A Commentary on the New Testament from the Talmud and Hebraica by John Lightfoot, volume 2, page 78:
“There was indeed, a certain remnant among them to be gathered by Christ: and when that was gathered, the rest of the nation was delivered over to everlasting perdition. This is ... that remnant of the apostle, Rom. 11:5, which then was, when he writ those things; which then was to be gathered, before the destruction of that nation.”
In Romans chapter 11, Paul was only continuing a theme where he said in Romans chapter 9 that: “1 I speak the truth among the Anointed, I lie not, my conscience bearing witness with me in the Holy Spirit, 2 that grief for me is great, and distress incessant in my heart, 3 for I have prayed that I myself would be accursed from the Anointed for the brethren, my kinsmen in regards to the flesh; 4 those who are Israelites, whose is the position of sons, and the honor, and the covenants, and the legislation, and the service, and the promises; 5 whose are the fathers; and of whom are the Anointed in regards to the flesh, being over all blessed of Yahweh for the ages. Truly. 6 Not, however, that the word of Yahweh has failed; since not all those who are from Israel are those of Israel: 7 nor because they are offspring of Abraham all children: but, 'In Isaac will your offspring be called.' 8 That is to say, the children of the flesh, these are not children of Yahweh, but the children of the promise are counted as offspring.” Paul goes on to explain that promise, that it was carried down from Sarah to Rebekah, and then Paul went on to contrast Jacob and Esau, vessels of mercy and vessels of destruction. He had said that “not all those who are from Israel are those of Israel” in reference to the land and the man, Jacob Israel, because many of those from the land in those days were of Esau, Edomites who had been converted en masse to Judaism in the days of John Hyrcanus and Alexander Janneus. There were also many other disqualified individuals who were converted as proselytes over the years.
Furthermore, in this passage of Romans chapter 9, Paul once again exhibited the racial exclusivity of the New Covenant, where he attested that the children of the promises to Sarah and Rebekah were to be counted as the seed of Abraham. This is also a refutation of the replacement theology taught in today's denominational churches. Ted Weiland and other clowns of his ilk, while they understand the migrations of ancient Israel and their identity in the White nations of the modern world, nevertheless deny the racial exclusivity of the covenants, imagining that somehow all “whosoever' of any race may come to Christ. However that is not what Paul was actually saying when he spoke of “whosoever”, and Weiland as well as the denominational churches consistently remove Paul's words from their context. Weiland is basically a universalist, and for that reason he will forever be blind to the truth of Two-Seedline. Clifton continues:
I am sure that Messiah was not gathering an accumulation of bastards, which the Pharisees and Sadducees [were, for the most part]. The anti-seedliners really have a problem with Genesis 3:15 & 4:1, for if Cain was the son of Adam, there wouldn’t have been any difference between the seed of the serpent and the seed of the woman. If such a thing were true, which it isn’t, we might as well invite the descendants of Cain into our churches and Identity meetings. Recently, John Hagee had about ten “Jews” on the platform of his church. Many seminaries now have “Jewish” professors and advisors. Insight On The Scriptures, volume 2, pages 887 & 889, says this about the serpent’s seed:
“... Jesus identified the Jewish religious leaders of his day as a part of the Serpent’s seed, saying to them: ‘Serpents, offspring [Greek, gen-ne’ma-ta, generated ones’] of vipers, how are you to flee from the judgment of Gehenna? Matt. 23:33, Int. ... Enmity between the two seeds. The great serpent Satan the Devil has produced ‘seed’ that has manifested the bitterest enmity toward those who have served God with faith like Abraham, as the Bible record abundantly testifies. Satan has tried to block or hinder the development of the woman’s seed. (Compare Matt. 13:24-30.)”
