Special notice to ALL WHO
DENY two seedline, #1
By: Teacher Clifton A.
Emahiser
1012 North Vine Street
Fostoria, Ohio 44830
Phone (419) 435-2836
For those who may not be
aware of it, we are at war! Even
at the time of our birth, there was an enemy in the background plotting to
destroy us along with all that we hold dear. This
war has been going on continuously now, without a break, for
over 7,000 years. There have been many fatalities by murder including Abel, the
prophets, John the Baptist and his father Zacharias, the Messiah, and in more
recent history, 20,000,000 White Ukrainians. While we have a genuine enemy,
there are those on the sidelines who declare the enemy doesn�t exist. Such an
attitude is the zenith of irresponsibility. While the enemy is literally
destroying our very being, those distracting gainsayers only want to play a game
of theology.
Ted R. Weiland, Jeffrey A.
Weakly, Stephen E. Jones, among other one-seedliners (or maybe you could call
them �non-seedliners�) go to a lot of effort to prove that the Two Seedline
doctrine is a �dangerous� teaching. I will tell you what is really dangerous:
When we have an enemy who has a history of 7,000 years of murder, including the
Messiah, and to proclaim this enemy doesn�t exist, NOW THAT IS DANGEROUS!
Because of this, I am getting a little perturbed and distraught over all the
refuse being promoted by well-meaning, people, but really
immature-in-the-Word-of-Yahweh, who ridicule Two Seedline teaching. They go to
great lengths with their oral gymnastics trying to prove it�s all a �spiritual�
matter. They scoff at the idea of a genetic enemy. I am not the one making the claim that it
is a matter of genetics, but the Bible unmistakably conveys this definite
fact in no uncertain terms.
The one-seedliners (or
non-seedliners, or maybe anti-seedliners) point to Genesis 4:1 where it says:
�And
Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have
gotten a man from Yahweh.�
They will say: �You see there, Cain was the son of Adam.� They don�t seem to
realize that Eve was already pregnant with Cain before Adam �knew� her. If they
would take the time to study and see what the rest of the Bible has to say on
the matter, they wouldn�t come to that erroneous conclusion. Let�s consider 1
John 3:12:
�Not as Cain,
who was of that wicked one, and slew his
[�]
brother...�
Here, the word �of�
in Greek is #1537 in the Strong�s Concordance. When used implying a
person, it means �a son of.� (Will develop more on this shortly.) To show this,
we will consider some of the various translations of the Bible on 1 John 3:12:
The New Testament in Modern
English by J.B.
Phillips:
�We are none of us
to have the spirit of Cain, who was a son of the devil...�
Smith
And Goodspeed:
�We
must not be like Cain who was a
child of the evil one...�
Living Bible:
�We are
not to be like Cain, who belonged to Satan...�
New English Bible:
�...
unlike Cain who was a child of the evil one...�
New Century Bible:
�Do not
be like Cain who belonged to the Evil One.�
The New Jerusalem
Bible:
�... not to be
like Cain, who was from the Evil One ... �
The Modern
Reader's Bible:
�... not
as Cain was of the evil one...�
Now that we have consulted
some various translations on 1 John 3:12, let�s take a look at some Bible
commentaries on this same verse:
The Wycliffe Bible
Commentary page
1473:
�He [Cain]
is said to have belonged to the family of the wicked one.�
Matthew Poole�s
Commentary On The Holy Bible,
volume 3, page 936:
�Which showed
him [Cain]
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.�
Matthew Henry�s
Commentary,
volume 6, page 1077:
�It showed that he
[Cain]
was as the firstborn of the serpent�s seed ... �
That it is speaking
concerning the genetics of Cain
and his descendants compared to the GENETICS of the woman and her descendants
can be readily observed in 1 John 3:9 (three verses before) contrasting the seed
(offspring) of the serpent and the seed (offspring) of the woman:
�Whosoever is born
of Yahweh doth not commit sin; for his seed (sp�rma) remaineth in him:
and he cannot sin because he is born of Yahweh.�
Here the word for seed in
the Strong�s Concordance is the Greek word #4690, sp�rma,
and you can�t get any more genetic
than that! In other words, the reason the descendants of Satan
through Cain (the �Jews�) act the way they do is because it is in their
genes. Likewise those born of Adam
and Eve, the offspring of Yahweh, will behave according to their
genetics.
