We Are At War
We would remind everyone who is not aware of it, we are in a WAR; not the one in Afghanistan. This WAR has been going on for about 7,000 years. This WAR is between the GENETIC children of Yahweh and the GENETIC children of Satan; this WAR is between the White Children of Adam and Eve and the offspring of Satan through Cain whom we know today as �Jews.� Yes, the �Jews� are the literal progeny of Satan walking about today in shoe-leather. The �Jews� of today and the scribes and Pharisees of Messiah�s time should not be confused with the True Tribe of Judah.
The religion practiced by the Pharisees in Jesus� time was based exclusively on the Babylonian Talmud. This, according to Rabbi Morris Kertzer, �The Talmud consists of 63 books of legal, ethical and historical writings of the ancient rabbis. It was edited five centuries after the birth of Jesus. It is a compendium of law and lore. IT IS THE LEGAL CODE WHICH FORMS THE BASIS OF JEWISH RELIGIOUS LAW AND IT IS THE TEXTBOOK USED IN THE TRAINING OF RABBIS.�
In his lifetime Michael Rodkinson, the assumed name of a �Jew� who was one of the world�s great authorities on the Talmud, wrote �History of the Talmud.� This classic on the subject was written by Michael Rodkinson in collaboration with the celebrated Rabbi Isaac M. Wise.
In his �History of the Talmud� Michael Rodkinson, on page 70, states: �Is the literature that Jesus was familiar with in his early years yet in existence in the world? Is it possible for us to get at it? Can we ourselves review the ideas, the statements, the modes of reasoning and thinking, ON MORAL AND RELIGIOUS SUBJECTS, which were current in his time, and MUST HAVE BEEN EVALUATED BY HIM DURING THOSE THIRTY SILENT YEARS WHEN HE WAS PONDERING HIS FUTURE MISSION? To such inquiries the learned class of Jewish rabbis ANSWER BY HOLDING UP THE TALMUD ... and the question becomes, therefore, an interesting one TO EVERY CHRISTIAN. What is the Talmud? THE TALMUD, THEN, IS THE WRITTEN FORM OF THAT WHICH, IN THE TIME OF JESUS WAS CALLED THE TRADITIONS OF THE ELDERS AND TO WHICH HE MAKES FREQUENT ALLUSIONS.�
Arsene Darmester in the book �The Talmud� states: �Judaism finds its expression in the Talmud, it is not a remote suggestion and a faint echo thereof, but it...has become incarnate, in which it has taken form, passing from a state of abstraction into the domain of real things. The study of Judaism is that of the Talmud, as the study of the Talmud is that of Judaism...they are two inseparable things...they are one and the same... the Talmud, is a complete expression of religious movement, and this code of endless presumptions and minute ceremonials represents in its perfection the total work of the religious idea...The miracle was accomplished by a book, The Talmud...
�The Talmud is composed of two distinct parts the Mishna and the Gemara; the former the text, the latter a commentary upon the text...term Mishna we designate a collection of decisions and traditional laws embracing all departments of legislation, civil and religious...
�This code, the work of several generations of rabbis ...nothing can equal the importance of the Talmud unless it be the ignorance that prevails concerning it... This explains how it happens that a single page of the Talmud contains three or four different languages, or rather specimens of one language at three or four stages of degeneracy...many a Mishna of five or six lines is accompanied by fifty or sixty pages of explanation...is law in all its authority; it constitutes dogma and cult; it is the fundamental element of the Talmud...
�The daily study of the Talmud which among Jews begins with the age of ten to end with life itself necessarily was a severe gymnastic for the mind, thinks to which it acquired incomparable subtlety and acumen ...since it aspires to one thing: To establish for Judaism a �Corpus Juris Eccleiastict!��
John Lightfoot understood this when he wrote in his �A Commentary on the New Testament From the Talmud and Hebraica,� volume 3, page 334 in reference to John 8:37: �From this whole period it is manifest that the while tendency of our Savior�s discourse is to SHEW THE JEWS THAT THEY ARE THE SEED OF THAT SERPENT that was to bruise the heel of the Messiah: else what could that mean, ver. 44. �Ye are of your father the devil,� but this, viz. �Ye are the seed of the serpent?��
Let�s now take a look at John 8:38. While we do, let�s remember that in verse 41 the �Jews� were very defensive of the implication of being �born of fornication.� Being born of fornication implies being born of an impure racial union, Greek #4202. Dr. Spiros Zodhiates in his �New Testament Word Study Dictionary,� page 1201: �In John 8:41, �We be not born of fornication� means, �We are not spurious children, born of a concubine, but are the true descendants of Abraham.��
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. Now let�s read that passage with that in mind: �They answered and said uno him, Abraham is our father. Yahshua saith unto them, If ye were Abraham�s children, ye would do the works of Abraham.�
Verse 39 really clears up the whole matter. �The Holy Bible New Century Version,� puts it very nicely in verse 39: �They answered, �Our father is Abraham.� Jesus said, �If you were really Abraham�s children, you would do the things Abraham did.��
A �Commentary On The Holy Bible,� edited by Rev. J.R. Dummelow M.A., page 789 remarks on John 8:37 in this manner: �Their desire to kill Christ, the promised seed of Abraham, proved that they were not children of Abraham, but Satan.�
�The Adam Clarke�s commentary on the Bible,� abridged by Ralph Earle, agrees with Dr. Lightfoot on John 8:37 as quoted here above: �My word hath no place in you. Or, �this doctrine of Mine has no place in you.� You hear the truths of God [Yahweh] but you do not heed them; the word of life has no influence over you. And how can it when you seek to kill Me because I proclaim this truth to you? From what is here said it is manifest, says Dr. Lightfoot, that the whole tendency of our Savior�s discourse is to show the Jews that they are THE SEED OF THE SERPENT which was to bruise the heel of the Messiah. Else what could that mean, v. 44: �Ye are of your father the devil� i.e., �Y are the SEED OF THE SERPENT?��
Maybe, at this point, it would be well to consider Lightfoot�s history. For this we shall go to his �A Commentary on the Hew Testament from the Talmud and Hebraica,� volume 1, in the introduction, pages iii & iv: �Lightfoot was one of many earnest Christian scholars of his time. Master of St. Catherine Hall, Cambridge, he possessed the classical learning of those days. He was at home in Latin and Greek, and he was a master not only of classical Hebrew, but also of Mishnaic Hebrew and the Aramaic of the Talmud. We are reminded of his elder contemporary Lancelot Andrews, one of the translators of the King James Version of the Bible, who composed prayers for himself in Hebrew!