Clifton has always endeavored over the years to illustrate whatever Biblical truth he can find in rather mainstream commentaries and Bible dictionaries. But he has also frequently resorted to much older publications than are commonly available today. Usually, these citations which he makes certainly do support our contentions concerning Two-Seedline, however it is also quite clear that the commentators are often divided against themselves, as many universalist passages are also found in the same works. He continues and says:
This is what John Lightfoot has to say about Matthew 3:7 where John the Baptist called the Pharisees and Sadducees “vipers”, in his A Commentary on the New Testament from the Talmud and Hebraica, volume 2, pages 77-78:
“Not so much ‘the seed of Abraham’, which ye boast of, as ‘the seed of the serpent’ ... A nation and offspring diametrically opposite, and an enemy to that seed of the woman, and which was to bruise his heel ... Hence, not without ground, it is concluded that that nation was rejected and given over to a reprobate sense, even before the coming of Christ. They were not only ... a generation, but ... an offspring of vipers, serpents sprung from serpents. Nor is it a wonder that they were rejected by God, when they had long since rejected God, and God’s word, by their traditions ... There was, indeed a certain remnant among them to be gathered by Christ: and when that was gathered, the rest of the nation was delivered over to everlasting perdition ...”
Again on page 83 of the same book, John Lightfoot says the following:
“The war proclaimed of old in Eden between the serpent, and the seed of the serpent, and the seed of the woman, Gen. 3:15, now takes place; when that promised seed of the woman comes forth into the field (being initiated by baptism, and anointed by the Holy Ghost, unto the public office of his ministry) to fight with the old serpent, and at last to bruise his head. And, since the devil was always a most impudent spirit, now he takes upon him a more hardened boldness than ever, even of waging war with him whom he knew to be the Son of God, because from that ancient proclamation of this war he knew well enough that he should bruise his heel.”
Of course, we would assert that this war between the seedlines has been waged from the beginning, from the murder of Abel unto this very day, although the crucifixion of Christ was the epitome of the war.
In Matthew 3:7; 12:34, and 23:33 both John the Baptist and Yahshua called the Pharisees and Sadducees “a generation of vipers”, and in Matthew 12:39 Yahshua spoke of them as “an evil and adulterous generation” (adulterous meaning mixed ... impure). The following are remarks from some various commentaries:
Adam Clarke’s abridged by Earle, page 794: “An evil and adulterous generation. Or ‘race of people.’ Our Lord terms the Jews an adulterous race.”
Adam Clarke’s abridged by Earle, page 770: “O generation of vipers. A terribly expressive speech. A serpentine brood, from a serpentine stock. As their fathers were, so were they, children of the wicked one.”
Matthew Henry’s, vol. 5, page 24: “The title he gives them is, O generation of vipers. Christ gave them the same title; ch. 12:34; 23:33. They were as vipers; though specious yet venomous and poisonous, and full of malice and enmity to every thing that was good; they were a viperous brood, the seed and offspring of such as had been of the same spirit; it was bred in the bone with them. They gloried in it, that they were the seed of Abraham; but John showed them that they were the serpent’s seed (compare Gen. 3:15); of their father the Devil, John 8:44. They were a viperous gang, they were all alike; though enemies to one another, yet confederate in mischief. Note. A wicked generation is a generation of vipers, and they ought to be told so ...”
Matthew Henry’s, vol. 5, page 175: “He condemns the demand, as the language of an evil and adulterous generation, v. 39. He fastens the charge, not only on the scribes and Pharisees, but the whole nation of the Jews; they were all like their leaders, a seed and succession of evildoers: they were an evil generation indeed, that not only hardened themselves against the conviction of Christ’s miracles, but set themselves to abuse him, and put contempt on his miracles. They were an adulterous generation ... As an adulterous brood; so miserably degenerated ... that Abraham and Israel acknowledged them not.”
Matthew Henry’s, vol. 5, page 174: “They were a generation of vipers: John [the] Baptist had called them so (Matt. 3:7), and they were still the same; for can the Ethiopian change his skin? The people looked upon the Pharisees as a generation of saints, but Christ calls them a generation of vipers, the seed of the serpent, that had an enmity to Christ and his gospel. Now what could be expected from a generation of vipers, but that which is poisonous and malignant? Can the viper be otherwise than venomous?”