There is a real problem with
the word �seed�, sp�rma, expressed by W.E. Vine in his An Expository
Dictionary Of New Testament Words. This is what he says on page 339:
�While the plural
form �seeds�, neither in Hebrew nor in Greek, would have been natural any more
than in English (it is not used in Scripture of human offspring; its plural
occurrence is in 1 Sam. 8:15, of crops), yet if the Divine intention had been to
refer to Abraham's natural descendants, another word would have been chosen in
the plural, such as �children� ... �
Note: There is nothing wrong
with the first half of Vine�s statement, which is actually helpful, explaining
that in Hebrew and Greek a singular �seed� is used to denote a collective
plural, as in English. It is the second half of Vine�s statement, which is
faulty, using a word that describes a collective and limiting it to a
single one. Further, in the original Hebrew, it may very well be that �seed�
is always singular except in 1 Samuel 8:15, where multiple varieties are
implied, and the plural would certainly be proper! It would, therefore,
be proper to indicate that Eve�s �seed�, like Jacob�s �seed�, would be a
singular kind of seed. There is a world of difference between a single
variety of seed and a single seed. How are we to interpret Genesis
17:7 where it says:
�... thy seed
after their generation (s)�?
It should be noted that all of Yahweh�s Covenants with Adam-man were made with a
single variety of �seed.� The word �seed� in Scripture is important, for
it excludes all those who are not �seed.� Whether or not Vine had an ax to grind
is hard to say, but he doesn�t seem to ring entirely true according to
Wilson�s Old Testament Word Studies, page 377 where Wilson states concerning
this word:
�... semen
virile, hence children, offspring, posterity; spoken also of one child when
an only one...�
It would seem that Vine is
applying the singular �seed�, sp�rma, in all cases, both in a
collective sense as well as in situations where there is but one child. Also,
Vine�s statement does not square with #2233 (seed) in the Gesenius� Old
Testament Lexicon. I believe that many of the one-seedliners have been
misled by Vine. By Vine applying a false premise for the word �seed�, sp�rma,
it would be hard to estimate his influence in many Bible commentaries and
religious books. There is one thing about it: either Vine is wrong or Wilson is
wrong! It should also be noted, Vine referred to various �Rabbis� regarding the
word �seed.� More than likely, this is where he got the idea that in all
Scripture, both Old and New Testament, in every case, the word �seed� was used
in the singular.
HOW THE IDEA OF ONE SEED
CAME ABOUT
If you will look up #2233 in
your Gesenius� Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon to the Old Testament, page 255, you
will find the following comment in brackets, which indicates it is the writer�s
opinion:
�[The remark upon
Gen. 3:15 is intended apparently to contradict its application to the Lord Jesus
Christ and his redemption, as if he could not be the seed of the woman; in reply
it will here suffice to remark, that in the very passage cited, immediately
after Gen. 4:25, it is clear that [2233, seed] is used of one son,
namely, Seth, when he was not an only one, because Cain was yet alive; and
further, this seed of the woman was to bruise the head of the tempter,
�thy head�,
which can in no sense apply to any but Christ individually, who became incarnate
�that by means of death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that
is the devil,�]�
There are several things the
writer has assumed which really are not in context or Biblically applied
correctly:
(1) The death of Yahshua was
not the bruising of the head of the serpent, but the bruising of the heel of the
Messiah for He arose again
(2) The �seed� of the woman
of Genesis 3:15 is not implied in the singular, for in Hebrews 2:11 it indicates
Yahshua has many physical brethren, and He is not ashamed to call them as such.
Also, I would remind you again of Genesis 17:7 quoted above.
(3) In Romans 16:20, Paul
told the Romans they would soon tread upon the head of Satan. By Yahshua using
the Romans as His representatives to do this, suggests very strongly, with this
�bruising�, He was not acting in a
�singular� individual sense. No doubt, this �bruising� took place when the Roman
army besieged Jerusalem, for the majority of �Jews� there at that time were of
their father, Satan. Those who know the story of the establishing of Rome
understand it was founded under the sign of the wolf, Romulus and Remus. This is
the insignia of Benjamin. In other words, many of the Roman soldiers under Titus
were Benjamites. Also Zerah-Judah had settled in that same area at one time and
probably had a bigger role than imagined, and was in all likelihood part of that
Roman army. Also, if you will check Josephus Antiquities 17:8:3, you will find
there were Israelite-Germans (Kelts) and Israelite-Galatians in that Roman Army
to help bruise the serpent�s head. With this, Yahshua was using His people
Israel to incapacitate the Satanic �seed� at Jerusalem. While the Serpent�s head
was bruised with the siege of Jerusalem, I am sure that it was just the
beginning of the bruising which he will eventually receive.
