Special Notices to All Who Deny Two-Seedline, Part 21

  • Christogenea Internet Radio
CHR20171103-CAE-SpecNotice21.mp3 — Downloaded 2048 times
 
00:00

 

Special Notices to All Who Deny Two-Seedline, Part 21

Last week our program was prerecorded, and I must apologize that a file error prevented it from playing on our first stream. But we have four streams on which we play our live programs, and according to our logs the recording had played fine on the other three streams. So I apologize to the people who complained that they listened to the introductory music and never heard the podcast, but I wish they had tried switching to another stream because they would have heard it, and that is one reason why we have four streams, just in case one of them happens to fail. As much as we do this, on a tight budget and a staff of one, there are bound to be some failures.

So my wife Melissa and I were at Shelbyville, Tennessee for the #WhiteLivesMatter rally last weekend, and I hope to discuss that at length here tomorrow evening. But for now I will explain just one of the things that happened to us last Friday evening, but I cannot promise that I won’t repeat it tomorrow when I discuss the rally itself. I may indeed repeat myself.

I prerecorded last Friday’s podcast so that I could take the time in the evening to go out to the facility that had been rented by the League of the South for members attending the event. Not only were League members staying there, but also some of the people from the Traditional Worker’s Party – Matthew Heimbach’s group – and other so-called “Hard Right” groups that attended the rally.

Here lies the danger of ecumenism, that even when disparate groups seem to have the same objectives, if they have different foundational beliefs they will also have radically different views regarding the execution and the fulfillment of those objectives, and there will ultimately be dissension and discord.

I do not remember how the debate started, but I met a young man from the Traditional Worker’s Party who was arguing with me in defense of negros. I found it difficult to believe that anyone would argue in defense of negroes at a #WhiteLivesMatter rally, but that was what he was doing. He believes that Yahweh our God created negros, and that negros are men but only a little different from us, men who could even choose to “come to Christ and be saved”, as he put it. And this is the failure of traditionalism, but it is also the failure of the Kinist movement, which is a sort of obscure semi-Christian racialism that is blended together with Calvinism.

Paul of Tarsus had said in his epistle to the Ephesians, in chapter 4, that “4 There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; 5 One Lord, one faith, one baptism, 6 One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.” Of course, by saying all Paul did not necessarily mean what we may think he meant. Earlier in Ephesians, in chapter 2, Paul had explained that the purpose of Christ was to reconcile His people into one body. ALL OF HIS PEOPLE Then, writing a short time later, in Colossians chapter 3 he advised his readers to “15 …let the peace of God rule in your hearts, to the which also ye are called in one body; and be ye thankful.”

That calling was, of course, only for the scattered children of Israel, and the whole purpose of our Christian Identity endeavor is to identify, and to prove who they are – a task which we have accomplished many times over. But traditionalism refuses to acknowledge our identity, and it conflicts with much of the Scriptures. This racial form of traditionalism, such as the variety found in Kinism or in the Traditional Worker’s Party, is even worse. It conflicts with much of the Scriptures and it attempts to define many bodies of Christ. They promote segregation and nationalism, which are of course good, but still they insist that other races can somehow be Christian, which in essence promotes the idea that there may somehow be many distinct bodies of Christ, all separate from one another.

Again, speaking of the Body of Christ in 1 Corinthians chapter 12, Paul said “14 For the body is not one member, but many” and “20 …now are they many members, yet but one body.” So if one believes that a negro may be a Christian, how can one keep that negro from the rest of the Body of Christ? To attempt such a thing would be a direct contradiction to Scripture, as Paul said later in that same chapter “25 That there should be no schism in the body; but that the members should have the same care one for another.” If one wants to believe that a negro can be a Christian, then one must insist that White Christians must have the same care for negros than they have for their fellow Whites. Inevitably, the next step is to have negros in the bedrooms of your children.