It seems that none of these commentators really put together the entire story, the historical with the circumstantial which is found in these passages of Scripture. So many readers continue to insist that words such as seed, race or generation, offspring, children and others, all have some signification other than their literal meanings. Therefore even these excellent comments may be misunderstood. Lightfoot explained that the Judaeans had many unqualified proselytes among them, even describing them as illegitimate bastards, but he still did not quite put the entire story together into a consistent narrative. The true meaning of these passages is only realized upon examining the historical reasons behind Paul's explanation in Romans chapter 9, or the attestation of Christ in Revelation 2:9 or 3:9, in reference to those who say they are Judaeans but are of the synagogue of Satan, as opposed to the true Judaeans who were actually of the children of Israel, that righteous remnant of which the commentators speak. Those historical reasons are found in the pages of Flavius Josephus. Once it is seen that many of these Judaeans were indeed actually Edomites, who usurped Judaea upon the rise of Herod, only then does the entire truth begin to become manifest. The commentators identified the adversaries of Christ as a wicked seed, but did not thoroughly explain how they were a wicked seed, so the meaning of the word seed itself is often convoluted. Clifton once wrote an article addressing this, asserting that there is no such thing as “spiritual sperm”, and that assertion is true.
As for this word adulterous, the Greek word μοιχαλίς (Strong's # 3428), many commentators would also claim that it also refers to only some sort of spiritual adultery. Yet in some of the papers at Christogenea, for instance in the opening segment of our recent commentary on Paul's epistle to Titus, we have shown from two ancient Greek sources that the related word μοιχός, a noun form of the adjective μοιχαλίς, as well as the related verb μοιχεύω, were used to describe race-mixing or the state of being of mixed race.
The Greek geographer, Strabo of Cappadocia, used the word μοιχός twice of race mixers in his Geography, Book 16 (16.4.25), where he stated of certain tribes that the penalty for an adulterer is death, but among them only the person of the other race is considered the adulterer. So we see that adultery had to do with race, and not merely with marriage. Likewise, in Aristotle’s Animalia, or The History of Animals, the verb μοιχεύω was used to describe birds which were “mixed and crossed with each other”. Ancient Judaea was indeed an adulterous nation because the people had mingled themselves with the Edomites after converting them to Judaism, as Josephus describes and as Paul of Tarsus explained in his epistle to the Romans. For this, the entire nation was adulterous. Just as it is prophesied in Malachi chapter 2, Judah married the daughter of a strange god, a prophecy of the Judaeans absorbing the Edomites. While Clifton first referred to the historical absorption of the Edomites by the Judaeans quoting Josephus in his writings in February of 1999, in Watchman's Teaching Letter #10 (long before I had made his acquaintance), for now he continues under the subtitle:
This is another aspect which should be delved into concerning the cursed “Jewish” nation [of] the time of the Messiah. Without this understanding, it is difficult to comprehend the conditions surrounding the “Jewish” nation at that period. Once [this information] is understood and grasped, a very different view will be perceived. This is a topic which has not been addressed, at any length, by the clergy of nominal churchianity or, for that matter, among those who understand the Israel Identity message. It is paramount that we understand the complexities of that period, for if we don’t, we simply cannot fathom the elements which were coming into play during that time. Once we comprehend this, we will not be prone to make ludicrous statements such as those which Ted R. Weiland has spewed (vomited) out. [Proverbs 26:11; 23:8; 2 Peter 2:22.]
Here Clifton made a note of several Biblical passages in relation to Ted Weiland, including Proverbs 26:11: “As a dog returneth to his vomit, so a fool returneth to his folly.” We would agree, that certainly does describe Ted Weiland. Several times over the past few years I have endeavored to initiate a dialogue with Weiland, and each time he has fled from me, shunning any possibility for discussion. Clifton continues:
I will first introduce the general story and then present the documentation. First, let’s consider the Scripture where Messiah condemned the “Jews” for their proselytizing, Matthew 23:15:
“Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves.”