From
this, it is obvious the �seed of the woman� of Genesis 3:15 is collective
in nature as well as the serpent�s �seed.� Let�s now consider John 8:44:
SMITH & GOODSPEED ON JOHN
8:44
�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.�
You
can see very clearly, then, this verse is not speaking in a
�spiritual� sense, as most one-seedliners would have you to believe. If so, how
would one murder someone spiritually? It would be ridiculously absurd to
interpret this verse in a �spiritual�
manner. When it is speaking of murder in this verse, it is speaking of Cain
murdering Abel. It is not speaking of Cain murdering Abel �spiritually�,
but physically. I am not the only one who understands this verse in such a way.
The New Treasury of Scripture Knowledge, edited by Jerome H. Smith,
published by the Thomas Nelson Publishers, page 1203, understands John 8:44 to
be speaking of the murder of Abel by Cain, for it makes reference to Genesis
4:8. This is an entire book of cross-references. As far as I know, this book is
in no way promoting the Two Seedline doctrine, nor does it have an ax to grind
on this subject. Let�s take a look at Genesis 4:8 to which this book makes
reference from John 8:44:
�And Cain talked
with Abel his brother: and it came to pass, when they were in the field, that
Cain rose up against Abel his brother, and slew him.�
For evidence to help prove
that John 8:44 is speaking of the �Jews� as being descendants of Cain, and that
Smith & Goodspeed have translated this passage correctly, we will check on the
word �OF�, like in �Ye are
of your father the devil.�
The Strong�s number in the Greek is 1537. The New Testament Word Study
Dictionary by Dr. Spiros Zodhiates devotes five pages to define and expound
the word �OF� as used in the Greek, pages 529-534. Obviously, I
cannot quote this entire document here, but cite only that which is relevant to
John 8:44:
�1537. ...
Preposition governing the genitive, primarily meaning out of, from, of, as
spoken of such objects which were before another ... Of the origin or source of
anything, i.e., the primary, direct, immediate source ... Of persons, of the
place, stock, family, condition, meaning out of which one is derived or to which
he belongs ... Of the source, i.e., the person or thing, out of or from
which anything proceeds, is derived, or to which it pertains...�
MORE ON THE WORD �OF�
IN JOHN 8:44
As I stated before herein,
we really need to examine the word �OF� in John 8:44, for it is
very critical in understanding that the �Jews� are the descendants of Cain. The
word �OF� is the Greek word #1537 in the Strong�s Concordance.
Most one-seedliners will claim John 8:44 should be taken spiritually
only; that it is not speaking of a literal
genetic offspring of Satan through
Cain. Jeffrey A. Weakley (a one-seedliner) in his 1994 booklet The Satanic
Seedline, Its Doctrine and History, page 24, in his attempt to
discredit the Two Seedline teaching, says this of John 8:44 (this is an
�Argument� and �Answer� debate conducted solely by him in his booklet):
�This
does not show that Cain was of that wicked one physically, but rather he was of
that wicked one spiritually. Let�s look at part of 1 John 3:8: �He that
committeth sin is of the devil...� When one studies out 1 John 3:8-12 the
meaning becomes crystal clear. It must be talking about whom we are serving
spiritually. If it is talking about physical descendants, then all of us are
physical descendants of Satan because we all have sinned. �For all have sinned,
and come short of the glory of God...� (Rom 3:23) ... So if we have all sinned
and if he that committeth sin is of the devil, we must conclude that all of us
are of the devil ... So what is it saying? Are you of the devil by physical
descent or are you of the devil because you serve him (or have served him in the
past)?� ... �ARGUMENT [of the two seedliners]: John 8:44 says, �Ye are of your
father the devil ... This shows that the devil is their physical father� ...
�ANSWER [by Jeffrey A. Weakley]: �Wrong. This once again shows that the devil is
their spiritual father (the one that they serve).�
We must then determine
whether John 8:44 is speaking of a �spiritual children or a physical children.�
The word �OF� is critical in John 8:44 for determining this. The
word in the Greek is #1537. In John 8:44 the Greek form is:
�6
which is sometimes
�>.