�Aside from Lightfoot�s scholarly writings and productive teaching, he took part in the Westminster Assembly, which sat from 1643 to 1649. He belonged to the Eurasian party, favoring an established church, and this is reflected in the present work in his letter of thanks to Gilbert, who Lightfoot says is, �by divine providence, Archbishop of Canterbury, Primate of all England.� Lightfoot lived in troubled times. Born in the last days of Queen Elisabeth, he was a boy when the King James Version was published. He sat in the Westminister Assembly while the Long Parliament beheaded King Charles I, then somehow survived the restoration under Charles II, all the while maintaining a real Christian testimony and making an important scholarly contribution to Scripture study. From his commentary one would hardly guess at the turbulent times in which he lived. One point of interest. In the days of Oliver Cromwell, when Lightfoot was at the height of his powers, the Jews were allowed again in England after 250 years of proscription (prohibition).�
From Lightfoot�s comments on John 8:37, we can clearly see he understood the �Jews� were THE SEED OF THE SERPENT of Genesis 3:15. This is the same position as taken by the teachers of Two Seedline. It seems, then, that Lightfoot understood the tenet of Two Seedline! But Mr. Jeffery A. Weakley, a fervently caustic anti-seedliner, in his booklet �The Satanic Seedline, Its Doctrine and History,� page 15 says: �The Satanic Seedline doctrine was brought into the Identity teaching with San Jacinto Capt and Wesley A. Swift. Actually, San Jacinto Capt claimed he had gotten Wesley A. Swift started...In any case, Wesley Swift presented the Seedline doctrine to Gerald L.K. Smith... From there Swift got Bertrand Comparet started...and shortly later San Jacinto Capt...Introduced William P. Gale to Swift...�
I submit that the Two Seedline doctrine has been around for quite a long time, and was NOT the invention of Capt, Swift, Comparet, or Gale as Weakley spuriously suggests. Now for some quotes from other commentaries on John 8:37: �Matthew Henry�s Commentary,� volume 5, page 997: �Now Christ overthrows this plea, and exposes the vanity of it by a plain and cogent argument: �Abraham�s children will do the works of Abraham, but you do not do Abraham�s works, therefore you are not Abraham�s children.� The proposition is plain: If you were Abraham�s children, such children of Abraham as could claim an interest in the covenant made with him and his seed, which would indeed put an honour upon your, then you would do the works of Abraham, for to those only of Abraham�s house who kept the way of the Lord, as Abraham did, would God [Yahweh] perform what he had spoken, Genesis 18:19.�
�The Interpreter�s Bible,� volume 8, page 605: �Nonetheless, Christ�s answer to them is grim indeed. You are not of God. You are of your father the devil, AND HIS NATURE SHOWS ITSELF IN YOU. He was a murderer from the beginning; and you seek to kill me; he has nothing to do with the truth, AND TRUE TO YOUR BLOOD AND ANCESTRY, when and because I tell you the truth, you do not believe it, resent it, fling it from you.�
�Peake�s Commentary on the Bible,� page 855: �The Jews have described themselves as �descendants of Abraham;� this leads to a second point. If they were truly Abraham�s children they would resemble their father; but in seeking to kill an innocent man, whose only crime is to speak the truth, they are unlike Abraham as could be Jesus [Yahshua] is the Son of God, and declares the truth he receives from God; but who can their father be/ The charge is repelled with a sneer; they [the Jews] are the children of God; Jesus )it is implied [by the Jews]) was born of fornication. This slander was current later; probably it was used in anti-Christian propaganda in John�s time, and perhaps earlier. But they [the Jews] are not God�s children; if they were, they would love his Son ... No, their father is the devil; that is why they seek to kill, and prefer falsehood to truth ...�
In chapter 2 of Jeffrey A. Weakley�s booklet �The Satanic Seedline, Its Doctrine and History,� he puts together a composition on words found in Genesis 3:6, 13 and 4:1. These words are: tree, food, desired, took, fruit, eat, beguiled and knew. It will be necessary here to give this chapter a critical review, for some of the conclusions in his research are sadly faulty.
