Special notice to ALL WHO
DENY two seedline, #3
By: Teacher Clifton A.
Emahiser
1012 North Vine Street
Fostoria, Ohio 44830
Phone (419) 435-2836
Two papers have now been
completed on Special Notice To All Who Deny Two Seedline, #1 & #2. This
will be #3. If you don�t have numbers #1 & #2, you may want to get copies in
order to bring yourself up-to-date on this present one. How many more there will
be in this series has not yet been determined. Again, it cannot be overstated;
we are in a 7,000 plus year-old WAR. In this paper we will continue to point out
what this WAR is all about and who the opposing forces are. In the last paper,
we left off with Colossians 2:15 showing how Yahshua put the
Satanic-Jew-seedline to an open shame and stripped them of their authority. With
this endeavor, we will start with Luke 11:49-51. We will use this passage rather
than Matthew 23:34-36, for there are problems with Matthew�s version. Now
reading from Luke:
�49 Therefore also
said the wisdom of Yahweh, I will send them prophets and apostles, and some
of them they shall slay and persecute: 50 That the blood of all the prophets,
which was shed from the foundation of the world, may be required
(�6.0JXT,
to demand an account of)
of this generation [#1074, genea]; 51 From the blood of Abel unto the
blood of Zacharias, which perished between the altar and the temple: verily I
say unto you, It shall be required of this generation [#1074, genea].�
Here, Messiah is charging
the �Jews� with the murder of Abel. It would have been criminally illegal on the
part of Yahshua to make such a charge if it were not true. The only way He could
legally have produced such a serious charge was if the �Jews� of His day were
descended from Cain, for no other person in all of history was responsible for
the murder of Abel, but Cain. Most anti-seedliners are strangely quiet on this
passage, although Ted R. Weiland in his booklet Eve, Did She Or Didn�t She?
Erroneously tries to prove the scribes and Pharisees were true Israelites [on
page 68] where he makes the following statement:
�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�
Weiland further states on
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.�
If what Weiland is implying
were true, the Messiah would be condemning the entire race of Israelites
(including Himself, His family, the Apostles, Disciples, etc.) in speaking of
them as a �generation�, for the word �generation�, used in this passage, is
#1074, and in the Greek means �race� according to The Complete Word Study
Dictionary New Testament by Spiros Zodhiates, page 362:
�... a race; then generally in the sense of affinity of communion based upon the
sameness of stock. Race or posterity ... A descent or genealogical line of
ancestors or descendants...�
The Greek-English Lexicon Of The New Testament by Joseph Henry Thayer
agrees, page
112:
�... a begetting, birth, nativity ... passively, that which has been
begotten, men of the same stock, a family ... the several ranks in a
natural descent, the successive members of a genealogy ... metaphor, a
race of men very like each other in endowments, pursuits, character; and
especially in a bad sense a perverse race...�
It would appear that
maybe Weiland should have checked his Greek before he made such a spurious
statement. Therefore, the only conceivable meaning this passage could convey is:
the �Pharisees� were the genea of Cain. Yahshua plainly told the �Jewish�
Pharisees, John 10:26,
�... ye are not
my sheep...�
There is nothing more blasphemous than to imply that Yahshua the Messiah was a
racial brother to the �Jews�!
Evidently, Ted R. Weiland
never read Josephus, Wars 2:8:2. Josephus makes it quite clear the
Pharisees and Sadducees were not Israelites by birth. Let�s now read this
passage:
�For there are
three philosophical sects among the Jews. 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 Essens. These last are Jews [Judah]
by birth, and seem to have a greater affection for one another than the
other sects have.�
It would appear from this
that of these three 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 Jews by birth? I know that
in John 8:33 & 37, it appears from the rendering, that the scribes and Pharisees
might 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, but that doesn�t make them of the true Tribe of Judah. Recent
archaeological finds are showing evidence two of Esau�s wives were, more than
likely, of the Cain-Satinic-seedline. Even Howard B. Rand in his book
Primo-genesis, plate 11, at the end of his book, shows Pharaohs Ramesses I &
II of Egypt being descended from the House of Esau through Eliphaz.
