Y  The Two Seedlines  Y

In the oldest writing in Scripture, we learn from the book of Job,

"And the Lord said to Satan, From where do you come? Then Satan answered the Lord and said, From roaming about on the earth and walking around on it." (Job 1:7)

Satan was forced out of heaven and henceforth lives on the earth. Peter confirms this in the New Testament:

"Your adversary, the devil, prowls about like a roaring lion, seeking someone to devour." (1 Peter 5:8)

There are some who say the angels nor Satan could procreate. But where is this stated in the Scripture? The only reference that is made about those in heaven is where it is related that men and women are not given in marriage: Matthew 22:29‑30:

“Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God. For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.” (KJV)

Mark 12:25:

“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.” (KJV)

Luke 20:34‑35:

“And Jesus answering said unto them, The children of this world marry, and are given in marriage: But they which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry, nor are given in marriage.” (KJV)

There is not one word in any of these verses which say that they could not procreate if they wanted to. Only that they are not given in marriage, nor do they marry. Therefore, it is safe to assume that they could have children or procreate if they wanted; but apparently the desire to have sex will have been taken from them.  Therefore, those who base their belief that an angel or a spirit or whatever could not procreate is false; and not proven in the scriptures.

Now let’s take a look at Fallen Angels as the Scriptures refer to them.

Angels, Fallen:

Heavenly beings or divine messengers created by God who rebelled against Him and were cast out of heaven. The lord or prince of these fallen angels is Satan (Revelation 12:7‑9). Fallen angels, or messengers, continue to serve Satan; but their power is limited. Judgment awaits them in the future (Matthew 25:41; Revelation 12:9). The fallen angels referred to in (2 Peter 2:4) and (Jude 6) are possibly the beings referred to as "sons of God" in (Genesis 6:1‑4). There is no real distinction between fallen angels and Demons. (from Nelson's Illustrated Bible Dictionary) (Copyright (C) 1986, Thomas Nelson Publishers)

                                                                       Angels, Fallen?

ANGELS, FALLEN. Besides the good, elect, and unfallen angels two classes of fallen angels exist:

1). The angels who are unimprisoned and follow Satan as their leader. These apparently are identical with the demons (which see). During the Great Tribulation war will ensue between "Michael and his angels" and "the dragon and his angels" (Revelation 12:7). The dragon will be cast out of the heavenlies upon the earth and his angels with him (Revelation 12:8‑9). These are remanded to the abyss at the second coming of Christ (Revelation 20:1‑3) and consigned to the lake of fire after their final postmillennial revolt (Matthew 25:41; Revelation 20:10).

2). The angels who are imprisoned are the more wicked spirits that did not maintain their original estate "but abandoned their proper abode," being "kept in eternal bonds under darkness" awaiting judgment (Jude 6; 2 Peter 2:4; 1 Corinthians 6:3). Many Bible teachers hold that they include the fallen angels that cohabited with mortal women (Genesis 6:1‑2) and were imprisoned

in the nether world as a special punishment for their crime of breaking through God‑ordained orders of being. (m.f.u.) (from New Unger's Bible Dictionary) (originally published by Moody Press of Chicago, Illinois.  Copyright (C) 1988.)

Angels:

("messengers"). Often with "of God" or "Jehovah" added. Sometimes called the "holy ones," "saints." The "Angel of God" often means the Divine Word, "the Image of the invisible God," God Himself manifested (Colossians 1:15; Genesis 22:11‑12; 16:7,13; 31:11,13; 48:15‑16; 33:14; compare Isaiah 63:9; Exodus 3:2,6,14; 23:20‑22; Acts 27:23‑24, compare Acts 23:11; Numbers 22:22,32,35); accepting as His due the worship which angels reject as mere creatures (Revelation 19:10; 22:9); this manifestation was as man, an anticipation of the incarnation (John 1:18; Genesis 18:2,22; 19:1; 32:24,30; Joshua 5:13,15) ... SEEMINGLY BUT NOT CERTAINLY IMPLY THEIR HAVING BODIES. THEIR GLORIOUS APPEARANCE (Daniel 10:6), LIKE OUR LORD’S WHEN TRANSFIGURED AND AFTERWARD AS THE ASCENDED SAVIOR (Revelation 1:14‑16), AND THEIR HUMAN FORM (Luke 24:4; Acts 1:10), favor the same view. Close kindred of nature between angels and men is implied in both being alike called "sons of God" (Job 1:6; 38:7; Daniel 3:25,28) and "gods" (['ªlohiym (heb 430)]) (Psalm 8:5; Hebrew ['ªlohiym] "angels," Psalm 97:7; Luke 3:38) ... As finite, and having liberty, they were capable of temptation. Some "kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation" (2 Peter 2:4; Jude 1:6) ...      

“When man fell by evil angels, with beautiful propriety it was ordered that other angels, holy and unfallen, should minister for God in His reparation of the evil caused to man by their fallen fellow spirits. They rescued at Jehovah's command righteous Lot from doomed Sodom, Jacob from his murderous brother (Genesis 19; 32) ...” (from Fausset's Bible Dictionary)

We can see from these few Bible Commentaries and Bible Dictionaries that the angels can have human bodies and can come in unto the women and subvert them, or beguile them as one of them did Eve.

Other Scriptures in both the Old and the New Testaments tell further of Satan's activities, his authority and powers, and his final destruction. For our purpose, the Scriptures used here suffice to establish the advent of Satan on earth somewhere before Genesis 3:1. Even though it was not reported here, other scripture references give ample evidence that the event most assuredly took place.

This is a prime principle which we must acknowledge and accept, that the whole of Scripture testifies to all parts of Scripture. This principle is clearly evident in the case of Satan's advent; it is evident and necessary in other cases which we shall soon see.

There is an all‑out war of words being waged in the circles of the Israel Truth, otherwise known as the Israel Identity. Parties on both sides of the issue have drawn a line in the sand, and ideological clenched fists are being shaken from indignant participants.

Each participant, in his own way, is trying his best (or maybe his worst), in the most brutal manner, to draw ideological blood. They are aiming their rhetorical cutting words for no less than the proverbial jugular vein of their opponents in order to kill what they believe are damming heretical influences.

Both sides go to long and contentious lengths in an attempt to prove their undying convictions on this subject. To these opposing adherents, there is no common middle ground for compromise, nor can there ever be any. This is a matter where one is either totally correct or totally wrong; no gray middle areas.

Many simply do not have a complete knowledge of this subject, but will find themselves eventually, on one side of the fence or the other. If one tries to straddle the fence on this subject, he will only find himself with his pants torn, and espoused in the most unseemly location.

Like all controversies, there is usually a right and a wrong side to consider. And of course the Jews are throwing in their provocateurs to cause continued friction between the two sides, to the point that neither side will relent even a little in their core beliefs. In this study we will be considering who is wrong on this GREATEST OF ALL ISSUES, at least some believe that it is the greatest of all issues.

The concept of the Two Seedlines is; that Satan once ruled to a high degree in the dimensions of Yahweh. In ages past, not being satisfied with his high position, he tried to usurp the position of Yahweh Himself. Satan (the shining one)

"And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light." (2 Corinthians 11:14)

convinced 1/3 of Yahweh's angels to join him in his rebellion.

This rebellion is recorded in Revelation 12:7‑9:

"And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels, And prevailed not; neither was THEIR PLACE found any more in heaven. And THE GREAT DRAGON was cast out, THAT OLD SERPENT, CALLED THE DEVIL, AND SATAN, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him."

If you will notice very carefully, if you have a KJV with a good center reference (cf. Older World, Southwestern or newer Zondervan Classic) this verse takes you to Genesis 3:1, 4 (2 Corinthians; 2 Peter 2:4; Jude 6; Revelation 12:9), so there is no doubt here who the serpent of Genesis is. If you don't understand this connection with the above quoted passage and the SERPENT of Genesis 3:1, 4, you will have totally lost sight of the entire story. Yeashua the Messiah, being Yahweh incarnate, speak is of this, Satan's fall, in Luke 10:18:

"... I ‘beheld’ Satan as lightning fall from heaven."

This is past tense; not something in the future.

Beheld: Strong’s Concordance: #2334  theoreo (theh‑o‑reh'‑o); from a derivative of 2300 (perhaps by add. of 3708); to be a spectator of, i.e. discern, (literally, figuratively [experience] or intensively [acknowledge]):  KJV‑‑ behold, consider, look on, perceive, see. Compare 3700.

Lightning: Strong’s Concordance: #796  astrape (as‑trap‑ay'); from 797; lightning; by analogy, glare: KJV– lightning, bright shining.

Fall: Strong’s Concordance: #4098  pipto (pip'‑to); a reduplicated and contracted form of peto (pet'‑o); (which occurs only as an alternate in certain tenses); probably akin to 4072 through the idea of alighting; to fall (literally or figuratively): KJV‑‑ fail, fall (down), light on.

