Who Deny #21
 Home Up Who Deny #2 Who Deny #3 Who Deny #4 Who Deny #5 Who Deny #6 Who Deny #7 Who Deny #8 Who Deny #9 Who Deny #10 Who Deny #11 Who Deny #12 Who Deny #13 Who Deny #14 Who Deny #15 Who Deny #16 Who Deny #17 Who Deny #18 Who Deny #19 Who Deny #20 Who Deny #21 Who Deny #22 Who Deny #23 Who Deny #24

 

Special notice to ALL WHO DENY two seedline, #21

 

By: Teacher Clifton A. Emahiser

1012 North Vine Street

Fostoria, Ohio  44830

Phone (419)435-2836

 

It is highly important that we continue to pursue the subject of Two Seedline as taught in Genesis 3:15. The word �seed� in that verse is the same for the �serpent� as it is for the �woman.� Doggedly, the antichrist, anti-seedliners are insistent on interpreting the seed of the woman as �physical�, while rendering the seed of the serpent as �spiritual.� Yet �seed� in both cases is the same Hebrew word, #2233. This is taking liberty with Yahweh�s Word beyond all logical reason, and is highly unethical and inconsistent. This is the very same word as the �seed� promised to Abraham in Genesis 22:17, and can only mean physical �seed.� There is a threefold use of the word �seed� in Scripture: (1) Agricultural, (2) Physiological, and (3) Figurative. A man�s �seed� or emission of �semen� is a physiological use of the term derived from the Hebrew zera and the Greek sperma, sporos. Thus, zera in Genesis 3:15 for the serpent can only mean the zera or sperma of the serpent, that is, his offspring. Any other interpretation does violence to Yahweh�s Word in that passage. Insight On The Scriptures, volume 2, page 877 says, under the subheading �The seed of the Serpent�: �Jesus identified the Jewish religious leaders of his day as a part of the Serpent�s seed, saying to them: �Serpents, offspring [Gr., gen�ne�ma�ta, �generated ones�] of vipers, how are you to flee the judgment of Gehenna?� � Mt. 23:33, Int.� The New Concise Bible Dictionary under �Seed� says: �... The offspring of people are called �seed� (e.g. Gn. 3:15) ...�

Today, we live in a world controlled by this enemy, and we are losing our WAR to him. This enemy has full command over the political, economic and religious aspects of our lives. He is using all these tools in an attempt to destroy the White Israel Race. Therefore, it would be tremendously irresponsible, on the part of those who understand the nature of the enemy, to sit idly by saying nothing. This situation is serious enough in itself, without having distracters on the sidelines playing theology games while our very existence is at stake. I have already completed 20 Special Notices To All Who Deny Two Seedline, and I will write another 20 should it be necessary. This time we will key-in on a spurious statement made by Stephen E. Jones in his book The Babylonian Connection, on page 66. In my estimation, he has done more damage to the Israel Identity Message than anyone I�m aware of, though there are several others vying to overtake and surpass him for that position. This is what he said:

�It should be obvious that the woman was the mother of both Cain and Abel. There were not two fathers. Furthermore, seed (the power of procreation) is a physical thing, and outside of God alone, only physical, fleshly beings have seed and can reproduce sexually. Satan is supposedly a spirit-being like the angels in heaven, which �neither marry nor are given in marriage� (Luke 20:34:36).�

Now if one is only a surface-reader of the Bible, like many are, he will accept this remark by Jones without caution. If you have this book by Jones, you will notice he didn�t go into any depth on that passage. First of all, this subject can be found in three of the Gospels at Matthew 22:23-30; Mark 12:18-25 and Luke 20:27-36. Therefore, it is necessary to study all three for a full comprehension of the topic. By not doing this, Jones, by sleight-of-hand, was able to change the thrust of that passage. The reason for understanding this subterfuge by Jones is because the future of our children depends on it. Otherwise, you can only look forward to having some Biblical-mamzers in your family tree. My intention is to protect your children from that kind of danger. The usual reward for doing this is to be scoffed at by the Jew-deo-unchristian community and ridicule by the antichrist, anti-seedliners, many of which, like Jones, also teach universalism. Let�s now read these three passages:

Matthew 22:23-30: �23 The same day came to him the Sadducees, which say that there is no resurrection, and asked him, 24 Saying, Master, Moses said, If a man die, having no children, his brother shall marry his wife, and raise up seed unto his brother. 25 Now there were with us seven brethren: and the first, when he had married a wife, deceased, and having no issue, left his wife unto his brother: 26 Likewise the second also, and the third, unto the seventh. 27 And last of all the woman died also. 28 Therefore, in the resurrection whose wife shall she be of the seven? for they all had her. 29 Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God. 30 For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.�

Mark 12:18-25: �18 Then come unto him the Sadducees, which say there is no resurrection; and they asked him, saying, 19 Master, Moses wrote unto us, If a man�s brother die, and leave his wife behind him, and leave no children, that his brother should take his wife, and raise up seed unto his brother. 20 Now there were seven brethren: and the first took a wife, and dying left no seed. 21 And the second took her, and died, neither left he any seed: and the third likewise. 22 And the seven had her, and left no seed: last of all the woman died also. 23 In the resurrection therefore, when they shall rise, whose wife shall she be of them? for the seven had her to wife. 24 And Jesus answering said unto them, Do ye not therefore err, because ye know not the scriptures, neither the power of God? 25 For when they shall rise from the dead, they neither marry, nor are given in marriage; but are as the angels which are in heaven.�

Luke 20:27-36: �27 Then came to him certain of the Sadducees, which deny that there is any resurrection; and they asked him, 28 Saying, Master, Moses wrote unto us, If any man�s brother die, having a wife, and he die without children, that his brother should take his wife, and raise up seed unto his brother. 29 There were therefore seven brethren: and the first took a wife, and died without children. 30 And the second took her to wife, and he died childless. 31 And the third took her; and in like manner the seven also: and they left no children, and died. 32 Last of all the woman died also. 33 Therefore in the resurrection whose wife of them is she? for seven had her to wife. 34 And Jesus answering said unto them, The children of this world marry, and are given in marriage: 35 But they which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry, nor are given in marriage. 36 Neither can they die any more: for they are equal unto the angels; and are the children of God, being the children of the resurrection.�

We can make two observations from these passages: (1) The words �seed�, �issue� and �children� are used interchangeably throughout, and that is the way it should be interpreted in Genesis 3:15! Although there are three Greek words used (#5043, #4690 and #815), the context remains the same. (2) You will notice that I underlined the phrases �as the angels of God in heaven�, �the angels which are in heaven� and �for they are equal unto the angels� in these passages. It is obvious it is referring to the angels who did not confederate themselves with Satan in his rebellion. It is very important we separate the angels who remained faithful to the Almighty from those who fell. This is an important little detail Stephen E. Jones elected to ignore. You will notice he chose to quote the passage where it said �for they are equal unto the angels.� This is the height of intellectual dishonesty.

 

WHAT THESE PASSAGES REALLY MEAN

 

Fortunately, these portions of Scripture are not problematic or controversial in nature. Of all my sixteen various Bible commentaries, they convey pretty much the same general opinion. Therefore, because they are very similar, in essence, when I am quoting from one, I am quoting from them all. Also, because the story is the same in all three Gospels, the commentary from one passage will correspond with the others. Therefore, I will use the commentary which explains this story best. From the King James Bible Commentary, page 1219, we read the following on Matthew 22:23-29:

�The Sadducees made the next attempt to discredit Jesus and were even more severely humiliated. As the liberal party within first-century A.D. Judaism, they rejected belief in the supernatural, especially angels and the resurrection of the dead (see Paul�s encounter in Acts 23:8ff.) �Moses said� is a reference to Deuteronomy 25:5, where the practice of levirate marriage called for an unmarried brother to take his widowed brother�s wife to be his own (cf. Gen. 38:8). This ancient practice was recognized by the Jews [sic. Judeans] but rarely followed in those days. The absurd hypothetical case which follows represents another theological dilemma, this time attempting to discredit the legitimacy of the resurrection, which the Sadducees rejected. Thus, their question: whose wife shall she be? This extreme example must have been thought by them to be the ultimate proof of the foolishness of this doctrine. All seven brothers had been married to her, Therefore in the resurrection whose wife shall she be of the seven? They must have snickered as they asked such a ridiculous question, but the smile would soon be wiped off their faces by Jesus� reply. Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures. Jesus had extreme contempt for the Sadducees because they made light of the Bible and the power of God (i.e., His resurrection power, cf. Phil. 3:10). This is His strongest recorded rebuke of this Jewish party.�

This is what led up to the statement about the angels. It should be pointed out that all the anti-seedliners who also hold to the �no devil� doctrine indirectly agree with the Sadducees, and they also �err, not knowing the Scriptures.� The Wycliffe Bible Commentary, page 1062, says this on Luke 20:34: �And Jesus answering said unto them. The Sadducees had the right logic but the wrong premise. They were assuming wrongly that the conditions in the future life would be identical with those here. Jesus asserted that in the age to come there would be neither marriage nor death.�

The best reference on this topic I could find comes from Peake�s Commentary on the Bible, page 839, on Luke 20:34-35 and reads: �In this age men marry, but in the age to come they are immortal, and do not marry, living for ever like the angels (c.f. Enoch 15:6ff.) ... Lk, corrects Mk�s apparent implication that all the sons of this age will attain the resurrection life. It is very unlikely that Lk�s change in Mk�s wording implies a view that men are fitted by celibacy in this life to attain the age to come; marriage is considered in this passage solely from the point of view of legal relationship and the procreation of children. No conclusion can be drawn from it concerning the character of Christian�s marriage.� What I liked about this reference is that it takes us to Enoch 15:6, which we will read the entire chapter next (Enoch 15:1 to 15:10):

�1 Then addressing me, He spoke and said: Hear, neither be afraid, O Enoch, O righteous man, and scribe of righteousness: approach hither, and hear my voice. Go, say to the Watchers of heaven, who have sent thee to pray for them; You ought to pray for men, and not men for you. 2 Wherefore have you forsaken the lofty and holy heaven, which endures for ever, and have lain with women; have defiled yourselves with the daughters of men; have taken to yourselves wives; have acted like the sons of the earth, and have begotten giants? (Gen. 6:2, 4). 3 You being spiritual, holy, and living a life which is eternal, have polluted yourselves with women; have begotten in carnal blood; have lusted in the blood of men; and have done as those who are flesh and blood do. 4 These however die and perish. 5 Therefore have I given to them wives, that they might cohabit with them; that sons might be born of them, and that this might be transacted upon earth. 6 But you from the beginning were made spiritual, living a life which is eternal, and not subject to death in all the generations of the world. 7 Therefore I made not wives for you, because being spiritual, your dwelling is in heaven (Matt. 22:30). 8 Now the giants, who have been born of spirit and of flesh, shall be called upon earth evil spirits, and on earth shall be their habitation. Evil spirits shall proceed from their flesh, because they were created from above; from the holy Watchers was their beginning and primary foundation. Evil spirits shall they be upon earth, and the spirits of the wicked shall they be called. The habitation of the spirits of heaven shall be in heaven; but upon earth shall be the habitation of terrestrial spirits, who are born in earth (1 Cor. 15:40). 9 The spirits of the giants shall be like clouds, which shall oppress, corrupt, fall, contend, and bruise upon earth. 10 They shall cause lamentation. No food shall they eat; and they shall be thirsty; they shall be concealed, and those spirits shall rise up against the sons of men, and against women; for they come from (from them) during the days of slaughter and destruction (Lk. 4:33, 36; Matt. 8:28-34).�

From this evidence we can clearly see that Stephen E. Jones is entirely discredited through his manipulative deception. All one need do is to read Jude to see the connection to Enoch 15. In verse 4 we read: �For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men ...� In verse 6 it continues: �And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation ...� Verse 7 speaks of �fornication� (race-mixing) and �going after strange flesh.� Verse 11 says: �... they have gone in the way of Cain.� Did not the angels of Genesis 6 commit the same violation as Satan did with Eve? Notice the same term �clouds�, as in Enoch 15, above in Jude 12! Notice the term �wandering stars� in verse 13, and remember the curse of a �vagabond� on Cain. Also notice the Book of Enoch is referred to in Jude 14! In verses 15-19, notice all the evil traits of the descendants of those wicked, satanic people. Then use the cross-references to each verse of Jude and expand on the subject. Then, in turn, check all the cross-references to those passages, and you will encounter a never-ending Bible study on this subject. Jones and all the other antichrist, anti-seedliners should be ashamed! Today America and all the other Israel nations are becoming one giant Sodom and Gomorrha going after strange flesh, and Jones and company are wittingly or unwittingly aiding and abetting that satanic objective.