As was indicated at the
start of this third paper, there are problems with Matthew 23:34-35, a parallel
of Luke 11:49-51, quoted above. In these passages, we are being told that (1)
The Almighty would send apostles and prophets (future tense), (2) That there had
been scribes and prophets sent in the past, (3) These past scribes and
prophets were all the way from, and including, Abel, to Zacharias, and, (4) That
this race of Cain was in times past, and throughout the future, responsible for
their deaths. If you will read these passages very carefully, you will notice
Abel was the first righteous prophet. The next thing, which should be noticed,
is the fact that Luke does not mention Zacharias� father. From research, it
seems to appear that someone added the words �son of Barachias� in
Matthew 23:35. If this is the case, it has caused a lot of confusion. Quoting
now from A Commentary on The Holy Bible, edited by Rev. J. R. Dummelow
M.A., page 701:
�Zacharias son of
Barachias] Jesus probably said �Zachariah�, as in St. Luke, without mentioning
the father�s name, but the evangelist or one of the earliest copyists, who
thought it necessary to distinguish among the twenty-nine Zachariahs of the Old
Testament, and understood the canonical prophet to be meant, added the words
�son of Barachias� There can be no real doubt that the person meant is
Zechariah, son of Jehoiada (see 2 Chr. 24:20), concerning whom there was a
Jewish tradition, that his blood could not be removed by washing, but remained
bubbling on the ground where it had been shed. In the Jewish* arrangement of the
books of the sacred Canon, Chronicles stands last, so that Jesus chose His
examples from the first and last books of the Jewish* Bible.�
[*It should be Hebrew, not
�Jewish� Bible.]
The story told here can be
found in many reference books. The account might even have a thread of truth.
The problem here is: it doesn�t square with the rest of Scripture. While the
story about the Zechariah of 2 Chronicles 24:20 is undoubtedly true, it is
probably the wrong Zechariah. No doubt, some copyist did insert �son of
Barachias�, for it is not found in Luke. The problem is: most of the recorded
prophets were after 878 B.C. when this particular Zechariah lived. In other
words, if Yahshua was talking about the prophets between Abel and the Zechariah
of 2 Chronicles 24:20, it would exclude most of the major and Minor Prophets. If
you will check the dates in which most of the major and Minor Prophets lived,
you will see what I mean. I am sure the Cain-Satanic-seedline killed most of
Yahweh�s prophets after 878 B.C. It�s like saying that the WAR started with the
killing of Abel and continued to the Zechariah of 2 Chronicles 24:20; then
subsided until the time of Yahshua, and then resumed. This WAR has been
continuous ever since it started in Genesis 3:15!
Another Zechariah to be
cited is the Zechariah mentioned by several commentaries and reference books,
who lived about 40 years after the Messiah. This one can be found in Josephus�
Wars 4:5:4. The only one left that really makes any sense is the death of
Zechariah, the father of John the Baptist, found in The �Protevangelion� of
The Lost Books Of The Bible And The Forgotten Books Of Eden, 16:9-21, page
36:
�9 But Herod made
search after John, and sent servants to Zacharias, when he was (ministering) at
the altar, and said unto him, Where hast thou hid thy son? 10 He replied to
them, I am a minister of God [Yahweh], and a servant at the altar; how should I
know where my son is? 11 So the servants went back, and told Herod the whole; at
which he was incensed, and said, Is not this son of his like to be king in
Israel? 12 He sent therefore again his servants to Zacharias, saying, Tell us
the truth, where is thy son, for you know that your life is in my hand. 13 So
the servants went and told him all this: 14 But Zacharias replied to them, I am
a martyr for God [Yahweh], and if he shed my blood, the Lord [Yahweh] will
receive my soul. 15 Besides know that ye shed innocent blood. 16 However
Zacharias was murdered in the entrance of the temple and altar, and about the
partition; 17 But the children of Israel knew not when he was killed. 18 Then at
the hour of salutation the priests went into the temple, but Zacharias did not
according to custom meet them and bless them; 19 Yet they still continued
waiting for him to salute them; 20 And when they found he did not in a long time
come, one of them ventured into the holy place where the altar was, and he saw
blood lying upon the ground congealed; 21
When, behold, a voice from heaven said, Zacharias is murdered and his
blood shall not be wiped away until the revenger of his blood come ...�
You can plainly see here the
description of Zacharias� death at the hand of Herod fits Luke 11:47-51 and
Matthew 23:34-36 quite well. More importantly, it doesn�t leave any huge gaps in
history from Abel to this Zacharias. Also, with the future tense, it covers the
entire time period from Yahshua up until our present time. There have been no
time-outs in this WAR. For evidence that it is a genetic race war between the
children of darkness and the children of light, I will quote the Believer�s
Bible Commentary by William MacDonald on Matthew 23:36, page 1291; also,
from page 1416 concerning Luke 11:50-51. While MacDonald doesn�t grasp the �Jew�
question, he understands it is a matter of �race�:
�The guilt of
all the past would come on the
generation
or race to which Christ [Yahshua] was speaking, as if all previous
shedding of innocent blood somehow combined and climaxed in the death of the
sinless Savior. A torrent of punishment would be poured out on the nation that
hated its Messiah without a cause and nailed Him to a criminal�s cross. He would
require of
that generation the
blood of
all God�s [Yahweh�s] spokesmen, beginning with the first recorded case in the
Old Testament, that
of Abel,
down to the last instance, that of
Zechariah, who perished
between the altar and the temple
... Therefore the Lord Jesus [Yahshua] ran the entire gamut of martyrs when He
mentioned Abel
and Zechariah.