This is universalism by the back door, as we have termed it in the past. We must reject this sort of universalism, because it is not only void from Scripture, it is also destructive to our objectives and more importantly, to our race. An honest examination of Genesis reveals that Yahweh God takes credit for having created only one race: the race of Adam, and the list of Adam’s descendants in Genesis chapter 10 were all originally White, as both history and archaeology can reveal. The scattered children of Israel were a portion of this wider White race, and to them was it promised that the earth would be delivered. We White Europeans are that portion, for the most part, and that too is established in our historical studies, where there are many proofs of fact. But we can also prove from Scripture that there are other races here, consisting of many nations, which Yahweh our God did not plant, and which Yahweh our God never took any credit for having created. These are corruptions of His creation, and eventually they shall all be rooted up.

But these people in the Traditionalist Worker’s Party really do not care about the details of Scripture. They only care about their orthodoxy, which is actually an orthodoxy of Roman and Byzantine Imperialism, but it has never been an orthodoxy of Christ. This young man from Heimbach’s group tried to tell me that negros bore the so-called “curse of Ham”. So I informed him that Ham was never cursed, and that ignited in him a series of circular arguments because he could not give me the Scriptures supporting the idea that Ham was cursed. When I cited Scripture and tried to explain what really happened, he only dug himself deeper and deeper into his rabbit hole. This is no surprise, because Heimbach himself has argued with some of our friends in Social Media threads, and he did very much the same thing, defending negros, responding in memes and refusing to actually discuss the Scripture.

The truth is that negros cannot be Christians, and negros were not really a part of ancient society at all. Sure, there were some mulattoes in Egypt who are described or pictured in Roman art, but their presence does not justify their existence any more than the mongrels inhabiting American cities today. Those mulattoes were the result of the ancient Nubian invasions of Egypt, and today we are being invaded in a different manner.

Christianity is a renewed Covenant between Yahweh our God and us White Europeans, who are His particular race of people. The Judaeans, Scythians, Barbarians and Greeks which Paul had said were “called into one calling” a little earlier in that same chapter of Colossians, were all different branches of that same race as they were dispersed in ancient times. They can all be traced to the ancient children of Israel. Language used in Paul’s epistles proves that assertion in many places. For that reason, Paul constantly spoke of reconciliation and of the promises to the fathers, and if the Hebrew patriarchs were not your fathers then you have no part in those promises. Paul also said in Acts chapter 26 that “6 …now I stand and am judged for the hope of the promise made of God unto our fathers: 7 Unto which promise our twelve tribes, instantly serving God day and night, hope to come.”

The promise in Christ was for twelve tribes, and for nobody else. Every war, every action, every event in history has a context and reasons behind it, having specific conditions which led to the circumstances by which it came. Christian Identity recognizes that and presents Christianity to the people who were the subjects of those promises within the historical context of Scripture. But Orthodox traditionalism presents Christianity to all people within the context of Roman Imperialism and Universalism. If we are to survive as a race, only Christian Identity provides the foundation we need and supplies the proper moral reasons to exclude the aliens who are destroying our race. The world we fight against was created by Eastern and Catholic orthodoxy, for the most part, and that is the world which we should want to destroy – so how can we embrace it when it has always worked against us?

Traditionalism is a failure, and it fails because it is opposed to Scripture and to the truth of our God. Yahweh is the God of Israel, as Christ Himself had professed, and Israel is reckoned by tribes from Genesis through the Revelation. Yahweh is not the God of strangers, and Christ came to fulfill the promises made to the fathers, all of which had nothing to do with strangers – and especially negros.

With this we shall begin our presentation of Clifton A. Emahiser’s, Special Notice To All Who Deny Two Seedline, #21 where Clifton actually departed from his usual introduction for this series, where he appropriately and continually warned of the racial war that we have already been embroiled in for the last several thousand years. So now he begins

SPECIAL NOTICE TO ALL WHO DENY TWO SEEDLINE, #21

It is highly important that we continue to pursue the subject of Two Seedline as taught in Genesis 3:15. The word “seed” in that verse is the same for the “serpent” as it is for the “woman.” Doggedly, the antichrist, anti-seedliners are insistent on interpreting the seed of the woman as “physical”, while rendering the seed of the serpent as “spiritual.” Yet “seed” in both cases is the same Hebrew word, #2233 [zera]. This is taking liberty with Yahweh’s Word beyond all logical reason, and is highly unethical and inconsistent.