Christ said:

"Father, glorify thy name. Then came there a voice from heaven, saying, I have both glorified it, and will glorify it again. The people therefore, that stood by, and heard it, said that it thundered: others said, An angel spake to him. Jesus answered and said, This voice came not because of me, but for your sakes. Now is the judgment of this world: now shall the prince of this world be cast out." (John 12:28‑31; Luke 10:18; John 14:30; 16:11; 2 Corinthians 4:4; Ephesians 6:12) (KJV)

The concept of the Two Seedlines further predicates that when Satan fell, with the rest of his satanic beings, they left the dimension of spirit and entered the dimension of the physical, as men:

"And THE ANGELS WHICH KEPT NOT THEIR FIRST ESTATE, but left their own habitation (or principal it, KJV center reference), he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day (no longer having access to Yahweh's dimension)." (Jude 1:6)

We know these fallen angels were living at the time of Yeashua as men, as the center reference of the KJV takes us to John 8:44 where Yeashua said to the "Jews":

"YE ARE OF YOUR FATHER THE DEVIL, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it." (John 8:44; see also (Matthew 3:7; 11:12; 12:39; 12:45; 23:15; Luke 9:41; 10:25; Acts 1:6; 2:40; 13:6‑10; Romans 2:14; 4:15; 7:7; 1 John 3:4; 3:10)

Another cross reference on Jude 6 is 2 Peter 2:4:

"For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains (earth bound) of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment."

The fallen angels had the power to change themselves into the form of men is recorded in "The Lost Books of The Bible and The Forgotten Books of Eden."

In "Testament of Reuben," 2:18‑19, page 223:

"For this they (the women) allured the Watchers (fallen angels) who were before the flood; for as these continually behold them, they lusted after them, and they conceived the act in their mind; FOR THEY CHANGED THEMSELVES INTO THE SHAPE OF MEN, and appeared to them when they were (possibly not) with their husbands. And the women lusting in their minds after their forms, gave birth to giants, for the Watchers appeared to them as reaching even unto heaven."

With this exceptionally outstanding passage, we can more wholly comprehend what it means in Jude 6, the fallen "angels which kept not their first estate." This passage also serves as a paradigm or model, after the fact, of what happened previously involving the satanic seduction of Eve in the garden of Eden. We are now more aware of the war which resulted in the fallen angels becoming earth bound or "chained,," which is an essential element in the concept of the Two Seedline doctrine.

Now that we know who the players are, let's proceed with the narrative which resulted in the two seeds of Genesis 3:15 It is simply amazing the various unreasonable, preposterous, nonsensical and twisted arguments that opponents of the Two Seedline teaching advance to secure their groundless, unfounded and insecure positions. We will be getting to examples of some of them shortly, after we briefly walk carefully, step by step, through the fundamental story.

NOW MAKE NO MISTAKE, WE BELIEVE SINCERELY THAT THOSE WHO DO NOT HOLD WITH THE TWO SEEDLINE THEORY ARE SINCERE AND FAITHFUL MEN OF YAHWEH. WE JUST DISAGREE WITH THEM AND BELIEVE THAT THEIR TEACHING IS IN ERROR; AND NOT DELIBERATELY FALSE TO DECEIVE.

In Genesis 2:16‑17 we see where Yahweh instructs Adam before the creation of Eve. You see, there was already a danger that Adam might mess up by eating of the forbidden fruit, the mixing with the other races which had been created before Adam was FORMED, even before Eve arrived on the scene.

The important thing to see here is, Yahweh had a very important reason for instructing Adam at this time, for there were a lot of women unlike his kind (pre‑Adamites; A book entitled, "Preadmites," or a demonstration of the Existence of Men Before Adam; together with a study of their condition antiquity, and Racial Affinities, and Progressive Dispersion Over the Earth, by Alexander Winchell, LL. D., and published by S.C. Griggs and Company, London: 1880, which contains 500 pages.

Another book entitled, "Adam and The Adamite" or, The Harmony of Scripture and Ethnology by Dominick Meausland, Q.C. LL. D., London: Richard Bentley, New Burlington St. England 1864) running around the garden to excite his natural manly instincts).

"And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die." (Genesis 2:16‑17)

The rest of Chapter 2 concerns itself with the creation of Eve, an "help meet" for Adam who was genetically the same as he was, or as Genesis 2:23 expresses it:

"And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man." (Genesis 2:23)

You will notice a good cross reference system of the KJV (as stated before) gives Ephesians 5:30 on this verse and says:

"For we are members of his (Yeashua's) body, of his flesh and of his bones (same race)."

To further establish the setting or background surroundings of this story, it will be needful to consider Genesis 2:8‑9:

"And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed. And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil (three kinds of trees in all)."

We have to look for something here that has the knowledge of good and evil. This knowing good and evil is the EARMARK of angels. Therefore, this tree that has the knowledge of good and evil must be an angel of some rank.

If Revelation 12:9 is true, he is the original organizer of the rebellion in heaven, the old serpent himself. For proof that angels have the knowledge of good and evil, let's look at 2 Samuel 14:17:

"Then thine handmaid said, The word of my lord the king shall now be comfortable: for AS AN ANGEL OF GOD, SO IS MY LORD THE KING TO DISCERN GOOD AND BAD: therefore the LORD thy God will be with thee." (KJV)

"And now your servant says, 'May the word of my lord the king bring me rest, for my lord THE KING IS LIKE AN ANGEL OF GOD IN DISCERNING GOOD AND EVIL. May the LORD your God be with you.'" (NIV)

We also would direct your attention to the following verses:

"To fetch about this form of speech hath thy servant Joab done this thing: and my lord is wise, ACCORDING TO THE WISDOM OF AN ANGEL OF GOD, TO KNOW ALL THINGS THAT ARE IN THE EARTH." (2 Samuel 14:20)

"And he hath slandered thy servant unto my lord the king; but my lord the king IS AS AN ANGEL OF GOD: do therefore what is good in thine eyes." (2 Samuel 19:27) (JV)

Now that we understand that THE TREE OF KNOWLEDGE OF GOOD and EVIL and THE SERPENT are the same thing, we are in a better position to understand who the players in this episode are. Now let's see what Genesis 3:1‑3 says:

"Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden? And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden: 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." (KJV)

"Now the serpent was more crafty than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said to the woman, "Indeed, has God said, 'You shall not eat from any tree of the garden'?" And the woman said to the serpent, "From the fruit of the trees of the garden we may eat; but from the fruit of the tree which is in the middle of the garden, God has said, 'You shall not eat from it or touch it, lest you die.'" (NAS)

"Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the LORD God had made. He said to the woman, Did God really say, 'You must not eat from any tree in the garden? The woman said to the serpent, We may eat fruit from the trees in the garden, but God did say, You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die." (NIV)

The KJV center reference says, you will find the SERPENT of Genesis 3:1 is the same SERPENT of Revelation 12:9 that organized the rebellion against Yahweh.

If you will notice again, it also indicates the SERPENT of Genesis 3:1 is the same SERPENT of 2 Corinthians 11:3 which reads:

"But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ (Yeashua)." (KJV)

Right away the opponents of Two Seedline doctrine are going to moan and groan, and say something like this, this passage is speaking of mental seduction only. Let's see if this supposition is true. Remember, this was the warning!:

"But of the fruit off the tree which is in the midst of the garden Yahweh hath said, Ye shall NOT EAT OF IT, NEITHER SHALL YE TOUCH IT, lest ye die."

What was it that Eve did EAT?, and What did Eve TOUCH?

The word "eat" in the Hebrew is, #398, akal, to eat; also, to lay with.

Eat: Strong's Concordance #398  'akal (aw‑kal'); a primitive root; to eat (literally or figuratively): KJV‑‑ X at all, burn up, consume, devour (‑er, up), dine, EAT (‑er, up), feed (with), food, X freely, X in ... wise (‑deed, plenty), (LAY) meat, X quite.

To prove that many times this is so, we will use some examples from Scripture. First we will use a supporting Scripture, Proverbs 30:20:

"Such is the way of an adulterous woman; she EATETH, and wipeth her mouth, and saith, I have done no wickedness."

"And they called the people unto the sacrifices of their gods: and the people did EAT, and bowed down to their gods." (Numbers 25:2)

With this last verse of Numbers 25:2, the Wycliffe Bible Commentary has this to say on page 145:

"They called the people unto the sacrifices of their gods. The subject THEY is feminine, referring to the daughters of Moab with whom the men of Israel committed fornication. Balak, with Balaam's advice."

We also have the testimony of Numbers 5:11‑13:

"And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, If any man's wife go aside, and commit a trespass against him, AND A MAN LIE WITH HER CARNALLY, and it be hid from the eyes of her husband, and be kept close, AND SHE BE DEFILED..." (KJV)

Proverbs 19:28:

"An ungodly witness scorneth judgment: and the mouth of the wicked devoureth iniquity." (KJV)

Proverbs 9:17:

"Stolen waters are sweet, and bread (EATEN) in secret is pleasant."

One can clearly see, the word "EAT" (#398, akal) in Hebrew, in each of the above verses means sexual intercourse, which it also means in Genesis 3:3 where Eve is confronted by Satan. The scriptural passage we are scrutinizing is:

"Ye shall not EAT of it, neither shall ye TOUCH it, lest ye die. Not only does the word EAT sometimes have sexual connotations, but also the word TOUCH which is, #5060 nega, to touch; also to have sexual intercourse.

Touch: Strong's Concordance #5060  Nega` (naw‑gah'); a primitive root; properly, TO TOUCH, i.e. lay the hand upon (for any purpose; euphem., TO LIE WITH A WOMAN); by implication, to reach (figuratively, to arrive, acquire); violently, to strike (punish, defeat, destroy, etc.): KJV‑‑ beat, (X be able to) bring (down), cast, come (nigh), draw near (nigh), get up, happen, JOIN, near, plague, reach (up), smite, strike, touch.