As He uttered these words, He well knew that the generation then living would
put Him to death on the cross, and thus bring to an awful climax all their
previous persecution of men of God [Yahweh].�
It was not at the cross that
Messiah imposed revenge for all the prophets from Abel up until His time, but at
the siege of Titus at Jerusalem in 70 A.D. For insight on this, I will quote
from the Adam Clarke�s Commentary On The Bible, abridged by Ralph Earle,
pages 816 and 874. Again, these are comments on the passages;
Luke 11:47-51 and
Matthew 23:34-36:
�The Lord
[Yahshua] would, after the crucifixion of Christ [Yahshua], visit upon them the
murder of all those righteous men, that their state should grow worse and worse,
till at last the Temple should be destroyed, and they [were] finally ruined by
the Romans. Required. May be translated either by the word
�visited� or �revenged�, and the latter word evidently conveys the meaning of
our Lord [Yahshua]. They are here represented as having the blood among them;
and it is intimated that God [Yahweh] will come by and by to require it,
and to inquire how it was shed, and to punish those who shed it.�
If you don�t understand Two
Seedline, you can�t grasp the meaning of all that was going on at that
particular time. Now a comment from The Wycliffe Bible Commentary
concerning Matthew 23:34 on page 971:
�These
persecutions here foretold would fill up the measure of the Jew�s guilt, so that
divine destruction would come upon that
generation
[race of Cain] of the nation.�
The Matthew Henry�s
Commentary on Luke 11:49-51 found in volume 5, page 704:
�That they must
expect no other than to be reckoned with, as the fillers up of the
measure of persecution, v. 50, 51. They keep up the trade as it were in
succession, and therefore are responsible for the debts of the company,
even those it has been contracting all along from the blood of Abel,
when the world began, to that of Zacharias, and so forward to the end of the
Jewish state; it shall all be required of this generation [race], this
last generation of the Jews, whose sin in persecuting Christ�s apostles would
exceed any of the sins of that kind that their
fathers were guilty of, and so would bring wrath upon them to the
uttermost, I Thess. 2:15, 16. Their destruction by the Romans was so
terrible that it might well be reckoned the completing of God�s [Yahweh�s]
vengeance upon that persecuting nation ... They are reproved for opposing the
gospel of Christ [Yahshua], and doing all they could to obstruct the progress
and success of it, v. 52 ... They had not, according to the duty of their place,
faithfully expounded to the people those scriptures of the Old Testament which
pointed at the Messiah, which if they had been led into the right understanding
of by the lawyers, they would readily have embraced him and his doctrine: but
instead of that, they had perverted those texts, and had cast a mist before the
eyes of the people, by their corrupt glosses upon them, and this is called
taking away the key of knowledge; instead of using that key for the
people, and helping them to use it aright, they hid it from them; this is
called, in Matthew, shutting up the kingdom of heaven against men, Matt.