Actually, Weakley proves Two Seedline in many ways rather than disproving it, and you will see what we mean as we go along. At this time, we will consider the word �tree� in his presentation. Eventually, it is hoped that we will cover this entire chapter. It�s simply amazing, for Weakley doesn�t believe or understand some of his own research: �We will now look at the Satanic Seedline doctrine as compared to Scripture. Any teaching that we hear should not be accepted or rejected as truth until we have reexamined the Scriptures. This is what the Bereans did in Acts 17:10-11. So let us now be �more noble� as the Bereans and search the Scriptures on this matter. The first point of the Seedline doctrine is that Eve was sexually seduced. In Genesis 3:6 we find: �And when the woman say that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.� Now according to the seedliners, this passage is just written with good taste and is really talking about a sexual encounter. Let�s see. First we�ll examine some words in this very: tree: (ets_ � a tree (from its firmness); hence wood. (Strong�s concordance) � (1) a tree (follows analogy of the verb atsh, to be hard, firm) (2) wood, specially of a wooden post, stake, gibbet. (Gesenius� Lexicon) � tree, wood, timber, stock, plank, stalk, stick, gallows. (Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, edited by R. Laird Harris). This Hebrew word is translated over 100 times in the Old Testament as: �tree(s),��wood,��timber,��sticks,��helve,��stalks,��staff,��gallows,��stock(s),� and �plank.� From the above, I find it difficult to believe that this tree from which Eve obtained the fruit was anything other than a tree.�
I will agree with Mr. Jeffrey A. Weakley that it is paramount that we should examine and reexamine the Scriptures. And, yes, the Two Seedliners do point to Genesis 3:6 as a sexual encounter with Satan, at least on the part of Eve. Yes, the word �tree� as used in this verse means a hard, firm or solid tree such as wood, timber, stocks, helve, stakes, gallows, stock, or plank. As a matter of fact, the counterpart word for the Hebrew #6086 (tree) is #3586 in the Greek and means the same thing. The problem, though, for understanding the �trees� of Genesis 3 is in the Hebrew Idiom.
George M. Lamsa in his booklet �Idioms In The Bible Explained,� points out, page ix, that both the �tree of knowledge� and the �tree of life� have sexual connotations. In addition, Lzamsa said this in his introduction: �I chose the King James text from which to pick the idioms quoted in this book (unless otherwise indicated), because the King James text is the most widely used Bible translation in the English speaking world. Moreover, the King James translators were more faithful to the texts from which they translated into English, making fewer additions and omissions than later English version translators and revisors. They translated many Eastern idioms and metaphors literally, not knowing their true meaning. For instance, �You shall handle snakes.� They did not know that the word �snake� refers to �an enemy.��Beware of dogs� was not understood to be �beware of gossipers,� in Semitic languages.�
So we can observe very quickly Weakley is taking literally the idioms of Genesis 3, as did the KJV translators when they translated many of the Hebrew and Greek idioms in a literally manner. The bottom line is: if one cannot understand the idiom, one cannot understand the Bible, in numerous cases. As we go along, you will find that Weakley discovered many idiomatic expressions in various places of his research and refused to accept their idiomatic meanings. He did this mainly BECAUSE THE LITERAL MEANINGS OUTNUMBERED FIGURATIVE MEANINGS.
������������������ Literal Trees, or Figurative Trees?
Maybe we can find what the �tree of knowledge of good and evil� is if we first investigate the meaning of the �tree of life.� In both cases, the word for tree is #6086, meaning LITERALLY a firm wooden tree. In the various Bible commentaries and dictionaries there are a multitude of ideas on what the �tree of life� might be.
It really goes back to Weakley�s definition of a wooden tree. As stated before, the counterpart word in the Greek is #3586, and means literally a wooden tree. In Dr. Spiros Zodhiates��New Testament Word Study Dictionary,� he says this on page 1023 concerning #3586, (xulon)
�In Revelation 2:7; 22:2, 14, it is conceivable that the �tree of life� may be an allusion to the cross and could be rendered �wood of life� (a.t.) Sept.: Genesis 1:11-12, 2:9.�
This makes a lot of sense in other words, the wooden tree represents the wooden cross (whatever kind of device it might have been) on which our Messiah wrought Redemption! And how else do we �eat� of �the tree of life� but by the partaking of Communion? Inasmuch as a few Bible scholars understood it this way, let�s now consider some of their comments:
�Nelson�s Illustrated Bible dictionary,� page 1072, under the topic �TREE OF LIFE:��Adam and Eve�s inability to eat from this tree after their sin showed that they failed to gain immortality, or eternal life. Because of their sin, they were subject to death and dying. This condition lasted until the coming of Jesus Christ [Yahshua], the second Adam, who offers eternal life to all [of Adam] who believe in Him.� (1 John 5:11-12)
�Matthew Poole�s Commentary On The Holy Bible,� volume 3, page 1008: �...That they may have right to the tree of life; to Christ, called before, the tree of life, [Revelation 22] ver. 2, by virtue of the promise, chap ii. 7, for no works of ours will give us a right of purchase to it. And may enter in through the gates into the city ...�
�A Commentary On The Holy Bible,� edited by Rev. J.R. Dummelow M.A., page 10: �...the fruit of His perfect obedience, and have a right to the TREE OF LIFE. �As in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.��
Can you now see that Weakley, in refusing to see the Hebrew idiom, is insisting that our Messiah was a wooden tree? Not only was our Savior not a wooden tree, but neither was �the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.�
To follow up on the theme of the �tree of life,� let�s quote some different passages where it is mentioned: �For many great miseries shall be done to them (Israel) that in the latter time shall dwell in the world, because they have walked to great pride. But understand thou for thyself, and seek out the glory of such as be like thee. For unto you is paradise opened, THE TREE OF LIFE is planted, the time to come is prepared, plenteousness is made ready, a city is builded, and rest is allowed, yea, perfect goodness and wisdom.� (2 Esdras 8:50-52)
Testament Of Levi as found in �The Lost Books of The Bible and The Forgotten Books of Eden:��And he shall open the gates of paradise, and shall remove the threatening sword against Adam, and he shall give to the saints to eat from the TREE OF LIFE, and the spirit of holiness shall be on them. And Beliar shall be bound by him, and he shall give power to His children to tread upon the evil spirits. And the Lord (Yahweh) shall rejoice in His children, and be well pleased in His beloved ones for ever. Then shall Abraham and Isaac and Jacob exult, and I will be glad, and all the saints shall clothe themselves with joy. And now, my children, ye have heard all; choose, therefore for yourselves either the light or the darkness, either the law of the Lord (Yahweh) or the works of Beliar.� (Testament of Levi 5:26-30)
Once we comprehend that YAHSHUA THE MESSIAH is the TREE OF LIFE, our apprehension is opened up for us and our understanding comes to life. Notice verse 30 speaks of both �light� and �darkness;� the very same forces which are at WAR with each other in our world today. Beliar is another name for Satan. These two trees in Eden were not literal wooden trees, but walking, talking & breathing metaphorically idiomatic trees representing genetic people. The �tree of life� was Yahshua the Messiah and the �tree of knowledge of good and evil� was Beliar or Satan.