Now we will use the following Scriptures to prove and support this. In Genesis 26:10‑11 we find:

"And Abimelech said, What is this thou hast done unto us? ONE OF THE PEOPLE MIGHT LIGHTLY HAVE LIEN (lain) WITH THY WIFE, and thou shouldest have brought guiltiness upon us. And Abimelech charged all his people, saying, He that TOUCHETH this man or his wife shall surely be put to death." (KJV)

Genesis 20:6:

"And Yahweh Almighty said unto him 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."

Genesis 26:28‑29:

"...Let there be now an oath betwixt us, even betwixt us and thee, and let us make a covenant with thee; That thou do us no hurt, as we have not TOUCHED thee (Rebekah), and as we have done unto thee nothing but good, and have sent thee away in peace..."

Proverbs 6:29:

"So he that goeth in to his neighbour's wife; whosoever TOUCHETH her shall not be innocent."

Notice the word TOUCH of Genesis 3:3 is the same #5060 as the word TOUCH, TOUCHED or TOUCHETH in these reference verses just quoted.

Therefore, both the words EAT and TOUCH have sexual connotations, regardless of what the opponents of Two Seedline doctrine are touting. WITH THESE REFERENCES, WE CAN BE SAFE IN CONCLUDING THAT EVE HAD A SEXUAL ENCOUNTER WITH THE SERPENT (An angel, or someone of another race) IN THE GARDEN. Even though the opponents of the Two Seedline doctrine disagree it will not change Scriptural facts. Genesis 3:13 says:

"...And the woman said, the serpent BEGUILED me, and I did EAT."

IT IS ABSURD TO SUGGEST EVE WAS BEGUILED TO EAT ORDINARY FOOD when Yahweh had already approved of eating from garden‑variety fruit trees in Genesis 1:29.

The opponents of the Two Seedline doctrine are always swift to counter with the argument, if Adam and Eve could eat of all the other trees of the garden, that would mean they could have sexual relations with anyone whom they desired.

If trees represents humans in one place, it would have to represent humans in all other places, and this would be highly immoral. This is entirely a false assumption because sometimes the Hebrew is speaking of actual wooden trees, and at other times is speaking of idiomatic trees.

Let's use the Wilson's Old Testament Word Studies, by William Wilson (a Hebrew reference book), page 453 under the heading "TREE."

1). Strong, stout, mighty trees.

2). A tamarisk (flowering), munica, tamarix, Linn. Then perhaps any large tree, and collectively trees, a wood a grove.

3). A tree; often collective trees; green trees the righteous, dry trees the wicked, Ezekiel 20:47; 17:24, all the trees of the field, all men, the high tree, lofty and powerful, the low tree, the weak and contemptible.

4). Pl. shady trees.

For more information on "men as trees walking"; see Mark 8:24. All this demonstrates, if one wants to make a bona fide argument, one should know what one is talking about if this passage meant Adam and Eve could have sexual relations with anyone in the garden, it would have said, "all the (proverbial) beasts or trees of the field."

If one cannot separate the literal language from the idiomatic language of the Scriptures, one simply cannot understand the Bible. In such a case, it might be prudent not to have an opinion.

George M. Lamsa (an expert on Bible idioms), in his Idioms In The bible Explained," says on the following:

Garden: Genesis 2:8; Metaphorically, a wife; a family.

Tree of life in the midst of the garden. Genesis 2:9; Sex; posterity, progeny.

The tree of the knowledge of good and evil: Genesis 2:9; Moral laws; the knowledge of good and evil.

The tree of life: Genesis 2:9; Eternal life.

The tree of good and evil. Genesis 2:17; Metaphorically, sexual relationship.

We are now approaching one of the most misunderstood single passages of Scripture in the entire Bible. If we approach it too hurriedly, we will skip over it so quickly, we will never grasp its correct meaning.

There was a time when we were persuaded Genesis 3:15 was a mistranslation, but with more research, we found it to be highly accurate. We will present several different interpretations of Genesis 3:15 from several various translations:

"And I will put enmity BETWEEN THEE and THE WOMAN, and BETWEEN THY SEED and HER SEED; IT shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel." (KJV)

"And I WILL PUT ENMITY BETWEEN THEE and THE WOMAN, and BETWEEN THY SEED and HER SEED: HE shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel." (ASV)

"And I WILL PUT ENMITY BETWEEN YOU and THE WOMAN, and BETWEEN YOUR SEED and HER SEED; HE shall bruise you on the head, and you shall bruise him on the heel." (NAS)

"And I WILL PUT ENMITY BETWEEN YOU and THE WOMAN, and BETWEEN YOUR SEED and HER SEED; HE shall bruise you on the head, and you shall bruise him on the heel." (NAU)

"And I WILL PUT ENMITY BETWEEN YOU and THE WOMAN, and BETWEEN YOUR OFFSPRING and HERS; He will crush your head, and you will strike his heel." (NIV)

"FROM NOW ON YOU and THE WOMAN WILL BE ENEMIES, AS WILL YOUR OFFSPRING and HERS. You will strike his heel, but he will crush your head." (TLB)

"And I WILL SET A FEUD BETWEEN YOU and THE WOMAN, BETWEEN YOUR BROOD AND HERS; THEY shall strike at your head, and you shall strike at THEIR heel." (James Moffett, Harper & Brothers Publishers, New York and London)

If there were not two separate seed lines and that it was not a sexual act that Eve committed; then the following verses would have no meaning and would not have been placed in the Scriptures, for without a sexual act, the information is useless and means nothing.

"UNTO THE WOMAN HE SAID, I WILL GREATLY MULTIPLY THY SORROW AND THY CONCEPTION..." (Genesis 3:16) (KJV)

Conception: Strong's Concordance #2032  herown (hay‑rone'); or herayown (hay‑raw‑yone'); from 2029; PREGNANCY: KJV‑‑ conception.

Conception: Brown‑Driver‑Briggs' Definition #2032  herown or herayown‑PHYSICAL CONCEPTION, PREGNANCY, conception.

Now let's follow the proper sequence of events. Its all a matter of putting events in their proper order.

* General renovating of the earth.

"And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and REPLENISH the earth..." (Genesis 1:28) (KJV)

* War in the Heavens.

"And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels." (Revelation 12:7) (KJV)

* Satan and 1/3 of angels cast and bound to earth.

"And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels, And prevailed not; neither was their place found any more in heaven. And THE GREAT DRAGON WAS CAST OUT, THAT OLD SERPENT, CALLED THE DEVIL, AND SATAN, WHICH DECEIVETH THE WHOLE WORLD: HE WAS CAST OUT INTO THE EARTH, and HIS ANGELS WERE CAST OUT WITH HIM." (Revelation 12:7‑9) (KJV)

* Adam and Eve formed in the image of Yahweh.

"And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground..." (Genesis 2:7) (KJV)

* Satan seduced Eve and caused a 1^st PREGNANCY.

"...SHE CONCEIVED, and BARE CAIN, and said, I HAVE GOTTEN A MAN FROM THE LORD (She did not say she had gotten a man from Adam, but from what she thought was a lord, as he had deceived her). And SHE AGAIN BARE HIS BROTHER ABEL (Obviously Cain and Abel were twin brothers and were born a few minutes apart as twins do. But Abel was the son of Adam, which sometimes happens when a woman has sex with two different men, she gets pregnant by them both. This has been proven to be true; although it does not happen very often, it does happen). And Abel was a keeper of sheep, but Cain was a tiller of the ground." (Genesis 4:1‑2) (KJV)

* Cain murders Abel.

"And Cain talked with Abel his brother: and it came to pass, when they were in the field, that Cain rose up against Abel his brother, and slew him." Genesis 4:8) (KJV)

* Adam knew Eve for his second time.

"And Adam knew his wife again; and she bare a son, and called his name Seth: For God, said she, hath appointed me another seed instead of Abel, whom Cain slew." (Genesis 4:25) (KJV)

Seth is born as a SUBSTITUTE for Abel. (Genesis 4:25)

Once these events are placed in their proper order, all confusion with Genesis 4:1 disappears. Once we learn that Adam's knowing Eve had nothing to do with the birth of Cain, all become crystal‑clear. In most cases, the logical conclusion that Cain was the son of Adam would be a proper one, but not with this verse. The CONCEIVING in this verse had absolutely nothing to do with the BEARING. Now let's read this verse in a new light, but of an old truth:

"And Adam knew Eve his wife...and (she next) bare Cain, and said, I have gotten my first (male child), a man to present to Yahweh as first born. And she again bare his (½) brother Abel.

We have changed the words a little to make the meaning eminently more evident and truth worthy. Once the true order of events of this verse is understood, it opens up a whole new understanding of what is happening in the world today.

There is very substantial evidence that the "Jews" of today are descended from Cain. We have no less than the words of Yeashua the Messiah Himself concerning this.