In Matthew chapter 3, we are told of John the Baptist and his endeavor to prepare the way for the Messiah by conversion and baptizing. It seems here, according to the story, the Pharisees and Sadducees came and inquired of John what he was doing. Forthrightly, John informed the “Jews”, he didn’t baptize “vipers.” Why were the Pharisees and Sadducees so interested in what John the Baptist was doing? Many may be unaware of the fact that the Pharisees and Sadducees were also baptizing their converts. The requirement to become a “Jewish” proselyte was firstly, to be circumcised, and when the wound was healed, then, secondly, the candidate was baptized. The “Jews” considered that when their candidate went down into the water he was a heathen, and when he came back up, he was an Israelite. This is fantastic, for a non-Israelite could be baptized thousands of times and it would not make him an Israelite! And of just whom were these “Jews” baptizing and making proselytes? Many were of the seven Canaanite nations [as well as the Edomites who had been converted en masse in the 2nd century BC]. Now some excerpts from pages 55 to 63 from A Commentary on the New Testament from the Talmud and Hebraica volume 2, by John Lightfoot:
“Whensoever any heathen will betake himself, and be joined to the covenant of Israel, and place himself under the wings of the divine Majesty, and take the yoke of the law upon him, voluntary circumcision, baptism, and oblation, are required ... That was a common axiom ... No man is a proselyte until he be circumcised and baptized ... [because none becomes a proselyte without circumcision and baptism] according to the judgment [or right] of the Sanhedrim ... If with a proselyte his sons and his daughters are made proselytes also, that which is done by their father redounds to their good ... A heathen woman, if she is made a proselytess, when she is now big with child,— the child needs not baptism ... for the baptism of his mother serves for him for baptism ... ‘If an Israelite take a Gentile child ... or find a Gentile infant, and baptizeth him in the name of a proselyte,— behold, he is a proselyte’ ... First, You see baptism inseparably joined to the circumcision of proselytes. There was, indeed some little distance of time; for ‘they were not baptized till the pain of circumcision was healed, because water might be injurious to the wound.’ But certainly baptism ever followed ... Secondly, Observing from these things which have been spoken, how very known and frequent the use of baptism was among the Jews, the reason appears very easy why the Sanhedrim, by their messengers, inquired not of John concerning the reason of baptism, but concerning the authority of the baptizer; not what baptism meant, but whence he had a license so to baptize, John 1:25 ... For the admission of a proselyte was reckoned no light matter ... Proselytes are dangerous to Israel, like the itch ... When a proselyte was to be circumcised, they first asked him concerning the sincerity of his conversion to Judaism: whether he offered not himself to proselytism for the obtaining of riches, for fear, or for love to some Israelite woman ... As soon as he grows whole of the wound of circumcision, they bring him to baptism; and being placed in the water, they again instruct him in some weightier and in some lighter commands of the law. Which being heard ... he plunges himself, and comes up, and behold, he is as an Israelite in all things ...
“... But a proselyte was baptized not only into the washing-off of that Gentile pollution, nor only thereby to be transplanted into the religion of the Jews; but that, by the most accurate rite of translation that could possibly be, he might so pass into an Israelite, that, being married to an Israelite woman, he might produce a free and legitimate seed, and an undefiled offspring. Hence, servants that were taken into a family were baptized,— and servants also that were to be made free: not so much because they were defiled with heathen uncleanness, as that, by that rite ... becoming Israelites in all respects, they might be more fit to match [mate] with Israelites, and their children be accounted as Israelites. And hence the sons of proselytes, in following generations, were circumcised indeed, but not baptized. They were circumcised, that they might take upon themselves the obligation of the law; but they needed not baptism, because they were already Israelites. [Bull manure!] ... The baptism of proselytes was the bringing over of Gentiles into the Jewish religion ...”