Such family trees are described in Mark: �And he cometh to Bethsaida; and they bring a blind man unto him, and besought him to touch him. And he took the blind man by the hand, and led him out of the town; and when he had spit on his eyes, and put his hands upon him, he asked him if he saw aught. And he looked up, and said, I see MEN WAS TREES WALKING.���������� (Mark 8:22-24)
It seems this former blind man had better eyesight than the anti-seedliners of today. It is simply amazing, as the anti-seedliners of today dance up and down and insist that there is only one seed in Genesis 3:15, and that seed is only one man, Yahshua. It takes TWO to have ENMITY, as enmity means: MUTUAL hatred. Mutual means: give or felt by one another in equal amount.
The word for �enmity� in Genesis 3:15 is the Hebrew word #342, and is found also in Numbers 35:21-22; Ezekiel 25:15; 35:5-6, and in every case, two parties are involved. The only way, therefore, for Genesis 3:15 to be speaking of �one seed� is if the Redeemer were to hate Himself. Can you see now how ridiculous such a premise is, that the anti-seedliners promote? They have really backed themselves into a corner on that one! Then, they rant and rave that there wasn�t anything sexual concerning Eve�s seduction, but that it was all a matter of mental seduction. They insist it is all an invention of the Two seedliners.
That there are others who interpret the seduction of Eve in a sexual manner, let�s refer to �The Interpreter�s Dictionary of the Bible,� volume R-Z, page 696. While this publication does not take a stand on the subject one way or the other, at least it points out that this is one of the interpretations; �Sexual knowledge. The tree of knowledge is the means to sexual knowledge. The advocates of this interpretation have pointed out that the verb (Strong�s #3045), �know� occurs frequently as a euphemism for sexual relations (Genesis 4:1; 19:5). When Adam and Eve acquired the knowledge of good and evil, they recognized their nakedness and experienced feelings of shame. Finally, several parallel passages containing the phrase �knowing good and evil� can be reasonably interpreted as referring to sexual knowledge. (Deuteronomy 1:39; 2 Samuel 19:35; �1QSa,� abbr. for �Rule of the congregations.�(?))
Matthew Poole states on Deuteronomy 1:39: �Had no knowledge between good and evil; a common description of the state of childhood, as Jonah 4:11.�
One unnamed anti-seedliner said: �Most seedliners go wrong at this point by correlating the eating or touching of the fruit of the tree to intercourse. But, when Adam received his directions from God, there was no female around for intercourse, so how could these words be made ti imply sexual activity. Now, where does that leave these speculators (meaning Two Seedliners)?�
We will next see this is not speculation, on our part, concerning the words �eating� and �touching� having sexual connotations.
������������������ What Was It That Eve Did �Eat�?
���������������������� And What Did Eve �Touch�?
Re. �EAT,� #398 (akal, to eat, also TO LAY), Scripture
�Genesis 3:13, And Yahweh said unto the woman, What is this that thou hast done? And the woman said, The serpent beguiled me, and I did EAT.�
Supporting Scripture: �Such is the way of an adulterous woman; she EATHETH, and wipeth her mouth (vagina/vulva), and saith, I have done no wickedness.� (Proverbs 30:20)
Another Supporting Scripture: �Stolen waters are sweet, and bread (EATEN) in secret is pleasant.� (Proverbs 9:17)
(Lamsa: idiom: �Making love to another woman in secret appears pleasant.�)
Note: The word �EAT� of Genesis 3:13 is the same word for �eateth� of Provers 30:20! In Proverbs 9:16 �EATEN� is implied.
RE: �TOUCH,� #5060 (naga, to touch, also to have sexual intercourse)
Scripture: �But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not EAT of it, neither shall ye TOUCH it, lest ye die.� (Genesis 3:3)
Supporting Scripture: �And Abimelech sais, What is this thou hast done unto us? ONE OF THE PEOPLE MIGHTY LIGHTLY HAVE LIEN WITH THY WIFE, and shouldest have brought guiltiness upon us. And Abimelech charged all his people, saying, He that TOUCHETH (sodomizes) this man or his wife shall surely be put to death.� (Genesis 26:10-11) (KJV)
Second Supporting Scripture: �And Yahweh said unto him (Abimelech) in a dream, Yea, I know that thou dist this in the integrity of thy heart; for I also withheld thee from sinning against me: therefore suffered I thee not to TOUCH her (Sarah).� (Genesis 20:6)
Third Supporting Scripture: �So he that goeth in to his neighbour�s wife; whosoever TOUCHETH her shall not be innocent.� (Proverbs 6:29)
Note: The word �TOUCH� of Genesis 3:3 is the same word for �touch� or �toucheth� of Genesis 20:6; 26:11 and Proverbs 6:29.