Once it is understood the "Jews" are devils walking around in shoe leather, we can begin to see the guiding hand of the great world conspiracy and all the monstrous problems we are faced with today. Without an understanding of the Two Seedlines, we are at a detrimental loss to know who the enemy is. The knowledge, or the lack of it, is the difference between the brightest day or the blackest night. Because this verse is not properly understood is one of the reasons that Yahweh states in Hosea:

"My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge..." (Hosea 4:6)

One of the very first things those opposed to a literal Satan‑spawned physical Seedline do, is point out the fact that the information can be found in the Jewish Talmud. We find the following on pages in a book "Eve Did She Or Didn't She? The Seedline Hypothesis Under Scrutiny" by Evangelist Ted R. Weiland, ISBN 0‑9679392‑0‑8, Library of Congress Number: 00‑090494, Published by Mission to Israel Ministries, P.O. Box 248, Scottsbluff, Nebraska 69363)

"So who benefits from this scriptural corruption, and where might you expect to find this Seedline doctrine taught? One Seedline teacher accurately pointed out that this hypothesis is not of modern origin: ‘The historicity of a sexual interpretation of original sin can be documented from the literature of antiquity and clearly proves beyond any doubt that this belief did not originate with modern man.' (Scott Stinson, "The Serpent and Eve," The Vision (Schell City, MO: The Church of Israel, July 1998, Volume 2 Number 8) p. 28)

"This is true, but from "what ancient literature" is this hypothesis extracted? This same seedliner documented several instances and in every case the material came from post‑Babylonian captivity Judahites. (Now here we really must disagree with Mr. Weiland because at no time in history have the Judahites been Jews. There may have been some who converted to Judaism, but only a few and certainly never the entire tribe of Judah)

"In other words, from Judahites who had been educated in Babylonian traditions. Among others, this seedliner quoted rabbis who quoted the Talmud as "proof" for his Seedline beliefs: ‘...it (the Seedline hypothesis) was a common teaching among the (post‑Babylonian) rabbis of antiquity...In one place, we read: ‘rabbi Johanan stated. When the serpent copulated with Eve, he infused her with lust.' (Yebamoth 103b) Another rabbi states: ‘Thus I have learnt, that when the serpent had intercourse with Eve he injected defilement into her.' (Haye Sarah 126a) Lastly, another replies: ‘You rightly said that when the serpent had carnal intercourse with Eve he injected into her defilement." (Haye Sarah 126b) (Scott Stinson, "The Serpent and Eve," The Vision (Schell City, MO: The Church of Israel, July 1998, Volume 2 Number 8) p. 28)

This seedliner also quoted several other Babylonian‑influenced works of antiquity:

“This (Seedline) interpretation is confirmed in the ancient literature of Israel, especially the commentaries on the Hebrew Bible written in Aramaic and commonly known as Targums. The commentaries were written after the (remnant's, people from the Tribes of Judah, Benjamin and Levi) return from Babylon...One text gives this interpretation of Genesis 4:1: ‘And Adam knew his wife Eve, who was pregnant by the Angel Sammael, and she conceived and bare Cain; and he was like the heavenly beings, and not like the earthly beings, and she said, I have acquired a man, the angel of the Lord." (Targum of Jonathan to Genesis 4:1) Another ancient commentary gives a similar interpretation of the same passage: ‘And Adam knew his wife Eve, who had desired the Angel; and she conceived, and bare Cain; and she said, I have acquired a man, the angel of the Lord..." (Palestinian Targum to Genesis 4:1) In another rabbinic work we find a similar interpretation...And she saw that his likeness was not of earthly beings, but of the heavenly beings, and she prophesied and said: I have gotten a man from the Lord." (Pirke de Rabbi Elieser, 21) One Rabbinic source states: ‘Even bore Cain from the filth of the serpent, and therefore from him were descended all the wicked generations, and from his side is the abode of spirits and demons.' (Ahare Moth 76b) A similar explanation for the evil deeds of Cain's lineage is found elsewhere. We read: ‘For two beings had intercourse with Eve, and she conceived from both and bore two children. Each followed one of the male parents, to this side and one to the other, and similarly their characters. On the side of Cain are all the haunts of the evil species, from which come evil spirit and demons." (Bereshith 36b) (Scott Stinson, "The Serpent and Eve," The Vision (Schell City, MO: The Church of Israel, July 1998, Volume 2 Number 8) p. 28‑29)

Now we know that Christ said that the Jews are liars in John 8:44 but that does to mean that a liar will not sometimes tell the truth. Therefore one of the very first things those opposed to a literal Satan‑spawned physical Seedline do, is point out the fact the information can be found in the Talmud. This is a really sneaky deceptive method used by many, to declare guilt by association. The question must be asked: "Is every single word in the Talmud false?"

This idea is built on the assumption, that if it is found in the Talmud, it is automatically wrong. For anyone who uses this approach, we would challenge them to prove every single word in the Talmud to be false. It simply cannot be done, even though it is a collection of the most evil and blasphemous writings ever put together. Not only is there evidence found in the Talmud substantiating the seduction of Eve, but evidence can be found in “The Lost Books of The bible and The Forgotten books of Eden,” "The Protevangelion" 10:1‑10:

"And when her sixth month was come, Joseph returned form his building houses abroad, which was his trade, and entering into the house, found the Virgin grown big: Then smiting upon his face, he said, With what face ca I look up to the Lord my God? Or, what shall I say concerning this young woman? For I received her a Virgin out of the temple of the Lord my God! And have not preserved her such! Who has thus deceived me? Who has committed this evil in my house, and seducing the Virgin from me, hath defiled her? IS NOT THE HISTORY OF ADAM EXACTLY ACCOMPLISHED IN ME? FOR IN THE VERY INSTANT OF HIS GLORY, THE SERPENT CAME AND FOUND EVE ALONE, AND SEDUCED HER. JUST AFTER THE SAME MANNER IT HAS HAPPENED TO ME. Then Joseph arising from the ground, called her, and said, O thou who hast been so much favoured by God, why hast thou done this. Why hast thou debased thy soul, who wast educated in the Holy of Holies, and received thy food from the hand of angels? But she, with a flood of tears, replied, I am innocent, and have known no man."

Some even go so far as to cite the Spirit and the Flesh as the Two Seeds. This is one of the most ridiculous, misdirected applications of holy writ to come from one pretending to be inspired. It is so nonsensical, we will not affiliate the sacred Name of Yahweh with it. If one believes the two seeds of Genesis 3:15 are such, this is the way the verse should have read:

"And the Lord God said to Eve's flesh, Because thou hast done this, thy flesh is cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; and thy flesh shall go upon its belly, and dust shalt thy flesh eat all the days of thy life: And I will put enmity between the flesh of the woman and the spirit of the woman, and between the offspring of her flesh and the offspring of her spirit, and offspring of her spirit shall bruise the head of the offspring of her flesh, and the offspring of her flesh will bruise the heel of the offspring of her spirit.

Among other very important details the opponents of Two Seedline doctrine do not explain is: Why is Cain left totally out of the genealogy of Adam? Genesis, Chapter 5, gives the genealogy of Adam to Shem, Ham and Japheth, and Cain is not mentioned once! WHY?

Other genealogies in the Bible go into great detail and never leaves out a son! (Especially a firstborn son) If one reads Genesis 4:1 correctly, as depicted, it is not there either. Why is Cain totally left out?? Cain's descendants are mentioned separately in Genesis 4:17‑24 and it doesn't list Adam as the father of Cain! WHY??? The next place we find Cain in the Scriptures is Genesis 15:19 and we will have to read verses 18 through 21:

"In the same day the LORD made a covenant with Abram, saying, Unto thy seed have I given this land, from the river of Egypt unto the great river, the river Euphrates: The Kenites, and the Kenizzites, and the Kadmonites, And the Hittites, and the Perizzites, and the Rephaims, And the Ammonites, and the Canaanites, and the Girgashites, and the Jebusites." (Genesis 15:18‑21) (KJV)

One of these nations among the Canaanites was the KENITES (#7017 Strong's) which were DESCENDANTS OF CAIN. Being that Cain was of the SATANIC SEEDLINE, he would infect his satanic blood AMONG ALL THESE TEN NATIONS. And the "Kenizzites" were Edomites.

In the Peake's Commentary on the bible, page 116 we find this about this mixed group of nations spoken of in Genesis 15:19‑21:

"When the Israelites entered Canaan they found there a VERY MIXED population generally designated by the term Amorite or Canaanite."

The Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible, Abridged by Ralph Earle, page 38, says:

                                                                            Kenites

"The Kenites. Here are ten nations mentioned, though afterwards reckoned but seven; see Deuteronomy 7:1; Acts 13:19. Probably some of them which existed in Abram's time had been BLENDED with others before the time of Moses, so that seven only out of the ten then remained."