Actually, as we had seen earlier on in this series, some of the anti-seedliners, such as Ted Weiland, insist that the seed of the serpent is physical while the seed of the woman is spiritual. That is because Weiland had said that the seed of the serpent is “the flesh”, while the seed of the woman is “the spirit”. But either way they twist it, Clifton’s explanation holds true: if one of these seeds is physical, then so is the other, and they cannot have it both ways. So Clifton continues:

This is the very same word as the “seed” promised to Abraham in Genesis 22:17, and [it] can only mean physical “seed.” There is a threefold use of the word “seed” in Scripture: (1) Agricultural, (2) Physiological, and (3) Figurative. A man’s “seed” or emission of “semen” is a physiological use of the term derived [in Scripture] from the Hebrew zera and the Greek sperma, sporos. Thus, zera in Genesis 3:15 for the serpent can only mean the zera or sperma of the serpent, that is, his offspring. Any other interpretation does violence to Yahweh’s Word in that passage. Insight On The Scriptures, volume 2, page 877 says, under the subheading “The seed of the Serpent”: “Jesus identified the Jewish religious leaders of his day as a part of the Serpent’s seed, saying to them: ‘Serpents, offspring [Gr., gen•ne’ma•ta, ‘generated ones’] of vipers, how are you to flee the judgment of Gehenna?’ — Mt. 23:33, Int.” The New Concise Bible Dictionary under “Seed” says: “... The offspring of people are called ‘seed’ (e.g. Gn. 3:15) ...”

The folly of Ted Weiland and the other anti-seedliners is a failure to recognize that the serpent’s seed is entirely distinct from the woman’s seed, along with his refusal to understand that the devil sowed one, and Christ sowed the other, as Yahshua explained in the parable of the wheat and the tares. This is so incredibly simple that a child could understand it, if only we accept the natural meanings of the terms. Ted Weiland cannot possibly be so stupid, so we can only imagine that he is being purposely deceptive. Again, Clifton continues:

Today, we live in a world controlled by this enemy, and we are losing our WAR to him. This enemy has full command over the political, economic and religious aspects of our lives. He is using all these tools in an attempt to destroy the White Israel Race. Therefore, it would be tremendously irresponsible, on the part of those who understand the nature of the enemy, to sit idly by saying nothing. This situation is serious enough in itself, without having distracters on the sidelines playing theology games while our very existence is at stake.

This also reflects the failure of those who cling to traditional so-called orthodoxy, and even those who think that they can find apostolic Christianity in the writings of the so-called Church Fathers. The enemies of Christ have very much been in control of the media, the book publishing ventures, which have been within the provenance of professional scribes and merchants for thousands of years. They corrupted parts of the Old Testament by the time of Jeremiah, 2,600 years ago, as the prophet attests where it is written “How will ye say, We are wise, and the law of the Lord is with us? In vain have the scribes used a false pen.” (Jeremiah 8:8, Brenton’s Septuagint.) The works of the early Christian writers which survived to us are those which the early Imperialist Church – the Church from the time of Eusebius – found the most tolerable and worthwhile to maintain. Many other writings of early Christians have been lost, even of those which are familiar to us, and as we now say, “memory-holed”, because they were not tolerable to Byzantine or Roman Church Imperialism. While the writings that survived have much merit, they cannot be used to formulate or even to support doctrine. Doctrine must come from the Word of God, from the prophets and the Gospels and from the apostles of Christ, and not from the traditions or interpretations of men. Clifton continues:

I have already completed 20 Special Notices To All Who Deny Two Seedline, and I will write another 20 should it be necessary. [Actually, Clifton ended the series with twenty-four.] This time we will key-in on a spurious statement made by Stephen E. Jones in his book The Babylonian Connection, on page 66. In my estimation, he has done more damage to the Israel Identity Message than anyone I’m aware of, though there are several others vying to overtake and surpass him for that position. This is what he said:

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

Before getting to Clifton’s response, I would immediately protest that, as it is explained in Revelation chapter 12, the serpent was a fallen angel, and his place was found no more in heaven. He was therefore not a “spirit-being”, but a physical being with a physical body – just like the Satan of Job who had admitted that he had come “From going to and fro in the earth, and from walking up and down in it.” Why does Jones fail to interpret Genesis chapter 3 with the information provided by Christ Himself in Matthew chapter 13 or Revelation chapter 12? It may only be imagined he too has an agenda. Clifton responds to Jones and says:

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

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

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

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

We can make two observations from these passages: (1) The words “seed”, “issue” and “children” are used interchangeably throughout, and that is the way it should be interpreted in Genesis 3:15! Although there are three Greek words used (#5043, #4690 and #815), the context remains the same. [And] (2) You will notice that I underlined the phrases as the angels of God in heaven”, “the angels which are in heaven” and “for they are equal unto the angels in these passages. It is obvious it is referring to the angels who did not confederate themselves with Satan in his rebellion [described in Revelation chapter 12]. It is very important we separate the angels who remained faithful to the Almighty from those who fell. This is an important little detail Stephen E. Jones elected to ignore. You will notice he chose to quote the passage where it said for they are equal unto the angels.” This is the height of intellectual dishonesty.

So Clifton asserts that Jones purposely used the line from Luke so that he did not have to include the words “in heaven”, which qualify what Christ meant in reference to the angels. Long ago we wrote a paper titled On Biblical Exegesis. The main assertion of the paper is that the Old Testament must be interpreted through the lens, so to speak, of the New Testament. This is because first, the Old Testament was corrupt, and Christ understood those corruptions, being God incarnate, but He did not come in order to give us academic explanations of the text. Rather, He came “to reveal things kept secret from the foundation of the world”. Therefore we must understand what He said when He made that assertion, what He said elsewhere in the Gospels and in the Revelation, and we must understand the Old Testament according to that. But Stephen Jones show no understanding of that simple concept, and would rather interpret the Old Testament for himself, by his own means, rather than by the means which Christ had provided for us. Now Clifton continues under the sub-title:

WHAT THESE PASSAGES REALLY MEAN

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

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

Actually, it was the only time it is recorded that Christ rebuked the Sadducees. Christ never addressed this party, ostensibly because it was comprised of Edomites almost exclusively. On this one occasion they accosted Him, but while He often addressed, preached to and had fellowship with Pharisees, He never sought out or addressed the Sadducees, and here He only responded to them when they accosted Him. Now Clifton responds to the remarks he cited from the Commentary:

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

Before continuing, let me say that Jones’ error is virtually the same error as that of the Sadducees, but in the opposite direction. While the Sadducees assumed that the condition of men after the Resurrection would be the same as they are here and now, Jones assumes that the fallen angels, those on earth, had existed in a condition equal to that of the angels in heaven. Both Jude and Peter describe these angels bound in “chains of darkness” as men who walk among us. Genesis chapter 6 proves beyond doubt that so-called fallen angels certainly can have children. Clifton continues:

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

While this is good, it is my opinion that this commentary has also created straw-man arguments, reading ideas into the passage which are not necessarily there in order to discredit them. Neither is it necessary to think that Luke somehow corrected Mark, simply because he was more precise and complete in his record. Rather, the gospels all being written in a very concise manner, the accounts often compliment and reinforce one another, one version frequently having greater detail than the others. Because Mark’s version is more general and omitted some details does not mean that it is wrong or expresses an understanding contrary to that of Luke. Clifton continues and says:

What I liked about this reference is that it takes us to Enoch 15:6, which we will read the entire chapter next (Enoch 15:1 to 15:10):

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

For my part, I must advise caution with the Ethiopic Enoch, as it has many interpolations. However most of these ideas are indeed expressed in the portions of Enoch literature which I would accept, which are found in the Dead Sea Scrolls. However the Scrolls are highly fragmentary. Clifton continues:

From this evidence we can clearly see that Stephen E. Jones is entirely discredited through his manipulative deception. All one need do is to read Jude to see the connection to Enoch 15. In verse 4 we read: “For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men…” In verse 6 it continues: “And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation…” Verse 7 speaks of “fornication” (race-mixing) and “going after strange flesh.” Verse 11 says: “… they have gone in the way of Cain.” Did not the angels of Genesis 6 commit the same violation as Satan did with Eve? Notice the same term “clouds”, as in Enoch 15, above in Jude 12! Notice the term “wandering stars” in verse 13, and remember the curse of a “vagabond” on Cain. Also notice the Book of Enoch is referred to in Jude 14!