You can check this out in most any of the Greek interlinears. The New
Testament Greek Study Aids, by Walter Jerry Clark, says, on page 230, about
the Greek word
�6:
�out of
... with the genitive: by means of, out of.�
The
Intermediate New Testament Greek by Richard A. Young, page 95 says the
following about the Greek word
�6:
��6
often conveys special extensions �out of� or �from.� For example, the prophet
said that God would call His Son out of Egypt (Matthew 2:15)�
From the Greek to English Interlinear by George Ricker Berry, page 31 of
his �Greek-English New Testament Lexicon�, we have this on
�6:
��6
or before a vowel,
�>,
a preposition governing genitive, from, out of.�
The Thayer Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, page 189 expresses
�6
this way:
�... out of, as
separation from, something with which there has been close connection...�
In other words, the �Pharisees� in John 8:44 had a close
genetic connection out of
or from �the devil.�
There are 32 other places in
the New Testament where this Greek word (1537)
�6
is used in the same sense. Let�s see if these other passages are speaking of
physical or �spiritual� beings: In Matthew 1:3 it speaks of �Phares and Zara
being �OF� Thamar.� Does that sound �spiritual�? Again in Matthew
1:5 it says �Booz begat Obed �OF� Ruth.� Again, does that sound
�spiritual�? In Matthew 1:18 it speaks of the �child being �OF�
the Holy Ghost. Again, does that sound �spiritual�? In Matthew 1:20 it again
speaks of the �child being �OF� the Holy Ghost.� Again, does that
sound �spiritual.�? In Mark 5:8 the Redeemer commanded an unclean spirit to
�come out �OF� the man.� Does the �man�, from which the
spirit was cast, sound �spiritual�? In Luke 2:36 it speaks of one �Phanuel
�OF� the tribe of Aser.� Does this sound like a real person or a
spirit? In Acts 13:21 it speaks of �a man �OF� the tribe of
Benjamin.� Again, are we talking �spiritually� here? In Romans 1:3 it speaks of
Yahshua being �made �OF� the seed of David according to the
flesh.� How do the one-seedliners claim this one to be �spiritual� when it
states outright, �flesh�? After all, it�s the same word �OF� as
used in John 8:44?!?! In Romans 16:10 it speaks of �them which are �OF�
Aristobulus� [household].� Can we ask again if this is someone who is a real
person or something strangely �spiritual�? In Romans 16:11 it speaks of �them
that be �OF� the [household] of Narcissus.� Does the word
�OF� here apply to some real person or do we have to relegate it to
something �spiritual�? In 1 Corinthians 11:12, it says �the woman [is]
�OF� the man.� I can just imagine some ardent one-seedliner explaining
to his wife she is not a real person! In Philippians 4:22 it speaks of �they
that are �OF� Caesar�s household.� I guess that we Two Seedliners
are now supposed to believe that Caesar was something spiritual! In Hebrews 7:5
it speaks of �the sons �OF� Levi...� and �out �OF�
the loins of Abraham.� I guess the one-seedliners would now have us Two
Seedliners to believe that the Levite�s and Abraham�s loins were some
kind of a �spiritual� mirage! In 1 John 3:8 we are told: �He that committeth
sin is �OF� the devil.� The devil (Satan) was the original
lawbreaker, and that is what sin is all about! In 1 John 3:12 it further
describes, �Cain [who] was �OF� that wicked one.� The
one-seedliners really do some rhetorical gymnastics with this passage. Jeffrey
A. Weakley said this passage was also �spiritual�. In Revelation 3:9 it states:
�I will make them �OF� the synagogue of Satan...� A synagogue is a
worship house of Satan. The �Jews� truly do worship Satan their father and they
admit with their own words that they are descended from Cain. I have in my
possession a quotation from a publication Liberal Judaism published
January, 1949 by a Rabbi Dr. Abba Hillel Silver who states in part, speaking of
the then new State of Israel:
� ... the concept
of the wandering Jew ... For the curse of Cain, the curse of
being an outcast and a �wanderer� over the face of the earth has been
removed...� It is
only the one-seedliners who do not understand that Cain was to be a �vagabond�,
a �wanderer� and having the �curse of Cain� upon him. Name one other
group today that fits this category. In Revelation 5:5 it speaks of �the Lion of
the tribe �OF� Judah.� Are we also supposed to believe that this
is something �spiritual�, and deny that Yahshua came in the flesh? In Revelation
7:5-8 we have: ��OF� the tribe of Judah ... �OF� the
tribe of Reuben ... �OF� the tribe of Gad ... �OF�
the tribe of Aser ... �OF� the tribe of Nepthalim ... �OF�
the tribe of Manasses ... �OF� the tribe of Simeon ... �OF�
the tribe Levi ... �OF� the tribe of Issachar ... �OF�
the tribe of Zabulon ... �OF� the tribe of Joseph ... �OF�
the tribe of Benjamin.� If we are to be consistent, (a word which the
one-seedliners like to use), if the same Greek word that is used in all these
references is physical in nature, so, too, is the word �OF� in John
8:44! Very convenient to throw up the word �spiritual� whenever you want to
forge a barrier and not accept the truth, which Yahshua spoke:
�Ye are OF
your father the devil.�
Yahshua was
simply saying to the �Jews� that they were GENETIC chips off the old block.