Kenites:

"[KEE nights] (metalsmiths)‑‑ the name of a wandering tribe of people who were associated with the Midianites (Judges 1:16) and, later, with the Amalekites (1 Samuel 15:6). The Kenites lived in the desert regions of Sinai, Midian, Edom, Amalek, and the Negev. The Bible first mentions the Kenites as one of the groups that lived in Canaan during the time of Abraham (Genesis 15:19); their territory was to be taken by the Israelites (Numbers 24:21‑22). The Kenites were metal craftsmen who may have traced their ancestry to TUBAL‑CAIN (a descendant of Cain) (Genesis 4:22). (from Nelson's Illustrated Bible Dictionary) (Copyright (C) 1986, Thomas Nelson Publishers)

The next mention of the descendants of Cain is found in 1 Chronicles 2:55:

"And THE FAMILIES OF THE SCRIBES which dwelt at Jabez; the Tirathites, the Shimeathites, and Suchathites. THESE ARE THE KENITES that came of Hemath, the father of the house of RECHAB." (KJV)

The Wycliff Bible Comentary, editors: Charles F. Pfeiffer & Everett F. Harrison has this to say on page 8, and this quote will cover Genesis 3:14‑15:

"CURSED (arûr) ART THOU. The Lord singled out the originator and instigator of the temptation for special condemnation and degradation. From that moment he must crawl in the dust and even feed on it. He would slither his way along in disgrace, and hatred would be directed against him from all directions. Man would always regard him as a symbol of the degradation of the one who slandered God (cf. Isaiah 65:25). HE WAS TO REPRESENT NOT MERELY THE SERPENT RACE, BUT THE POWER OF THE EVIL KINGDOM. As long as life continued, men would hate him and seek to destroy him. I WILL PUT ENMITY. The word "êbâ" denotes the blood‑feud that runs deepest in the heart of man (cf. Numbers 35:19‑20; Ezekiel 25:15‑17; 35:5‑6) THOU SHALT BRUISE (shûp). A PROPHECY OF CONTINUING STRUGGLE BETWEEN THE DESCENDANTS OF WOMAN AND OF THE SERPENT TO DESTROY EACH OTHER. The verb shûp is rare (cf. Job 9:17; Psalm 139:11). It is the same in both clauses.

“When translated ‘crush’ it seems appropriate to the reference concerning the had of the serpent, but not quite so accurate in also rendered lie in wait for, aim at or (LXX) watch for. The Vulgate renders it "conteret," "bruise" in the first instance and in this famous passage, CALLED THE PROTEVAGEFIUM, ‘FIRST GOSPEL,’ the announcement of a prolonged struggle, perpetual antagonism, wounds on both sides, and eventual victory for the seed of the woman.

“God's promise that the head of the serpent was to be crushed pointed forward to the coming of Messiah and guaranteed victory. Thus assurance fell upon the ears of God's earliest creatures as a blessed hope of redemption."

The Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible, Volume 3, page 782:

"KENITES: Meaning (metalworkers, smiths). Clan or tribal name of semi‑nomadic peoples of South Palestine and Sinai. The Aramaic and Arabic etymologis of the root ‘gyn’ show that it has to do with metal and metal word (thus the Hebrew word from this root, ‘lance’). This probably indicates that the Kenites were metal workers, especially since Sinai and wadi ‘arabah were rich in high grade cooper ore. W.F. Albright has pointed to the Beni Hassan mural in Egypt (19th century B.C.)

“As an illustration of such a WONDERING GROUP OF SMITHS. This mural depicts thirty‑six men, women and children in characteristic Semitic dress leading along with other animals, donkeys laden with MUSICAL INSTRUMENTS, weapons and an item which Albright has identified as a BELLOWS. He has further noted that Lemech's three children (Genesis 4:19‑22) were responsible for HEARDS (Jubal), MUSICAL INSTRUMENTS (Jubal), and METAL WORK (Tubal‑Cain, or Tubal, THE SMITH), the three occupations which seem most evident in the mural...2nd quote from the same article: THE EARLY MONARCHY. During this period a significant concentration of Kenites was located in the southern Judean territory. This is clear from 1 Samuel 15:6 cited above and also from David's relations with them.”

Postexilic references. In 1 Chronicles 2:55 the FAMILIES OF THE SCRIBES living at Jabaz are said to be Kenites. Apparently, during the kingdom and exile periods, certain Kenites had given up NOMADIC SMITHING and had taken on a more sedentary, but equally honorable PROFESSION (?) OF SCRIBE.

Peake's Commentary on the Bible, page 114:

"The etymology of the name suggest THAT THEY WERE SMITHS OR ARTIFICERS, a theory which is supported by their association with the Wadi ‘Arabah, where there were copper deposits which had been worked by the Egyptians since the middle of the 3rd millennium.

The Jamieson, Fausset & Brown Commentary On The Whole bible has this to say on Kenite, page 293:

"THE FAMILIES OF THE SCRIBES; either civil or ecclesiastical officers of the Kenite origin, WHO ARE HERE CLASSIFIED WITH THE TRIBE OF JUDAH, NOT AS BEING DESCENDED FROM IT, but as dwellers within its territory, and in a measure INCORPORATED with its people."

The Matthew Pool's Commentary On The Holy Bible has this to say on the Kenites, Volume 1, page 778:

"THE SCRIBES; either civil, WHO WERE PUBLIC NOTARIES, WHO WROTE AND SIGNED LEGAL INSTRUMENTS; OR ECCLESIASTICAL... and are here mentioned not as if they were of the tribe of Judah, but because thy dwelt among them, and probably were allied to them by marriages, and so in a manner incorporated with them. Which dwelt, or rather, dwelt; Hebrew, were dwellers. For the other translation, which dwelt, MAY SEEM TO INSINUATE THAT THESE WERE DESCENDANTS OF JUDAH, WHICH THEY WERE NOT; but his translation ONLY SIGNIFIES COHABITATION WITH THEM, for which cause they are here named with them.

All these things the Jews do today, here in America. And because Christians have listened to the lying, deceiving, traitorous, Priests of Baal, the Judeo-Christian Clergy they have almost destroyed our nation and are fast destroying our people.

Now that we have established a solid foundation in the Holy Writ concerning the Two Seedline doctrine, let's tell the story in a different way. With this narrative, the one important fact revealed in the above passages is: Yeashua our Messiah exposed the "Jews" for what they are many years ago.

You could spend thousands of dollars on books updating the story to our present time, and it is still the same old story as it was two thousand years ago, some people today have the audacity to insinuate that Our Redeemer didn't know what he was talking about. We will start this portion of our study with Genesis 3:14‑15.

"And Yahweh said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life. And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy (Kenite ‑"Jewish") seed and her (White) seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel."

Reread the second paragraph above. The center reference of the KJV then takes us to Revelation 12:9:

"And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him."

Next we will go unaided to Matthew 3:7:

"But when he (John the Baptist) saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees come to his baptism, he said unto them, O GENERATION (offspring) OF VIPERS, how can ye, being evil, speak good things for out of the abundance of the heart (genetic intellect) the mouth speaketh. A good man out of the good treasure of the heart bringeth forth good things: and an evil man out of the evil treasure bringeth forth evil things."

From here the KJV center reference takes us to Matthew 13:38:

"The field is the world; the good seed are the children of the kingdom (Israelites); but the tares (Jews) are the children of the wicked one."

With a reading of Colossians 2:15 we can see how Yahshua put the Satanic/Jew/Seedline to an open shame and stripped them of their authority.

“And having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a shew of them openly, triumphing over them in it.”

Now we will go to Luke 11:49-51 and use this passage rather than Matthew 23:34-36 for there are problems with Matthew’s version.

“Therefore also said the wisdom of God, I will send them prophets and apostles, and some of them they shall slay and persecute: That the blood of all the prophets, which was shed from the foundation of the world, may be required (έκζηέ_, to demand an account of) of this generation (#1074, genea); From the blood of Abel unto the blood of Zacharias, which perished between the altar and the temple: verily I say unto you, It shall be required of this generation (#1074, genea).”

Here Yahshua is charging the “Jews” with the murder of Abel. It would have been criminally illegal on the part of Yahshua to make such a charge if it were not true. The only way He could legally have produced such a serious charge was if the “Jews” of His day were descended from Cain, for no other person in all of history was responsible for the murder of Abel, but Cain.

Most anti-Seedliners are strangely quiet on this passage, although Ted R. Weiland in his booklet “Eve, Did She Or Didn’t She?” erroneously tries to prove the scribes and Pharisees were true Israelites (on page 68) where he makes the following statement:

“Seedliners claim that because the Pharisees and their progenitors were charged with the murders of all the righteous from Abel to Zacharias, they cannot be Israelites but instead must be Cainites of the seed of Satan. The truth is that because the Pharisees and their forefathers were indicted for the murder of the righteous martyrs, they cannot be Cainites but instead must be Israelites.”

Weiland further states on page 94:

“The Seedliners teach that the Pharisees were Cainites of the Seedline of Satan, whereas Matthew 3:7-8, 27:6-10, John 7:19, 8:28-37; Acts 4:5-10, 24-35 and 7:2-52 declare that the Pharisees were Judahites of Seedline of Jacob/Israel.”

If what Weiland is implying were true. The Messiah would be condemning the entire race of Israelites (including Himself, His family, the Apostles, Disciples, etc.) in speaking of them as a “generation,” for the word “generation,” used in this passage, is #1074, and in the Greek means “race” according to “The Complete Word Study Dictionary New Testament,” by Spiros Zodhiates, page 362:

“...a race; then generally in the sense of affinity of communion based upon the sameness of stock. Race or posterity...A descent or genealogical line of ancestors or descendants...”

“The Greek-English Lexicon Of The New Testament,” by Joseph Henry Thayer agrees, page 112:

“...a begetting, birth, nativity...passively, that which has been begotten, men of the same stock, a family...the several ranks in a natural descent, the successive members of a genealogy...metaphor, a race of men very like each other in endowments, pursuits, character; and especially in a bad sense a perverse race...”