Here John Lightfoot has described the attitude of the Jews from the earliest post-Christian writings available, those of the Talmud, and we have no reason to believe that the rabbis of the time of Christ were any different, just a short time before the earliest writings of the Talmud.
The baptism of John was a matter of prophecy. In Malachi chapter 3 it speaks of a messenger to prepare the way before the Lord, or Yahshua Christ, and it says that the messenger shall “purify the sons of Levi”, we see a prophecy of the baptism of John. Yahshua Christ himself was also baptized by John, and those who know the law should recognize the cleansing of both priests and Passover Lamb required in the law was in this manner symbolically fulfilled as Christ is the Lamb of God. This was the transcendental aspect of the baptism of John.
But in the practical aspect of John's baptism, John was cleansing people who were already Israelites as a symbol that they would repent of their sins and be prepared to turn to Christ as He was about to begin His ministry and the announcement of the Gospel. However the Pharisees and Sadducees baptized for an entirely different reason: to convert non-Israelites into Israelites, as if such a thing were ever possible. So it should be evident, that the Jews developed the concept of “spiritual sperm”, and the later Catholic Church adopted the baptism of the Jews for that same purpose. That baptism must be rejected by true Christians.
Clifton comments on John Lightfoot's description of Jewish baptism:
You can see from this, things at that period were not at all like we are led to believe. The people of that “Jewish” nation had so corrupted themselves genetically, there were hardly any pureblooded Israelites left among them. Here you have the facts laid out before you, so that it will save you a lot of homework on your part. All you have to do is verify them. It would appear the time has come for some who follow the teachings of anti-seedliners such as the likes of Ted R. Weiland to wake up and get the wax out of their ears. Here is substantial evidence the anti-seedliners are not as informed as they ought to be. Not only are the clergy of today blind to the conditions of that nation, but we have those in Israel Identity who have been trained in the Judeo-churchianty theological centers who aren’t much better. It takes a lot of time and effort, sweat and blood, to put research like this together. Furthermore, if one cannot see the parallel between what is going on today, with all of the mixed-racial marriages, just as the Judaeans of that day were taking strange wives and strange husbands, one has to be blind! They were taking others in marriage who were often descended from [out] of the seven Canaanite nations. There were some pureblooded Benjamites who were still in Galilee, from whom Yahshua took all of His disciples except one [or perhaps two, since Matthew may not have been from Benjamin], as there were some Essenes in Judea [real Judahites in Judaea].
Even this is a little over-simplified. Many other true Judahites also lived in Judaea, for example Martha, Mary, Lazarus, and many of the Pharisees with whom Christ Himself had dined and lodged. Continuing with Clifton:
The anti-seedliners seem to completely overlook the commission of the Messiah in 1 John 3:8, that of destroying the works of Satan:
“He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil.”
By coming when He did, Yahshua was there in the midst of the genetic descendants of Satan, through Cain, who were quite aptly called “vipers.” Messiah Himself called them “vipers”, as did John the Baptist. Thus, Messiah was in the realm of the geographic seat where the devils lived. If the devil’s headquarters had been anywhere else in the world, He would have been there. If He was going to destroy the devil’s works, He had to be where the devils thrived, which He was.