Think of the situation from this perspective: If we Two Seedliners prove to be incorrect (and we are not), it would only amount to embarrassment, but if the anti-seedliners prove to be in error (and they are), the end would not only amount to embarrassment, but total racial disaster. I am persuaded that at the Judgment, Yahweh will ask the antichrist, anti-seedliners �Why did you give My enemies aid and comfort?� The Two Seedliners should take solace in the fact they are performing their Yahweh given duty. If there is one single piece of Biblical evidence that the false Judeans (�Jews�) were and are the descendants of Cain, Matthew 23:35 and Luke 11:51 should erase all doubt where it says: �That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias ...� [the father of John the Baptist]. Who else killed Abel but Cain? Who else was a �liar� and a �murderer� from the beginning but Satan and his offspring, Cain? (John 8:44) Our Redeemer would have been highly derelict and dishonest had these charges not been true. Yet this is one of the many fantastic positions held by the anti-seedliners.

 

GENESIS 3:15 AND THE AVENGER OF BLOOD

 

Rightly does The Wycliffe Bible Commentary describe Genesis 3:15 as a �blood-feud� on page 8, also called the protoevangelium (first gospel). Having quoted this Wycliffe observation several times in the past, I will omit it here. I cease to be amazed at the preposterous commentary by the antichrist, anti-seedliners on this passage! First of all, in order to be a �blood-feud�, it would require two kinds of blood to be involved! Secondly, the �avenger of blood� had to be a family member next-of-kin. Therefore, the only way we can look at the murder of Abel by Cain is from a kinsman ship perspective. Knowing that the Almighty would not break His own laws, we need to look at Abel�s murder from a Biblical-legal point-of-view. By doing so, we can identify who the �avenger of blood� for Abel�s murder was and continues to be.

Before resolving that, we must determine whether it was accidental or deliberate homicide. Inasmuch as Yahweh confronted Cain before he committed his deed, warning him that �sin croucheth at the door�, it was premeditated murder, not man-slaughter. Nowhere in Scripture does it indicate otherwise. The question at once arises: why wasn�t Cain immediately punished for his crime? Among many reasons for that, there were no witnesses to the crime, and the �avenger of blood� in the person of Seth hadn�t been born yet. Thus, it became the responsibility of Seth and his descendants to avenge for Abel�s murder, (chief among them, Yahshua the Messiah). Therein lies the �enmity� for both parties of Genesis 3:15. To put this in a better light, I will quote from The Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible, volume A-C, page 422:

�AVENGER OF BLOOD (-!#, redeemer; fully, .$% -!#, redeemer of blood). The meaning of the verb -!#, is to loose, set free, redeem, vindicate; in the case of homicide, to vindicate the right of man to life, to free the land from the pollution that follows upon the spilling of blood without due cause. To avenge is not to seek revenge, but to take vengeance on behalf of someone, to redress a wrong by exacting from a wrongdoer satisfaction for an offense committed.

�In the OT the go�el (Redeemer, Avenger) is one � usually the nearest relative (which �goel� consequently has also come to mean) � charged with vindicating justice either by redeeming family property expropriated or sold under constraint or (in the case of go�el had�dam, the avenger of blood) avenging the unlawful slaying of a family member.