Conclusion: Both the words �EAT� and �TOUCH� can have sexual connotations when they are in that context.
Now for some remarks from some various commentaries on these passages which contain the words �TOUCH� and �EAT� as used in Genesis 3:3:
�Matthew Poole�s Commentary On The Holy Bible,� on the word �TOUCH� of Genesis 26:11, volume 1, page 61: �...and being applied to a woman, it is used for a defiling or humbling of her as Genesis 20:6; Proverbs 6:29)
The �Adam Clarke�s Commentary on the Bible,� abridged by Ralph Earle on the word �TOUCH� of Genesis 26:11, page 54: �That goeth in to his neighbor�s wife; that lieth with her, as the phrase signifies, Genesis 19:31; 29:21; 23 & etc. TOUCHETH her, i.e., hath carnal knowledge of her, as this word is used in Genesis 20:6; 1 Corinthians 7:1, and in Terence, and other writers. Shall not be innocent; shall be punished as a malefactor, either by God or man.�
�The Interpreter�s Bible,� on the word �TOUCH� of Proverbs 6:29, volume 4, page 822: �...There is no escape from the dire punishment that awaits the man who indulges in illicit love.�
�Matthew Poole�s Commentary On The Holy Bible,� on the word �EAT� of Proverbs 30:20, volume 2, page 274: �Such, to secret and indiscernible, is the way of the adulterous woman; of her who, though she be called and accounted a maid, het in truth is an adulteress; not a common strumpet, for of such the following words are not true, but one that secretly lives in the sin of adultery or fornication. She eateth, to wit, the bread of deceit in secret, by which is understood the act of filthiness, Proverbs 9:17; 20:17, which such persons do as greedily desire, and as delightfully feed upon, as hungry persons do upon bread.�
The �Adam Clarke�s Commentary on the Bible,� abridged by Ralph Earle on the word �EAT� of Proverbs 19:17, page 541: �Stolen waters are sweet. I suppose this to be a proverbial mode of expression, importing that �illicit pleasures are sweeter than those which are legal.��
The first of the anti-seedliners as far as I know is Stephen E. Jones, in his 1978 book �The Babylonian connection, to take issue with the Two Seedliners.
You may well ask, then, what is the purpose for my writing about this anyway? The answer to this question is: I am duty bound by Yahweh�s Law to witness to the truth to the best of my ability as I understand it. In other words, if I know a crime has been committed, in the process of being committed or there is a danger of a crime about to be committed, if I do not witness to what I know, I am as guilty as the person committing the crime. In this case, we are not talking about a single individual crime, we are talking about tens of thousands of crimes. The news of these crimes has been withheld from the public by the usual news media and writers of the past.
The law concerning the witness of a crime is found in Leviticus 5:1 which reads: �And if a soul sin, and hear the voice of swearing, and is a witness whether he hath seen or know of it; IF HE DO NOT UTTER it, then he shall bear his iniquity.�
A second Scripture which commands us to expose the truth is found in Ephesians 5:11, which says: �And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them.�
�The New Treasury of Scripture Knowledge,� edited by Jerome H. Smith says this on page 132: �...such an one shall bear his iniquity � shall be considered as guilty in the sight of God of the transgression which he has endeavored to conceal, and must expect to be punished for hiding the iniquity with which he was acquainted.�
I refuse, therefore, to sit idly by and share the guilt for these crimes with our enemy. The anti-seedliners, by not identifying the enemy, are sharing equally in these crimes with the �Jews.� By taking this stance, they are actually doing more damage than the �Jews� are implementing. They are, in practice, partaking of these �Jewish� crimes.
Inasmuch as I have put in a very considerable amount of time studying in the last several years and know the nature of the enemy, I find it my duty to inform whoever I can of who our opponent is and his agenda. I find it is quite difficult when there are hecklers in the background implying we don�t have an enemy. The anti-seedliners venomously deny this message and they will go to any length to discredit this obvious truth.
One of the devious ploys the anti-seedliners implement is to point out that the Two Seedline message can be found in the Babylonian Talmud. By doing this, they hope to catch you off guard by implying everything in the Talmud is 100% false. Also their aim is to establish GUILT BY ASSOCIATION. When such a maneuver is practiced, on is scraping the bottom of the barrel. Stephen E. Jones used this type of stratagem in his book �The Babylonian Connection,� page 142, when he quoted the Talmud, Yebamoth, 103-103b: �When the serpent copulated with Eve he infused her with lust. The lust of the Israelites who stood at Mount Sinai came to an end, the lust of idolaters who did not stand at Mount Sinai did not come to an end.�
Again, Jones quoted Yebamoth, 63a: �R. Eleasar further stated: What is meant by the Scripture text, �This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh?��
Jones then keyed in on a �Jewish� footnote: �This teaches that Adam had intercourse with every beast and animal but found no satisfaction until he cohabited with Eve.�
Jeffrey A. Weakley, in his �The Satanic Seedline, Its Doctrine and History,� page 20, also quotes the Talmud Yebamoth 103b as did Stephen E. Jones. Both Jones and Weakley do not quote this passage in its entirety. In this passage from the Talmud, there are numbers from 4 to 11 which are explained later in footnotes.