Paul of Tarsus was speaking of Jerusalem when he wrote to the Thessalonians around 51 AD and told them that Satan was seated in the temple of God, pretending for himself to be God, and he was speaking of the Edomite Jews who had usurped the high priesthood and temple offices in Judaea. Although they were spread throughout the society, the Edomite Jews were using Judaism as a source of authority and legitimacy for their wicked deeds, and Jerusalem became their capital. It is interesting to note that two decades after Jerusalem was destroyed in 70 AD, the Revelation was given to John by Christ, and Pergamos was named as the location of “Satan's seat”, since the Jews were forced out of Jerusalem. Clifton continues speaking in reference to 1 John 3:8:
If you will check the next verse (v. 9), you will notice that whether one is a genetic son of the devil, or, a genetic son of YHWH, depends on the sperm, or “seed”. It speaks of the children of YHWH, saying “his sperma remaineth in him.” However, the anti-seedliners insist that sperma is spiritual. Let’s now look at Matthew Henry’s Commentary which says this on this passage, vol. 6, pages 1076-1077:
“From the discrimination between the children of God and the children of the devil. They have their distinct characters. In this the children of God are manifest and the children of the devil, v. 10. In the world (according to the old distinction) there are the seed [sperma] of God and seed [sperma] of the serpent. ... and he belongs to the party, and interest, and kingdom of the devil. It is he that is the author and patron of sin, and has been a practitioner of it, a tempter and instigator of it, even from the beginning of the world. ... The devil has designed and endeavoured to ruin the work of God in this world. The son of God has undertaken the holy war against him. … [Then speaking of 1 John 3:8 in relation to Cain:] It showed that he was the firstborn of the serpent’s seed [sperma]; even he, the eldest son [Cain] ... was of the wicked one. He imitated and resembled the first wicked one, the devil.”
But even Matthew Henry did not explicitly specify that Cain was the seed of the serpent because he was indeed the physical son of the devil. The demonstrably corrupt text of Genesis 4:1 has been a stumbling-block for centuries. Clifton reads from one more commentary:
A Commentary On The Holy Bible by Matthew Poole, vol. 3, pages 935-936 comments thusly: “And such a sinner, he says is of the devil; as if he were born of him, were his child, really conformed to him, and having his sinning nature ... Upon what was said, he reduces all men each to their own family and father, concluding it manifest whither they belonged; i.e. he shows, upon the grounds before expressed, who do not belong to God and his family, leaving it thence to be collected, since two fathers and families divide the world, to which they must be reckoned; i.e. they belong not to God, and consequently to that worst of fathers, who first, in general, do not righteousness; the devil being the first sinner, they are his descendants ... Which showed him to be of that wicked one, of the serpent’s seed: so early was such seed sown, and so ancient the enmity between seed and seed.”
But men are not seed based on their actions. Rather, the seed from which they spring governs the behavior to which they may adjust. The children of the devil do not have any inherent ability to do good, so that the Kingdom of God may be built, because they are inherently corrupt. The children of God may do evil, but they have an inherent ability to do His will, when they follow the Spirit and not the flesh. Others do not have that Spirit in them to follow, as His seed is not in them. The commentators came close to the ultimate truth, but fell just a little short of explaining the fact that seed is entirely and exclusively genetic.
If one holds the mistaken belief that all of the Judaeans of the time of Christ were Israelites, then one may be deceived into thinking that all men are equal, that sperm can be spiritual, and that one's behavior can somehow dictate one's origin. But in truth, behavior does not dictate one's origin, and if a man could somehow change his behavior, that would certainly not change his parentage. Furthermore, there is more behind good and bad deeds than mere nature, as things such as perceptions and perspectives and motives, or agendas, must also be considered when evaluating why a man did good or evil.
But it can be demonstrated historically that many, if not most, of the Judaeans of the time of Christ were Edomites, and not Israelites, and that the Edomites had usurped the government and the offices of the temple, and these were the adversaries of Christ. As He Himself told them, “ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep...” Then Scripturally, we see that the history is verified in the words of Paul of Tarsus in Romans chapter 9, and of Christ Himself in John 8, Luke 11, and in the Revelation in chapters 2 and 3. The Edomites descended from the seed of the serpent where Esau had taken wives of the Canaanites, who were in turn mingled with the Kenites and the Rephaim, and they were the descendants of both Cain and the fallen angels. Being made evident in both Scripture and History, Two-Seedline is proven to be true, both theoretically and empirically. The historical truth of Two-Seedline continues to be fully evident in the actions of both Jews and White Europeans today, as the Jews – who are Satan collectively – gather all of the alien races against the Camp of the Saints.