It would appear that maybe Weiland should have checked his Greek before he made such a spurious statement. Therefore, the only conceivable meaning this passage could convey is: the “Pharisees” were the genea of Cain. Yahshua clearly told the “Jewish” Pharisees, John 10:26, “...YE ARE NOT MY SHEEP...” there is nothing more blasphemous than to imply that Yahshua the Messiah was a racial brother to the “Jews.”

Evidently, the single Seedliners never read “Josephus, Wars,” 2:8:2. Josephus makes it quite clear the Pharisees and Sadducees WERE NOT ISRAELITES BY BIRTH. Let’s now read this passage:

“For there are three philosophical sects among the Jews. The followers of the first of whom are the Pharisees; of the second the Sadducees; and the third sect, who pretends to severer discipline, are called Essens. THESE LAST ARE JEWS (Judah) BY BIRTH, and seem to have a greater affection for one another than the other sects have.”

It would appear from this that of the three mentioned, only the Essenes could claim to be pure blooded Israelites; that many, perhaps a majority of the Pharisees and Sadducees were neither true Israelites nor of the true Tribe of Judah.

Why didn’t Josephus mention the Pharisees and Sadducees as being Jews by birth? We know that in John 8:33 & 37, it appears from the rendering, that the scribes and Pharisees might be true Israelites. Sure, the Arabs can claim Abraham as their father.

We know, also, that the “Jews” of Messiah’s day had absorbed Edomite blood, and therefore could claim both Abraham and Isaac as their fathers. The Shelanite/Judahites could even claim an affinity with Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and Judah, but that doesn’t make them of the true Tribe of Judah. Recent archaeological finds are showing evidence two of Esau’s wives were, more than likely, of the Cain-Satanic-Seedline. Even Howard B. Rand in his book “Primo-Genesis,” plate 11, at the ends of his book, shows Pharaohs Ramesses I & II of Egypt being descended from the House of Esau through Eliphaz.

As was indicated previous, thee are problems with Matthew 23:34-35, a parallel of Luke 11:49-51, quoted above. In these passages, we are being told that (1) The Almighty would send apostles and prophets (future tense), (2) That there had been scribes and prophets sent in THE PAST, (3) These past scribes and prophets were all the way from, and including, Abel, t Zacharias, and (4) That this race of Cain was in times past, and throughout the future, responsible for their deaths. If you will read these passages very carefully, you will notice Abel was the first righteous prophet. The next thing which should be noticed is the fact that Luke does not mention Zacharias’ father. From research, it would seem to appear that someone added the words “son of Barachias’ in Matthew 23:35. If this is the case, it has caused a lot of confusion. Quoting from “A Commentary on The Holy Bible,” edited by Rev. J.R. Dummelow M.A., page 701:

“Zacharias son of Barachias; Jesus probably said ‘Zachariah,’ as in St. Luke, without mentioning the father’s name, but the evangelist or one of the earliest copyists, who thought it necessary to distinguish among the twenty-nine Zachariah of the Old Testament, and understood the canonical prophet to be meant, added the word ‘son of Barachias.’ There can be no real doubt that the person meant is Zechariah, son of Jehoiada (see 2 Chronicles 24:20), concerning whom there was a Jewish tradition, that his blood could not be removed by washing, but remained bubbling on the ground where it had been shed. In the Jewish arrangement of the books of the sacred Canon, Chronicles stands last, so that Jesus chose His examples from the first and last books of the Jewish (it should be Hebrew, not “Jewish” Bible) Bible.”

The story told here can be found in many reference books. The account might even have a thread of truth. The problem here is: it doesn’t square with the rest of Scripture. While the story about the Zechariah of 2 Chronicles 24:20 is undoubtedly true, it is probably THE WRONG ZECHARIAH. No doubt, some copyist did insert “son of Barachias,” for it is not found in Luke. The problem is: MOST OF THE RECORDED PROPHETS were after 878 B.C., when this particular Zechariah lived.

In other words, if Yahshua was talking about the prophets between Abel and the Zechariah of 2 Chronicles 24:20, it would exclude most of the major and minor prophets. If you will check the dates n which most of the major and minor prophets lived, you will see what we mean. We are sure the  Cain-Satanic-Seedline killed most of Yahweh’s prophets after 878 B.C. It’s like saying that the WAR started with the killing of Abel and continued to the Zechariah of 2 Chronicles 24:20; then subsided until the time of Yahshua, and then resumed. The WAR has been continuous ever since it started in Genesis 3:15.

Another Zechariah to be cited is the Zechariah mentioned by several commentaries and reference books, who lived about 40 years after the Messiah. This one can be found in Josephus’ Wars 4:5:4. The only one left that really makes any sense is the death of Zechariah, the father of John the Baptist, found in “The Protevangelion” of “The Lost Books Of The Bible And The Forgotten Books Of Eden,” 16:9-21, page 36:

“But Herod made search after John, and sent servants to Zacharias, when he was (ministering) at the altar, and said unto him, Where hast thou hid thy son? He replied to them, I am a minister of God (Yahweh), and a servant at the altar; how should I know where my son is/ So the servants went back, and told Herod the whole; at which he was incensed, and said, Is not this the son of his like to be king in Israel? He sent therefore again his servants to Zacharias, saying, Tell us the truth, where is thy son, for you know that your life is in my hand. So the servants went and told him all this: But Zacharias replied to them, I am a martyr for God (Yahweh), and if he shed my blood, the Lord (Yahweh) will receive my soul. Besides know that ye shed innocent blood. However Zacharias was murdered in the entrance of the temple and altar, and about the partition; But the children of Israel knew not when he was killed. Then at the hour of salutation the priests went into the temple, but Zacharias did not according to custom meet them and bless them; Yet they still continued waiting for him to salute them; And when they found he did not in a long time come, one of them ventured into the holy place where the altar was, and he saw blood lying upon the ground congealed; when, behold , a voice from heaven said, Zacharias is murdered and his blood shall not be wiped away until THE REVENGE OF HIS BLOOD COME...”

You can clearly see here the description of Zacharias’ death at the hand of Herod fits Luke 11:47-51 and Matthew 23:34-36 quite well. More importantly, it doesn’t leave any huge gaps in history from Abel to this Zacharias. Also, with the future tense, it covers the entire time period from Yahshua up until our present time. There have been no time outs in this WAR. For evidence that it is a genetic race war between the children of darkness and the children of light, we will quote the “Believer’s Bible Commentary,” by William MacDonald on Matthew 23:36, page 1291; also from page 1416 concerning Luke 11:50-51. While MacDonald doesn’t grasp the “Jew” question, he understands it is a matter of “race.”

“The guilt of all the past would come on the generation or RACE to which Christ (Yahshua) was speaking, as if all previous shedding of innocent blood somehow combined and climaxed in the death of the sinless Savior. A torrent of punishment would be poured out on the nation that hated its Messiah without a cause and nailed Him to a criminal’s cross. He would require of that generation the blood of all God’s (Yahweh’s) spokesmen, beginning with the first recorded case in the Old Testament, that of Abel, down to the last instance, that of Zechariah, who perished between the altar and the temple...Therefore the Lord Jesus (Yahshua) ran the entire gamut of martyrs when He mentioned Abel and Zechariah. As He uttered these words, He well know that the generation then living would put Him to death on the cross, and thus bring to an awful climax all their previous persecution of men of God (Yahweh).”

It was not at the cross that Messiah imposed revenge for all the prophets from Abel up until His time, but at the siege of Titus at Jerusalem in 70 A.D. For insight on this, we will quote from the “Adam Clarke’s Commentary On The Bible,” abridged by Ralph Earle, pages 816 and 874. Again, these are comments on the passages; Luke 11:47-51 and Matthew 23:34-36:

“The Lord (Yahshua) would, after the crucifixion of Christ (Yahshua), visit upon them the murder of all those righteous men, that their state should grow worse and worse, till at the last the Temple should be destroyed, and they (were) finally ruined by the Romans. Required. May be translated either by the word ‘visited’ or ‘revenged,’ and the latter word evidently conveys the meaning of our Lord (Yahshua). They are here represented AS HAVING THE BLOOD AMONG THEM; and it is intimated that God (Yahweh) will come by and by to require it, and to inquire how it was shed, and TO PUNISH THOSE WHO SHED IT.”

If you don’t understand Two Seedline, you can’t grasp the meaning of all that was going on at that particular time. Now a comment from “The Wycliffe Bible Commentary,” concerning Matthew 23:34 on page 971:

“These persecutions here foretold would fill up the measure of the Jew’s guilt, so that divine destruction would come upon that generation (descendants of Cain) of the nation.”