23:13.�
From Matthew Poole�s
Commentary On The Holy Bible we get this on Luke 11:51, volume 3, page 232:
�The Pharisees,
like a company of wretched hypocrites, under a pretence of their honouring the
memories of the prophets under the Old Testament, took great care to repair and
to adorn their sepulchers, while in the mean time their hearts were as full of
malice against the truth, and against Christ [Yahshua], and those who came to
reveal God�s [Yahweh�s] will to them, as ever were their fathers against the
prophets; and, saith our Savior, I who am the Wisdom of God, tell you, that I
shall send you apostles and prophets, and some of them you shall kill, others
you shall persecute; that all the righteous blood that hath been shed on the
earth, from the blood of Abel to the blood of Zacharias, may come on you...�
You will notice there is
some question as to who the correct Zacharias of Luke 11:51 and Matthew 23:35
is, but there is absolutely no question from these references just quoted as to
who was Abel�s killer. As you can plainly see, the anti-seedliners have a
problem with Luke 11:47-51 & Matthew 23:34-36, and they refuse to address it!
�AS THE SERPENT BEGUILED EVE
�
The next passage we are
going to consider is 2 Corinthians 11:2-3:
�... for I have
espoused you to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to
Yahshua. But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his
subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in
Yahshua.�
The anti-seedliners really
like to jump on this one and proclaim it�s all a matter of mental seduction. It
would appear that before Satan seduced Eve, she was a �chaste virgin� according
to this passage. Was Eve then a chaste virgin physically? or a chaste virgin
mentally? It should be obvious that Paul is telling the Corinthians that he
desired their minds not to be violated as Eve was physically violated. Why even
use the term �chaste virgin� if Eve was not violated physically? Notice that
Paul tells these Corinthians he had espoused them to one husband. He is saying
that he would rather not have them to become espoused to an additional husband
as Eve was. In other words, �I have espoused you to one husband� ... not
as �Eve.� Paul was simply implying that Eve, after her encounter with
Satan, was no longer a chaste virgin.
THE GREEK PROVES EVE
WAS BEGUILED MENTALLY & PHYSICALLY
The anti-seedliners simply
haven�t done their homework on the Greek in this passage. If it were speaking of
being mentally �beguiled� by words, it would have used the word #538, apatao,
meaning to deceive, bring, seduce or mislead into error. Or, if Paul would
have meant mental seduction, he probably would have used #5422 or #5423 as in
Galatians 6:3 & Titus 1:10. Instead the word #1818, exapatao, is used. W.
E. Vine in his An Expository Dictionary Of New Testament Words, page 112,
explains it like this:
�exapatao
is a strengthened form of apatao ... is rendered �beguile�,
2 Cor. 11:3; the more adequate rendering would be �as the serpent thoroughly
beguiled Eve.� So in 1 Tim. 2:14, in the best mss. this stronger form is
used of Satan�s deception of Eve, literally thoroughly beguiled; the simpler
verb apatao, is used of Adam.�
If a mental seduction were meant, the word #538, apatao, would have been
used. W. E. Vine repeats his explanation of the use of the Greek words
apatao and exapatao on pages 278 & 279 under the word
�deceive.� Under the heading �verbs�, on the word apatao he says this:
�... of
those who deceive �with empty words�, belittling the true character of the sins
mentioned, Eph. 5:6; ... of the fact that Adam was
�not
beguiled�, 1 Tim. 2:14, R.V. (cp. what is said of Eve; see exapatao
below...� Then
Vine continues:
�EXAPATAO ... intensive ... signifies to beguile thoroughly,
to deceive wholly...�
Thayer in his Greek
Lexicon and Dr. Spiros Zodhiates in his Word Study Dictionary N.T.
agree with W. E. Vine.
ANTI-SEEDLINER ADDRESSES 2
CORINTHIANS 11:3
Most anti-seedliners avoid
this passage with a twenty-foot pole, but, in his booklet Eve, Did She
Or Didn�t She? Ted R. Weiland takes a blind stab in the dark at 2
Corinthians 11:3. First, I would mention that Weiland does not point out the
difference between apatao and exapatao as has been
explained by W. E. Vine above. Without such an explanation, one can see how
Weiland might drift into a dangerous state of error. As I quote Weiland now on
pages 28-29, you can perceive his careless, or maybe blatant, omission:
�Just as they
misconstrue the Hebrew word, the seedliners distort the meaning of the Greek
word �exapatao�, translated �beguiled�, to mean �sexual seduction� in 2
Corinthians 11:3. �Exapatao� is found six times in the New Testament; it is
translated �beguiled� once and �deceived� five times. As was the case with its
Hebrew counterpart �nasha�, the Greek word �exapataho� [sic] is not once
used with sexual connotations.
