Special notice to ALL WHO
DENY two seedline, #8
By: Teacher Clifton A.
Emahiser
1012 North Vine Street
Fostoria, Ohio 44830
Phone (419) 435-2836
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 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.
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 Essens. 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. For evidence that the �Jews� are not who they claim to be, I will now
quote from the 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.
[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.�
�... 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...�
It should be obvious from
this that the Judeans, 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.�
I am sure that Messiah was
not gathering an
accumulation of bastards, which the Pharisees and Sadducees for the most part
were. 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 [Gr., 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.)�
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 Lighfoot 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.�
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?�
�JEWISH� PROSELYTIZING
This is another aspect,
which should be delved into concerning the cursed �Jewish� nation at the
time of the Messiah. Without this understanding, it is difficult to comprehend
the conditions surrounding the �Jewish� nation at that period. Once that
view 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.]
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. 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 in 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...�
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
Judeans of that day were taking strange wives and strange husbands, one has to
be blind! They were taking others in marriages who were often descended from 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, as
there were some Essenes in Judea.
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 where 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. 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.� ... �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.�
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.�
HOME