Here we must warn, that the Ethiopic Enoch is not necessarily the same as the writings of Enoch to which Jude refers, so we certainly should not take that for granted. In my opinion, there is sufficient information preserved in the Dead Sea Scrolls fragments of Enoch to perceive what the apostles were referring to, without suffering the embellishments and interpolations of the Ethiopic version, which we should treat with great caution. Once again continuing with Clifton:

In [Jude] verses 15-19, notice all the evil traits of the descendants of those wicked, satanic people. Then use the cross-references to each verse of Jude and expand on the subject. Then, in turn, check all the cross-references to those passages, and you will encounter a never-ending Bible study on this subject. Jones and all the other antichrist, anti-seedliners should be ashamed! Today America and all the other Israel nations are becoming one giant Sodom and Gomorrah going after strange flesh, and Jones and company are wittingly or unwittingly aiding and abetting that satanic objective.

As we said, once we imagine that people of other races can be Christians, or once we even think of those alien bastards as people, we invite the curse of universalism. Clifton continues:

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

Since only Cain can be lawfully held responsible for the blood of Abel, and certainly not Seth – who was not yet even born – who could Christ have been addressing when He held them accountable for the blood of Abel? As Clifton is saying, it would have been very unrighteous of Yahshua to have held the descendants of Seth responsible for the blood of Abel or for the deeds of Cain. So there must have been descendants of Cain present whom Christ was addressing – and that is what we endeavor to prove. We have made that proof many times, but our adversaries only counter us by claiming that seed does not mean seed, that father does not mean father, and that when one man is from out of another, that is not his son. They pervert the very language because they have an agenda, and that agenda is a great distraction which prevents us from properly fighting our war as soldiers in Christ.

In our introduction this evening we spoke about the traditionalists and their attitude towards negros. The early Christian writers – those whose writings we still have – never said much about negros, simply because negros were not really a part of their world. They did not consider negros within the context of salvation any more than they considered penguins. But some of them did write about Two-Seedline. In fact, the late second and early third century writer and Christian bishop Tertullian had said in Chapter 22 of his Apology that “We are instructed, moreover, by our sacred books how from certain angels, who fell of their own free-will, there sprang a more wicked demon-brood, condemned of God along with the authors of their race, and that chief we have referred to. It will for the present be enough, however, that some account is given of their work. Their great business is the ruin of mankind. So, from the very first, spiritual wickedness sought our destruction.” So Tertullian certainly believed that there was a race of devils among us, and that God was not the author of that race. That is exactly what we call Two-Seedline. This along with other similar citations from other early Christian writers I had presented here in a July 19th, 2015 podcast titled Early Two-Seedline.

Next, Clifton continues under the subtitle:

GENESIS 3:15 AND THE AVENGER OF BLOOD

Rightly does The Wycliffe Bible Commentary describe Genesis 3:15 as a “blood-feud” on page 8, [a passage which is] also called the protoevangelium (first gospel). Having quoted this Wycliffe observation several times in the past, I will omit it here. I cease to be amazed at the preposterous commentary by the antichrist, anti-seedliners on this passage! [I think that Clifton meant to state that he never ceases to be amazed at the lies and deception concocted by these clowns.] First of all, in order to be a “blood-feud”, it would require two kinds of blood to be involved! Secondly, the “avenger of blood” had to be a family member next-of-kin. Therefore, the only way we can look at the murder of Abel by Cain is from a kinsmanship perspective. Knowing that the Almighty would not break His own laws, we need to look at Abel’s murder from a Biblical-legal point-of-view. By doing so, we can identify who the “avenger of blood” for Abel’s murder was and continues to be.