I will now quote this entire passage with the footnotes incorporated in brackets from my copy of the Soncino Talmud: �There (4) [In the warning to Laban] one can see the reason (5) [Why even good should not be spoken] since he (6) [Laban] might possibly mention to him the name of his idol; (7)[Cf. Genesis 31:30] what evil, however, could be involved here? (8) [In the incident with Jael} That of infusing her with sensual lust. For R. Johanan stated: When the serpent copulated with Eve, (9) [In the Garden of Eden, according to a tradition] he infused her (10) [i.e., the human species] with lust. The lust of the Israelites who stood at Mount Sinai, (11) [And experienced the purifying influence of divine Revelation] came to an end, the lust of the idolaters who did not stand at Mount Sinai did not come to an end.�
Both Jones and Weakley quote from the Zohar, the �sacred� book of the Cabala, which is separate from the Talmud. Neither Jones nor Weakley seem to be quoting directly from the Zohar, but indirectly from �The Talmud Unmasked,� by Rev. I.B. Pranaitis, page 52.
If this is the case, neither one quotes this passage faithfully; such as using the proper italics where it shows. I will now quote this passage exactly as Pranaitis presents it: �In Zohar (I, 28b) we read: �Now the serpent was more subtle than any beast of the field, etc. (Genes. III, I) �More subtle� that is towards evil; �than all the beasts� that is, the idolatrous people of the earth. For they are the children of the ancient serpent which seduced Eve.� The best argument used by the Jews to prove Christians are of a race of the devil is the fact that they are uncircumcised. The foreskin of the non-Jews prevents them from being called the children of the Most High God. For by circumcision the name of God � Schaddai � is completed in the flesh of a circumcised Jew. The form of the letter Isch is in his nostrils, the letter Daleth in his (bent) arm, and ain appears in his sexual organ by circumcision. In non-circumcised gentiles, therefore, such as Christians, there are only the two letters Isch and Daleth, which make the word Sched, which means devil. They are, therefore, children of the Sched, the Devil.�
A �Jew� could be circumcised a hundred times and it would not bring him under the Covenant. If anything, this passage proves Two Seedline, as the �enmity� of Generis 3:15 is clearly evident, and is at work here; but the �Jews� have everything backward as they are the ones who are the children of the devil. Ted R. Weiland in his booklet �Eve, Did She Or Didn�t She?� quotes one other passage from the Talmud, Shabbath 146a: �For when the serpent came upon Eve he injected lust into her.�
If the purpose of the anti-seedliners is to use the old worn-out accusation of guilt by association, they could have used more references from the Talmud. Here are some passages they could have used for their ambiguous claims: �The idea is that the serpent infected Eve (i.e., the human race) with lust, from which, however, those who accept the moral teachings of the torah are freed.� (Shabbath 146a)
�In cursing we commence with the least; first the serpent was cursed then Eve and then Adam!� (Berachoth 61a)
�I will kill Adam and marry Eve; but now, I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed. Similarly do we find it with Cain, Koran, Balaam, Doeg, Ahitophel, Gehazi, Absalom, Adonijah, Uzziah and Haman, who set their eyes upon that which was not proper for them; what they sought was not granted to them and what they possessed was taken from them.� (Sotah 9b)
�When the serpent came unto Eve he infused filthy lust into her.� (Avodah Zarah 22b)
������������������ Is There Any Truth in the Talmud?
The anti-seedliners base their whole argument on the premise that anything found in the Talmud has to be entirely false. As a matter of fact, this is their ace in the hole, so they think. All they have to do is point out that the Two Seedline doctrine is found in the Talmud, and magically , the teaching is condemned in many people�s minds.
It is not my goal here to defend and uphold the majority of the contents found in these books. It is well recognized they are the most evil books ever written. But we must even give the devil his just dues. If the Two Seedline doctrine is condemned for being part of the writings of the Talmud then all of their contents are condemned. Let�s take a look at a few passages found in them: �...Judah [is called] a lion�s whelp; of Dan [It is said] Dan shall be a serpent, Naphtali [is called] a hind let loose; Issachar a strong ass; Joseph a firstling bullock; Benjamin a wolf that ravineth. [Of those sons of Jacob where a comparison with an animal] is written in connection with them, it is written; but [in the instances where such a comparison] is not written, there is the text: What was thy mother? A lioness; she counced among lions etc.� (Sotah 11b)
Well, what do you know; who would have ever thought there was anything like that in the Talmud? It would appear the anti-seedliners are going to have to reject the main tenants of Israel Identity because they can be found in the Talmud. Maybe they will have to go back to Judeo-churchianity. They are going to have to take a black permanent marker and blot out the entire chapter of Genesis 49 along with all the cross-references, all because it can be found in the Talmud.
If they blot out Judah, there goes the Redeemer. Are you beginning to see how ridiculous an argument the anti-seedliners advocate? Can you see now how dangerous the ploy of GUILT BY ASSOCIATION can be? Actually, it�s a �Jewish� kind of trick. Well, let�s see what else we might find in the Talmud: �He is worthy of inheritance of two tribes�: He is worthy of an inheritance like Joseph, as it is written: Joseph is a fruitful bough... whose branches run over the wall; he is also worthy of the inheritance of Issachar, as it is written: Issachar is a strong ass. There are some who say, His enemies will fall before him, as it is written: With them he shall push the people together, to the ends of the earth. He is worthy of understanding like Issachar, as it is written: And the children of Issachar which were men that had understanding of the times to know what Israel ought to do.� (Baba Kama 17a)_
Isn�t it simply amazing what can be found in the Talmud? If we use the argument of the anti-seedliners, we are going to get in all kinds of trouble. If we apply their hypothesis, we will have to destroy most of Yahweh�s written Word. One very adamant unyielding anti-seedliner is Lt. Col. Jack Mohr, AUS Ret. Who wrote a pamphlet entitled �Seed of Satan, Literal or Figurative?� He used this same worn-out tactic of GUILT BY ASSOCIATION when he said on page 8:
�Now this is pretty far fetched, I think, for it is the same teaching you find in the Babylonian Talmud, and in most heathen �phallic religions� of the Far East. Wise [James E. Wise] implies that the FRUIT of the trees of knowledge of good and evil, was sexual union, even though the Hebrew word for �fruit,� as it is used here (#6529), means �Bough; fruitful; reward.� There is hardly any room here for any sexual interpretation of the word, unless your mind is sexually oriented. Then I guess you can see sex in anything. Certain the SEEDLINERS SEE SEX IN THIS PASSAGE. Shows you where their mind is, doesn�t it?� (Note: Gesenius� includes �offspring� for #6529)
By the way, judging from his article, Jack Mohr believes that the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil were wooden trees; that the serpent was an ordinary snake and the fruit was simply some kind of fruit from some fruit tree. Thus, Jack Mohr, in implying this, makes the tree of life (the Messiah) a wooden tree. I have to question anything Jack Mohr might write for he does not appear to be of pure Israelite stock.