The “Matthew Henry’s Commentary,” on Luke 11:49-51 found in volume 5, page 704:

“That they must expect no other than to be reckoned with, as the fillers up of the measure of persecution, v. 50, 51. They keep up the trade as it were in succession, and therefore are responsible for the debts of the company, even those it has been contracting all along from the blood of Abel, when the world began, to that of Zacharias, and so forward to the end of the Jewish state; it shall all be required of this generation (race), this last generation of the Jews, whose sin in persecuting Christ’s apostles would exceed any of the sins of that kind that their fathers were guilty of, and so would bring wrath upon them to the uttermost, 1 Thessalonians 2:15-16. Their destruction by the Romans was so terrible that it might well be reckoned the completing of God’s (Yahweh’s) vengeance upon that persecuting nations...They are reproved for opposing the gospel of Christ (Yahshua), and doing all they could to obstruct the progress and success of it, v. 52...They had not, according to the duty of their place, faithfully expounded to the people those scriptures of the Old Testament which pointed at the Messiah, which if they had been led into the right understanding by the lawyers, they would readily have embraced him and his doctrine: but instead of that, they had perverted those texts, and had cast a mist before the eyes of the people, by their corrupt glosses upon them, and this is called taking away the key of knowledge; instead of using that key for the people, and helping them to use it aright, they hid it from them; this is called, in Matthew, shutting up the kingdom of heaven against men.” (Matthew 23:13)

From “Matthew Poole’s Commentary On The Holy Bible,” we get this on Luke 11:51, volume 3, page 232:

“The Pharisees, like a company of wretched hypocrites, under a pretense of their honoring the memories of the prophets under the Old Testament, took great care to repair and to adorn their sepulchers, while in the mean time their harts were as full of malice against the truth, and against Christ (Yahshua), and those who came to reveal God’s (Yahweh’s) will to them, as ever were their fathers against the prophets; and, saith our Savior, I who am the Wisdom of God, tell you, that I shall send you apostles and prophets, and some of them you shall kill, others you shall persecute; that all the righteous blood that hath been shed on the earth, from the blood of Abel to the blood of Zacharias, may come on you...”

You will notice there is some question as to who the correct Zacharias of Luke 11:51 and Matthew 23:35 is, but there is absolutely no question from these references just quoted as to who was Abel’s killer. As you can clearly see, the anti-Seedliners have a problem with Luke 11:47-51 and Matthew 23:34-36, and they refuse to address it.

                                                       As The Serpent Beguiled Eve

The next passage we are going to consider is 2 Corinthians 11:2-3:

“...for I have espoused you to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Yahshua. But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Yahshua.”

The anti-Seedliners really like to jump on this one and proclaim it’s all a matter of mental seduction. It would appear that before Eve was seduced by Satan, she was a “chaste virgin” according to this passage. Was Eve then a chaste virgin physically?, or a chaste virgin mentally? It should be obvious that Paul is telling the Corinthians that he desired their minds not to be violated as Eve was physically violated. Why even use the tem “chaste virgin” if Eve was not violated physically? Notice that Paul tells these Corinthians he had espoused them to one husband. He is saying that he would rather not have them to become espoused to an additional husband as Eve was. In other words, “I have espoused you to one husband”...not as “Eve.” Paul was simply implying that Eve, after her encounter with Satan, was no longer a chaste virgin.

                                                              The Greek Proves Eve

                                                Was Beguilded Mentally & Physically

The anti-Seedliners simply haven’t done their homework on the Greek in this passage. If it were speaking of being mentally “beguilded” by words, it would have used the word #538, apatao, meaning to deceive, bring, seduce or mislead into error. Or, if Paul would have meant mental seduction, he probably would have used #5422 or #5423 as in Galatians 6:3 & Titus 1:10. Instead of the word #1818, exapatao, is used. W.E. Vine in his “An Expository Dictionary Of New Testament Word,” page 112, explains it like this:

“Exapatao is a STRENGTHENED form of apatao...is rendered ‘beguile,’ 2 Corinthians 11:3; the more adequate rendering would be ‘as the serpent thoroughly beguiled Eve.’ So in 1 Timothy 2:14, in the best miss., this STRONGER form is used of Satan’s deception of Eve, literally thoroughly beguiled; the SIMPLER verb apatao, is used of Adam.”

If a mental seduction were meant, the word #538 apatao, would have been used. W.E. Vine repeats his explanation of the use of the Greek words APATAO and EXAPATAO on pages 278 & 279 under the word “deceive.” Under the heading “verbs,” on the word apatao he says this:

“...of those who deceive ‘with empty words,’ belittling the true character of the sins mentioned, Ephesians 5:6...of the fact that Adam was ‘not beguiled,’ 1 Timothy 2:14, R.V. (Cp. What is said of Eve; se exapatao below...”

Then Vine continues:

“EXAPATAO...INTENSIVE...signifies to BEGUILE THOROUGHLY, to DECEIVE WHOLLY...”

Thayer in his “Greek Lexicon” and Dr. Spiros Zodhiates in his “Word Study Dictionary N.T.” agree with W.E. Vine.

                                         Anti-Seedliner Addresses 2 Corinthians 11:3

Most anti-Seedliners avoid this passage with a twenty-foot pole, but, in his booklet “Eve, Did She Or Didn’t She?,” Ted R. Weiland takes a blind stab in the dark at 2 Corinthians 11:3. First, we would mention that Weiland does not point out the difference between APATAO and EXAPATAO as has been explained by W.E. Vine above. Without such an explanation, one can see how Weiland might drift into a dangerous state of error. As we quote Weiland now on pages 38-29, you can perceive his careless, or maybe blatant omission:

“Just as they misconstrue the Hebrew rod, the Seedliners distort the meaning of the Greek word ‘exapatao,’ translated ‘beguiled,’ to mean ‘sexual seduction’ in 2 Corinthians 11:3. ‘Exapatao’ is found six times in the New Testament; it is translated ‘beguilded’ once and ‘deceived’ five times. As was the case with its Hebrew counterpart ‘nasha,’ the Greek word ‘exapataho’ (sic) is not once used with sexual connotations.

“If ‘exapatao’ means to sexually seduce, as Seedline teachers claim, then in Romans 7:11 the Apostle Paul declared that sin sexually seduced him. In Romans 16:17-18 Paul warned the Roman church lest divisive false teachers sexually seduced them, as in 1 Corinthians 3:18 Paul warned the Corinthian Christians not to sexually seduce themselves. Consequently, there is nothing in the Biblical use of either ‘nasha’ or ‘exapatao’ to corroborate, justify or validate the Seedlines’ interpretation of these two words.

“If the serpent corresponds to Satan, and the beguiling in Genesis 3 and 2 Corinthians 11 was sexual in nature, then the Apostle Paul was warning the Corinthian Christians against Satan’s intention to fornicate with them. If such were the case, then why did not the other New Testament writers or Yahshua warn of the possibility? Why?  Because fornication was not the sin in Genesis 3, and it was not the sin Paul warned the Corinthian Church about.”

Again, if Paul would have meant mental seduction, he probably would have used #5422 or #5423 as in Galatians 6:3 and Titus 1:10. Some of the single Seedliners do not seem to understand the Bible, both TO and NT, uses vulgarities.

The prophets called both Israel and Judah “harlots” and “whores.” the prophets really used some very graphic language at times, and Paul was no different. We would rather not have to explain to a fully grown man about the birds and the bees. Yes, Paul did compare being “deceived” to non-marital sexual intercourse. We do the same thing today. In order to explain, we will illustrate with some modern-day vulgarities similar to the prophets of old. When a man today gets cheated in a business deal, he might say something like this: “That bastard screwed me out of 100 dollars” or “I really got shafted on that one.” We think you get the point, and we would rather not elaborate any further.

Yes, Paul was telling the Romans in 7:11 that his own sin (comparable to non-marital sexual intercourse) could destroy him. Yes, Paul was telling the Romans in 16:17-18 that false teachers (comparable to non-marital sexual intercourse) could corrupt them.

Yes, Paul was telling the Corinthians in 1 Corinthians 3:18 that their own self-conceited wisdom (comparable to non-marital sexual intercourse) could mislead them. And, Yes, Paul was telling the Corinthian Christians in 2 Corinthians 11:3 that they could be mentally “beguilded” as Eve was literally mentally and physically sexually “beguilded.” Our own advice is: BE CAREFUL OF PEOPLE WHO USE WORD TRICKERY. The object is to set you up on one word, and then clout you with five or six reverse meaning examples.

The “Jews” are masters at this sort of thing. Carefully go back over the quotation by Weiland and see if he might have been setting us up. You might start with “If exapatao means...”

If you have his book, you might check to see if he may have used that same system in other places. WATCH FOR THE SETUP FOLLOWED BY SEVERAL SEEMINGLY ABSURD EXAMPLES. The con-artist might approach you something like this: “If this means this, look how absurd this, and this, and this, and this, and this is.” One you become aware of this devious system, you can no longer be deceived into believing darkness is light and bitter is sweet.

“The Adam Clarke’s Commentary on the Bible,” abridged by Ralph Earle, has this to say about this pssage,2 Corinthians 11:2-3, on page 1147:

“That I may present you as a chaste virgin. There seems to be a reference to Leviticual 21:14, that the high priest must not marry anyone that was not a pure virgin. Here than Christ (Yahshua) is the High Priest, the Souse or Husband; the Corinthian Church, the pure virgin to be espoused; the apostle and his helpers had educated and prepared this virgin for her husband and espoused her to him...As the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtlety. This is a strong reflection on the false apostle and his teaching. He was subtle, and by his subtlety he was enabled to corrupt the minds of the people from the simplicity of the gospel of Christ (Yahshua); or, to follow the metaphor, he had seduced the pure, chaste, well-educated virgin from her duty, affection, and allegiance to her one and only true Husband, the High Priest, Jesus Christ (Yahsuah).”