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

AVENGER OF BLOOD (גאל [ga’al], redeemer; fully, גאל חדם [ga’al ha-dam, or as it is transliterated below by our source, go’el had’dam], redeemer of blood). The meaning of the verb גאל [ga’al], is to loose, set free, redeem, vindicate; in the case of homicide, to vindicate the right of man to life, to free the land from the pollution that follows upon the spilling of blood without due cause. [The word dam, here with the article ha-dam, חדם, is blood.] To avenge is not to seek revenge, but to take vengeance on behalf of someone, to redress a wrong by exacting from a wrongdoer satisfaction for an offense committed.

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

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

Clifton now responds to this explanation from The Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible, and says:

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

AVENGER OF BLOOD [ , redeemer of blood]. The kinsman (brother, son ...) of a slain man who, as his redeemer… was duty bound to claim back his life from the slayer by killing him. [See] the LXX rendering, ὁ ἀγχιστεύων τὸ αἷμα ([in] Num. 35:19, ἀγχιστεύω is a verb which means to be next of kin, the adjective ἄγχιστος meaning nearest): ‘he who performs the kinsman’s office with regard to blood.’ [Brenton’s rendering of Numbers 35:19 reads “The avenger of blood himself shall slay the murderer: whensoever he shall meet him he shall slay him.]

In societies that lack a strong central authority the defense of private property and life is the task of the kinship group. [We must state that a truly Christian society would have no strong central authority. - WRF] The kinship group is both a defensive and an offensive unit: all are obliged to defend the right of any member, and all are accountable for the delict [violation of the law] of any member. If a person is slain, his kin take vengeance for him upon the slayer, or on one or more of the slayer’s kinship group. This in turn may give rise to counter-vengeance, and a blood feud, terminating at times only with the extinction of a family, is set in motion.

This is exactly the story of the Bible, beginning with Genesis chapter 3. The proof of the ongoing feud is found in Luke chapter 11 and Matthew chapter 23, where Christ professed that at some point a particular race of people would be held accountable for the blood of Abel and all the prophets which followed. Continuing with Clifton’s source:

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

We would think that the appropriate communal authority was only an implementation of the familial kinship authority on a local scale, as the family grew to become “a nation and a company of nations”, and that any authority that puts non-family members under the same consideration is adversarial to both family and God. Now Clifton responds and says:

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

Of course, we would assert that there are many others among the descendants of Cain besides the Jews, and many other branches on the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil awaiting a similar fate. Clifton now makes a conclusion under the sub-title:

PUNISHMENT FOR CAIN WAS PUT ON HOLD

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

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

There are some Identity Christians who actually believe that the wrath of God is limited to the Jews, or that it was limited to the land of Canaan. They love to quote Obadiah verse 18. But they never quote Obadiah verses 15 and 16, which include all of the other strangers among us and promises their destruction as well. This is why at the return of the Christ, the nations of the world are separated into two groups: sheep and goats. These nations are sorted out by the angels of God on sight, and all the sheep are preserved, while all the goats are destined for the lake of fire, the same fate to be suffered by the devil and his angels.

While the children of Israel were challenged to destroy all of the enemies of God who inhabited the land of Canaan, they failed, and for that reason their commission ended there. Ultimately, because of their failure, they themselves were bound to be scattered to the ends of the earth, But the judgment of Yahweh Himself goes far beyond the land of Canaan, and He will not fail. For this reason He said in Jeremiah chapter 30: “11 For I am with thee, saith the LORD, to save thee [Israel]: though I make a full end of all nations whither I have scattered thee, yet will I not make a full end of thee: but I will correct thee in measure, and will not leave thee altogether unpunished.”

This does not bode well for the negros that the so-called “traditionalists” insist upon defending. If you compromise with negros, or if your worldview is based on compromise with or recognition of any other race at all, you have already lost this 7,500-year old war. Our enemies must be dehumanized – but the Word of our God which is in our Bibles has already done that for us, if only we would read and understand.

CHR20171103-CAE-SpecNotice21.odt — Downloaded 15 times