You will also notice that Jack Mohr points a finger at James E. Wise. It seems it is quite all right for the anti-seedliners to name names, but it is anathema for the Two Seedliners. More on Jack Mohr later, but for now, back to the Talmud: �And the sons of Zerah: Zimri, Ethan and Erman and Calcole and Darda, five in all. Why the phrase: five of them in all? Because all five were equally destined for the world to come ...�
Are we now supposed to throw out the entire Zerah branch of Judah because it can be found in the Talmud? If you listen to the anti-seedliners, this is their premise. In other words, the very mention of anything found in the Talmud automatically labels it as an evil teaching.
�Why are the years of Ishmael mentioned? So as to reckon by them the years of Jacob, as it is written, And these are the years of the life of Ishmael, a hundred and thirty and seven years. How much older was Ishmael than Isaac? Fourteen years, as it is written, And Abram was fourscore and six years old when Hagar bore Ishmael to Abram, and it is also written, And Abraham was a hundred years old when his son Isaac was born to him, and it is written, And Isaac was threescore years old when she bore them.
How old then was Ishmael when Jacob was born? Seventy-four. How many years were left of his life? Sixty-three; and it has been taught: Jacob our father at the time when he was blessed by his father was sixty-three years old. It was just at that time that Ishmael died, as it is written, Now Esau saw that Isaac had blessed Jacob...so Esau went unto Ishmael and took Mahlath the daughter of Ishmael Abraham�s son the sister of Nebaioth.
�Now once it has been said, �Ishmael�s daughter� do I not know she was the sister of Nebaioth? This tells us that Ishmael affianced (engaged) her and then died, and Nebaioth her brother gave her in marriage. Sixty-three and fourteen till Joseph was born make seventy-seven, and it is written, And Joseph was thirty-three years old when he stood before Pharaoh. This makes a hundred and seven. Add seven years of plenty and two of famine, and we have a hundred and sixteen, and it is written, And Pharaoh said uno Jacob, How many are the days of the years of thy life? And Jacob said unto Pharaoh, The days of the years of my sojournings are a hundred and thirty years .
�But [we have just seen that] they were only a hundred and sixteen? We must conclude therefore that he spent fourteen years in the house of Eber, as it has been taught: �After Jacob our father had left for Aram Naharaim two years. Eber died. �He then went forth from where he was and came to Aram Naharaim. From this it follows that when he stood by the well he was seventy-seven years old. And how do we know that he was seventy-seven years old? As it has been taught: �We find that Joseph was away from his father twenty-two years, just as Jacob our father was absent from his father.� But Jacob�s absence was thirty-six years? It must be then that the fourteen years which he was in the house of Eber are not reckoned.�
While I have not checked this entire passage for error, it appears this part of the Talmud could be used as a valuable tool for figuring badly needed chronology. While I know the �Jews� cannot call Jacob their father through the Covenant, the evidence presented here could be used to confirm much of what is not recorded in our present Bibles.
Therefore, I believe some passages from the Talmud would be creditable to our research, if we are careful how we use them, the Two Seedline doctrine without exception. I have several other passages of the Talmud which I could quote to enforce my position, but I think, by this time, you can see my point.
In fact, if I were to use key words in the Old Testament and run them in the search mode of my copy of the Talmud on CD-R in my computer, no doubt, I could come up with at lest 500 examples of truth contained within these writings.
While I do not recommend the Talmud as a good source of inspiration, nevertheless, it is not 100% totally false information as the anti-seedliners imply. I only wish I had a copy of the Zohar on CD-R. Some might condemn me for studying the Talmud, but how else can we be as �wise as serpents� unless we know what the enemy has written? After all, I don�t hear anyone condemning Rev. I.B. Pranaitis, Henry Ford or Elizabeth Dilling.
������������������ Lt. Col. Jack Mohr Shoots Himself
������������������������ In The Foot Several Times
Lt. Col. Jack Mohr plays the game a little differently than some in his 26 page booklet �Seed of Satan, Literal or Figurative?� He uses the first six paragraphs to brag on military service. He gives a review of how he served in Korea as advisor to the southern Korean forces; about being captured, tried and condemned to die by the People�s Court, how he escaped and was the first to be decorated by General William Dean; how he repatriated American prisoners returning from North Korean prison camps and how he was a speaker for the American Opinion Speaker�s Bureau.
By trying to influence you with such an impressive military record, he tries to lead you to believe that this qualifies him to be an authority on the Scriptures. If he didn�t do any better in the military than he did in this booklet, I think the Almighty I never served under his command. You will see what I mean in a moment.