Also, I suggest that most
people who use the word �spiritual� in this way don�t even know what the word
means. The dictionary might lead to the idea of a disembodied soul or an
apparition; something mysterious or mystic. The Bible meaning for �spiritual�
is: life as opposed to death. How does such a description of the word
�spiritual� fit John 8:44? It�s obvious, it doesn�t!
WOMEN HAVE �SEED� TOO
While women do not produce
sperm, they contribute as much to the DNA of a child as does the man. The very
instant at which the sperm unites with the ovum is when the life of a newly
conceived child begins. This very first united living cell begins the birth
process. This process is then continued until every single cell in the newly
formed child is married with the blueprints of both the father and the mother.
Science knows today that each single cell of the human body has two sets of 23
chromosomes, or a total of 46. I will now quote The World Book Encyclopedia,
volume 9, page 192d:
�Every human body
cell contains two sets of 23 chromosomes. These two sets look very much alike.
Each chromosome in one set can be matched with a particular chromosome in the
other set. Egg cells and sperm cells have only one set of 23 chromosomes. These
cells are formed in a special way, and end up with only half the number of
chromosomes found in body cells. As a result, when an egg and a sperm come
together, the fertilized egg cell will contain the 46 chromosomes of a normal
body cell. Half of the chromosomes come from the mother, and half from the
father.�
With this in mind, we know
then, the female supplies 23 chromosomes from one of her egg cells and the male
supplies the other 23 chromosomes from one of his sperm cells. Once we
understand this, it gives a better portrayal of what the Bible is talking about
when it mentions the word �seed.�
One particular one-seedliner, Charles Weisman, went to great lengths to try to
prove Eve didn�t have any �seed.� Inasmuch as Eve was taken from Adam, she could
only have the very identical DNA (or �seed�) as Adam.
THE PARABLE OF THE �TARES�
The parable of the wheat and
the tares is found in Matthew 13:24-30, 37-43. Sandwiched in-between this
passage in verse 35 is the statement:
�I will utter
things which have been kept secret from the foundation of the world.�
Yahshua then revealed the significance of the parable as meaning He, being
Yahweh, had fathered the good �seed� (wheat), and that the tares were fathered
by the wicked one. At this point, His disciples were introduced to Two
Seedline doctrine. If the disciples had understood it before, they wouldn�t have
made the request to him to �declare the parable.� The declarations of the wheat
and the tares are as follows:
(1) The good seed,
sp�rma, (Adam and his descendants) were fathered by the Son of Man (Son of
Adam, Yahweh/Yahshua).
(2) The field is the world.
(3) The good seed,
(Adamites) are the genetic sons of
Yahweh.
(4) The tares (�Jews�) are
the genetic sons of Satan.
(5) The enemy that fathered
the tares is the serpent of Genesis 3:15.
(6) The harvest of both the
wheat and the tares is at the end of the age.
(7) The reapers are
messengers (angels) identifying both the wheat and tares.
(8) The tares are gathered
by the messengers and put into fiery judgment.
(9) The tares will wail and
gnash their teeth at the messenger�s Two Seedline message.
(10) Then the
genetic sons of Adam will shine as
the sun, and will inherit the Kingdom after the tares are destroyed.
The one-seedliners are
identifying the �wheat�, but the Two Seedliners are identifying both the �wheat�
and the �tares�! Only the messengers of Two Seedline fit this description as
angels. While Judeo-churchianity claims the �tares� are the �wheat�, the
one-seedliners declare there are no �tares.� I guess that makes the
one-seedliners half Judeo-churchianity and half Israel Identity with only a half
a message!!! (Maybe, also, half hot and half cold? Revelation 3:15-16,
lukewarm.)
HOME