�If �exapatao�
means to sexually seduce, as seedline teachers claim, then in Romans 7:11 the
Apostle Paul declared that sin sexually seduced him. In Romans 16:17-18 Paul
warned the Roman church lest divisive false teachers sexually seduced them, and
in 1 Corinthians 3:18 Paul warned the Corinthian Christians not to sexually
seduce themselves. Consequently, there is nothing in the biblical use of
either �nasha� or �exapatao� to corroborate, justify or validate the seedliners�
interpretation of these two words.
�If the serpent
corresponds to Satan, and the beguiling in Genesis 3 and 2 Corinthians 11 was
sexual in nature, then the Apostle Paul was warning the Corinthian Christians
against Satan�s intention to fornicate with them. If such were the case, then
why did not the other New Testament writers or Yahshua warn of the possibility?
Why? Because fornication was not the sin in Genesis 3, and it was not the sin
Paul warned the Corinthian Church about.�
Again, if Paul would have
meant mental seduction, he probably would have used #5422 or #5423 as in
Galatians 6:3 & Titus 1:10. Weiland doesn�t seem to understand the Bible, both
OT & NT, uses vulgarities. The prophets called both Israel and Judah �harlots�
and �whores.� The prophets really used some very graphic language at times, and
Paul was no different. I would rather not have to explain to a fully-grown man
about the birds and the bees! Yes, Paul did compare being �deceived� to
non-marital sexual intercourse! We do the same thing today. In order to explain,
I will illustrate with some modern-day vulgarities similar to the prophets of
old. When a man today gets cheated in a business deal, he might say something
like this: �That bastard screwed me out of 100 dollars� or �I really got shafted
on that one.� I think you get the point, and I would rather not elaborate any
further. Yes, Paul was telling the Romans in 7:11 that his own sin (comparable
to non-marital sexual intercourse) could destroy him. Yes, Paul was telling the
Romans in 16:17-18 that false teachers (comparable to non-marital sexual
intercourse) could corrupt them. Yes, Paul was telling the Corinthians in 1
Corinthians 3:18 that their own self-conceited wisdom (comparable to non-marital
sexual intercourse) could mislead them. And, Yes, Paul was telling the
Corinthian Christians in 2 Corinthians 11:3 that they could be mentally
�beguiled� as Eve was literally mentally and physically sexually �beguiled.� My
own advice is: be careful of people who use word trickery! The object is
to set you up on one word, and then clout you with five or six reverse meaning
examples. The �Jews� are masters at this sort of thing! Carefully go back over
the quotation by Weiland and see if he might have been setting us up. You might
start with �If exapatao means...� If you have his book, you might check to see
if he may have used that same system in other places. Watch for the setup
followed by several seemingly absurd examples! The con artist might approach
you something like this: �If this means this, look how absurd this, and this,
and this, and this, and this is.� Once you become aware of this devious
system, you can no longer be deceived into believing darkness is light and
bitter is sweet!
The Adam Clarke�s Commentary
on the Bible,
abridged by Ralph Earle, has this to say about this passage, 2 Corinthians
11:2-3, on page 1147:
�That I may
present you as a chaste virgin. There seems to be a reference to Lev. 21:14,
that the high priest must not marry anyone that was not a pure virgin. Here then
Christ [Yahshua] is the High Priest, the Spouse or Husband; the Corinthian
church, the pure virgin to be espoused; the apostle and his helpers had educated
and prepared this virgin for her husband and espoused her to him. ... As the
serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty. This is a strong reflection on
the false apostle and his teaching. He was subtle, and by his subtlety he was
enabled to corrupt the minds of the people from the simplicity of the gospel of
Christ [Yahshua]; or, to follow the metaphor, he had seduced the pure, chaste,
well-educated virgin from her duty, affection, and allegiance to her one and
only true Husband, the High Priest, Jesus Christ [Yahshua].�
HOME