After acknowledging there is an argument in Identity circles concerning the Two Seedline interpretation of Genesis 3:15, he begins by attacking James E. Wise on his thesis �The Seed Of The Serpent.� On pages 4 and 5 he attempts to define the Hebrew words �enmity,��seed� and �tree� as found in Genesis 3. On the word �enmity,� he shoots himself in the foot the first time. Here is what he says: �Let�s look at a few more �key� words in this verse [Genesis 3:15]: Enmity � #966 � Heb. �Biyn� meaning �between;��among;��within.� In actuality it has seven meanings, only the three mentioned above can fit this setting.�
As I was reading this booklet over very carefully, it didn�t seem plausible that the word �enmity� could mean �between,��among� or �within.� I then decided to check with my �The Complete Word Study of the Old Testament,� by Dr. Spiros Zodhiates which has the Strong�s Hebrew numbers above each word. I discovered the word was NOT #966 at all, but #342. I found further the word had only one meaning, not seven.
In the �Gesenius� Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon to the Old Testament,� which sometimes uses several pages to define a word, says only this as the meaning: �...enmity; hostile mind...��The Strong�s Exhaustive Concordance Of The Bible, the Hebrew And Chaldee Dictionary,� defines the meaning of the Hebrew word �enmity� as: �ya-baw; from 340; hostility: � enmity, hatred.� Because the Hebrew word #340 is referred to, we must take that one in consideration also��ay-yab; a primitive root; to hate (as one of an opposite tribe or party); hence to be hostile: � be an enemy.�
For further confirmation that the word �enmity� means �hostility,� let�s consider some passages where #342 is found. According to the �Wigram Englishman�s Hebrew-Chaldee Concordance of the Old Testament,� #342 is used only five times. Once in Genesis 3:15 along with Numbers 35:21-22; Ezekiel 25:15; 35:5. Now, let�s read these and compare them to Genesis 3:15.
�And I will put ENMITY between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; and it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel� (Genesis 3:15)
�Or in ENMITY smite him with his hand, that he die: he that smote him shall surely be put to death; for he is a murderer: the revenger of blood shall slay the murderer, when he meeteth him. But if he thrust him suddenly without ENMITY, or have cast upon him any thing without laying of wait...� (Numbers 35:21-22)
�Thus saith Yahweh; Because the Philistines have dealt by revenge, and have taken vengeance with the despiteful heart, to destroy it for the old HATRED.� (Ezekiel 25:15)
�Because thou hast had a perpetual HATRED, and hast shed the blood of the children of Israel by the force of the sword in the time of their calamity, in the time that their iniquity had an end.�(Ezekiel 35:5)
You can see very clearly here, this is a very vicious and murderous type of enmity, and Lt. Col. Jack Mohr says the word �enmity� means �between,� or �among� or �within.� this blunder alone should discredit his entire thesis on the subject of Two Seedline doctrine.
Lt. Col. Jack Mohr then shoots himself in the foot again in his �Seed of Satan, Literal or Figurative?� on page 10, commenting on 2 Corinthians 11:3, when he says:
�When the Apostle Paul admonished the church at Corinth not to be a partaker of Eve�s sin, he said: �For I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent (if it was Satan, why didn�t Paul say so, he was usually outspoken when it came to naming the adversary), beguiled (#1185 ��deleazo:� meaning to entrap; allure; beguile; entice,� (nothing of a sexual nature here) Eve through his subtlety (#3834 ��ponourgos� [sic. Panourgos] meaning: �shrewdness; craftiness;�) should be corrupted from the simplicity that was in Christ.�
Again, Lt. Col. Jack Mohr uses the wrong Strong�s number. This time it is the word �beguiled� in 2 Corinthians 11:3. The Strong�s number for �beguiled� in this case is #1818, not #1185. Mohr is correct that the word beguile #1185 deleanzo means: entrap; allure or entice, but I repeat it is not the word used in 2 Corinthians 11:3. You can see from this, if the meaning is that which Mohr implies, the word most likely would have been #3884, to deceive by false reasoning. Again, I repeat, the correct word in 2 Corinthians 11:3 is #1818, to beguile thoroughly.
The �Thayer Greek-English Lexicon,� takes us to an unusual scripture on the Greek word #1818 in the �Apocrypha, History of Susanna,� v. 56 which reads: �So he put him aside and commanded to bring the other, and said unto him, O thou seed of Chanaan [Canaan], and not of Juda, beauty hath DECEIVED [#1818 beguiled] thee, and lust hath perverted thine hear.� (Note: #1818; Same as for Eve)
This is the story of a woman of great beauty who lived with her wealthy husband Joakin in Babylon where he held court in his house. About Joakin�s was a large garden where Susanna strolled and bathed herself during the heat of the day.
One day, after the litigants had left, two Canaanite-Jew elders inflamed with desire for Susanna plotted among themselves to force her affections. Preparing to bathe, after her maids had departed, they confronted her with the alternative of either submitting to them, or being exposed as having an affair with a young man. Upon this Susanna chose to be unjustly accused rather than submit.
Upon this these Canaanite-Jews gave their false testimony at the court the following day, and she was found guilty. But there was a judge by the name of Daniel who was not swayed by their false testimony and requested a new examination of the witnesses. After parting the witnesses, Daniel examined them separately, demanding them to identify the tree in the garden where Susanna and her alleged lover were seen. Their contradictory answers betrayed their treachery, and Daniel said to them as quoted in verse 56 above. (Taken, in part, from two articles entitled �Special Notice to All who Deny Two Seedline, #5 & #6, Clifton A. Emahisher�s Teaching Ministries, 1012 N. Vine Street, Fostoria, Ohio 44830, Phone (419) 435-2836)