�The avenger of blood is a figure that appears in primitive justice. By ancient custom it was the right, indeed the duty, of persons (the nearest of kin) to avenge the slaying of a relative. This is perhaps why Cain feared for his life after slaying Abel (Gen. 4:14), and why Lamech justified himself (Gen. 4:23, 24) ...�

Remember that Abel�s blood cried out from the ground (Genesis 4:10)? The reason it did is because it was crying out for the avenger of blood to redeem or vindicate him. This will not be fully completed until Seth finishes his job as avenger of blood. From The Interpreter�s Dictionary of the Bible, volume A-D, we read this on page 321:

�AVENGER OF BLOOD [.$% -!&#, redeemer of blood]. The kinsman (brother, son ...) of a slain man who, as his redeemer ... was duty bound to claim back his life from the slayer by killing him. Cf. the LXX rendering, � �(P4`J,bT< J� "�:" (Num. 35:19): �he who performs the kinsman�s office with regard to blood.�

�In societies that lack a strong central authority the defense of private property and life is the task of the kinship group. The kinship group is both a defensive and an offensive unit: all are obliged to defend the right of any member, and all are accountable for the delict [misdemeanor] of any member. If a person is slain, his kin take vengeance for him upon the slayer, or on one or more of the slayer�s kinship group. This in turn may give rise to countervengeance, and a blood feud, terminating at times only with the extinction of a family, is set in motion.

�In biblical Israel the sovereignty of the kinship group over matters affecting its private interest was just beginning to be superseded by communal authority. Biblical law still recognizes the kinsman as responsible for prosecuting homicide (Num. 35:19) ...�

This should start to give you some idea of what the law required in the murder of righteous Abel. I�ve not so much as heard or read any of the antichrist, anti-seedliners ever mention the �avenger of blood�, or applied it in the case of Cain. From the book The Institutes of Biblical Law, by Rousas John Rushdoony, he says this on page 189: �In Deuteronomy 19:11-13, pity for a murderer in a case of premeditated murder is forbidden. No extenuating circumstances can be pleaded against the fact of murder by premeditation ... In Deuteronomy 19:21, the general law of justice is stated: the punishment must fit the crime; there must be a comparable restitution or death. Pity cannot be used to set aside justice.� Therefore, we are not to feel sorry for Cain or his descendants, the impostor-Judahites called �Jews�, for whatever divinely-directed punishment they receive. Inasmuch as they are also listed among the ten Canaanite nations mentioned in Genesis 15:19-21 known as �Kenites�, it is interesting what Rushdoony says again on page 189: �In Deuteronomy 7:16, pity for the evil inhabitants of Canaan was forbidden; God�s pity for them, and His patience, had lasted for centuries. Now the time for pity was gone: it was a time for judgment and death.� To be accurate, that punishment had been pending since the murder of Abel. Not only are the descendants of Cain, the �Jews�, guilty of the murder of Abel but also the Messiah, for they said: �His blood be on us and on our children�, Matthew 27:25. For that, the punishment must also fit the crime.

 

PUNISHMENT FOR CAIN WAS PUT ON HOLD

 

Yes, the Israelites, when entering Canaan, were instructed to annihilate every last Canaanite to the man, including women and children, and have no pity on them. While they killed many of them, they didn�t complete the job. We are told in Numbers 33:55 the following: �But if ye will not drive out the inhabitants of the land from before you; then it shall come to pass, that those which ye let remain of them shall be pricks in your eyes, and thorns in your sides, and shall vex you in the land wherein you dwell.� The Canaanites, or what we know today as �Jews�, are still in all of our Israel lands, and indeed, they are pricks and thorns to us. Just remember that, the next time they draw blood from you in the form of usury, or income tax, or you send your children off to fight in a �Jewish� contrived war; just to mention a few of the ways they gouge us.

From what we have contemplated in this paper, it should be obvious that it is foolish to consider Genesis 3:15 and 4:1 without taking the �avenger of blood� into account. The anti-seedliners totally miss this significant part of the equation. To condense it into the fewest words possible, I will quote from the New Concise Bible Dictionary, edited by Derek Williams, page 46: �AVENGER OF BLOOD. A murder victim�s next-of-kin had responsibility for avenging the death; he was allowed to execute the murderer but no-one else (Dt. 24:16). The law of Moses [sic. Yahweh] provided safety for accidental killers ...� This responsibility fell to Seth and his descendants, and when Deuteronomy 24:16 is correctly understood, it will be seen to be playing itself out today!

 

 

 

 

HOME