As we can clearly see from the events as they occur, we are moving very rapidly toward the climax of a 7,000 plus year-old WAR. The forces from both sides of this war are gathering for a final battle which will culminate in the total extermination of one side or the other.

This war will not end with a truce or an armistice, but will be a fight to the death. As a matter of fact, we are already in this last great battle, and, for the moment, we are rapidly going down to defeat.

And, unless our people wake up PDQ, we are in for one “H” of a conflict. All one has to do is observe the multiculturalism and miscegenation that is going on, and you can very quickly calculate where we stand in this life and death struggle. While all this is going on, the masses have been lulled into a state of indifference and unconcern, while the Judeo-Christian Clergy are actually aiding and abetting the enemy. And, if this were not bad enough, the anti-Seedliners blow the ‘trumpet” with an “uncertain sound,” 1 Corinthians 14:8:

“For if the trumpet give an uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself to the battle?”

By denying the two Seedline message of Genesis 3:15, this is exactly what they are doing. Actually, it’s a capital crime in a time of danger not to identify the enemy. Today, Israel is in greater peril than at any time in her history. (Mark 13:22)

                                                                An Uncertain Sound

We will shortly see an excellent example of a “trumpet” with an “uncertain sound.” Once we understand we are in a WAR where the “Jews” are implementing their plan to interbreed the White Israelite peoples out of existence, any rhetorical proclamation which would aid such a cause would be very traitorous and untimely. Jeffery A. Weakley, a fervently, caustic, anti-seedliner, in his “The Satanic Seedline, Its Doctrine and History,” says this on page 30-31L

“Results of the Satanic Seedline Teaching. The results of the Satanic Seedline teaching (if accepted as true) should speak for themselves. Most Seedliners hate Jews today (those who claim to be) because of their ethnic origin. For this same reason, they honor the white races because of their ethnic origin. This easily leads to race worship. They stress the physical aspect of God’s Word (that is the physical descent of Israel), which is ignored by most churches today, so much that they forget or neglect the spiritual aspect, which is of more importance (Galatians 3:26-29). They make true the words in 1 Samuel 16:7 ‘...for the Lord seeth not as a man seeth; for man looketh on the outward appearance, but the Lord looketh on the heart.’

“Many Seedliners go so far as to say that only whites (Israelites) can have eternal life with Christ. Now it is clear that only Israelites can be ‘redeemed’ (Galatians 4:5), but this is not to say that other races can’t be born again. Our eternal life is the result of our election by God to accept is Son by faith. If the Scriptures are to be accepted, WE MUST CONCLUDE that people OF ALL RACES can be born again. ‘Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of the truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons: But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him.’  ...The Seedliners that worship their race are no different than those who purport to be Jews. Jews today take pride in their race (Here we can see this fellow continue with the lie that the Jews are a race, when they are not they are a people who share the same religion, called Judaism) and consider themselves better than everyone else. Even the Jewish religion (Judaism) teaches that Jews are superior by race. This ludicrous belief was taught at the Baptist Bible College I attended. There is no doubt that god chose Israel to be His people, but nowhere do I find that it was because Israel was a superior race. So whether it be Seedliners or Jews, the idea of a superior race is inconsistent with the teachings of God’s Word.”

As you can clearly see, Jeffrey A. Weakley is in no position to fight back at the enemy in this great racial war to destroy the Israel Race. With his attitude on race, it wouldn’t be surprising if his daughter or granddaughter ended up getting pregnant by a Negro or Mongolian. But, that would probably be all right with him as long as they are “born again.”

He indicates, according to his knowledge, that the Bible doesn’t teach such a thing. Mr. Jeffery A. Weakley should be reminded that the Almighty killed two of Judah’s sons by his Canaanite wife in order to prevent the Satanic gene-pool from getting into the Royal Messianic Line. You will notice, Weakley used Galatians 3:26-29 to try to make his point. Let’s take a look at that passage and see what it is really talking about. Weakley intimates that in this passage it is speaking of other races getting into the kingdom.

“For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if ye be Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.”

With this passage, Weakley attempts to bring all the other races under Yahweh’s Covenant to Abraham. This is the same approach that Judeo-Christianity uses. Another Judeo-Churchianity person, trying to make the same point as Weakley, also quoted to us, Colossians 3:11 where it says:

“Where there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision, Barbarian, Scythian, bond nor free: but Christ is all, and in all.”

This other person also quoted Romans 2:10-11; 10:11-13 and 11:13 in order to bring other races under the Covenant. In answering this we said:

“You quoted Romans 10:11-13; Galatians 3:27-29; Colossians 3:11; Romans 2-10:11; 11:13. We don’t want to appear as a smart aleck or a know-it-all, but we would like to present some background on these passages which we can authenticate from a combination of Scripture, secular history and archaeology.

“As you quoted three passages from Romans, let’s consider who the Romans were. If you will look up in your encyclopedia (and you may have to use more than one) for the founding of Rome, you will find it was established under the insignia of a she-wolf (the story of Romulus and Remus). Who then, in the Bible is identified as the wolf?

The answer is found in Genesis 49:27; Benjamin is the wolf. The Romans were Benjamites. The Romans to whom Paul preached were Israelites of the Tribe of Banjamin. Do you know anyone by the name of Wolf/Wolfe?, no doubt a Benjamite.

“Also the name “Wilson” means “wolf’s son.” As Zerah-Judah also settled in that area, some of the Romans may have been of the House of Zerah/Judah. When it says, Romans 10:12, ‘For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek...’ it is indicating there is no difference between the Tribe of Dan and the Tribe of Judah for they are both Israelites. The term “Jew” must be qualified as there were true Israelites of the Tribe of Judah and some counterfeit people claiming themselves the Tribe of Judah, but lying about it. (Revelation 2:9; 3:9)

“As the word ‘Greek’ is used three times in these passages, let’s investigate who the Greeks were. Some of the Tribe of Dan left Egypt before the Exodus. As Hebrew writing has no vowels, it is written simply as ‘dn.’ Variations of the name can be Dan, Den, Din, Don or Dun. Do you know anyone by the names of dunn, Dunbar, Duncan, Dunham or Dunlap? Genesis 49:17 says: ‘Dan shall be a serpent by the way...’ Judges 5:17 indicates that Dan literally lived in his ships. Dan, in his ships, wove like a serpent up every river alley putting up a sign with his name on it.

The river DANube is named after him. The name McDONald means ‘son of Don, or Dan.’ Paul preached at a place called ‘MaceDONia’ in Greece. (Acts 16:9-12) We know you know the story. When Paul was preaching there to Danites, he was preaching to Israelites. 

“We are glad you quoted Colossians 3:11. What this verse is sayi8ng in essence is: There is no “difference” between a genuine member of the Israelite Tribe of Judah and the Israelite-Greek Tribe of Dan; there is no “difference” between a circumcised Israelite and an uncircumcised Israelite; thee is no “difference” between a Barbarian Israelite and a Scythian Israelite; there is no “difference” between a bond Israelite or a free Israelite, for Christ (Yahshua) is genetically a brother, or related to all of them. Galatians 3:28-29 goes on to indicate there is no genetic “difference” between an Israelite male or an Israelite female, for if you are a genetic relative to Christ (Yahshua), you are Abraham’s sperma and you are included under Yahweh’s Covenant to Abraham.

“There is one other group we should talk about, and that is Zerah/Judah. There is much evidence, that some of Zerah/Judah, like Dan, left Egypt before the Exodus. If you will heck 1 Chronicles 2:6, you will find that Zarah had a son by the name of Dara. In 1 Kings 4:31 his name is spelled Darda. This branch of Zerah/Judah left Egypt, as we say, BEFORE the Exodus. Today the area they settled in is named the DARDAnelles, although they are long gone from there. They were Trojans and established the city of Troy where they lived for four hundred years. The Israelite/Trojans then moved to Italy, and while some stayed in Italy, others returned to the Aegean area, built hundreds of ships and sailed to Britain. This part of Zerah/Judah’s history is completely documented by Bible and secular history, there are no missing links. In other words, it is an absolute historical fact that Zerah/Judah made it to Britain. The Scottish Highlanders wore kilts like the Trojans. In his 1999 book “The Bible Is History,” by Ian Wilson, page 87, it has been found that the Israelites of Canaan wore kilts also; it has been a mode of Israelite dress from the beginning.

“As for the ‘Barbarians’ and ‘Scythians:’ In Jeremiah 51:20, Yahweh told Israel: ‘Thou art my battle axe and weapons of war: for with thee will I break in pieces the nations, and with thee will I destroy kingdoms.’ Judah was the fighting tribe. The Barbarians of Paul’s time were the German tribes, and are rightly described as such in Jeremiah. Our ancestors were these same Barbarians, for we are German and of the Tribe of Judah. The name Scythian is one of the names which the Israelites were called after breaking away from the Assyrians. Therefore, the Scythians spoken of in Colossians 3:11 are definitely Israelites. As a matter of fact, all the Scripture references you quoted were speaking only of Israelites.”

Weakley accuses us Two Seedliners of taking Scripture out of context, but who really is, for he proved ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to backup his thesis by referring to Galatians 3:26-29? Jeffrey A. Weakley then proceeds on pages 14 to 20 to try to prove that Two Seedline doctrine (according to his assumption) must be false. In doing this, he presents some history of the Identity Movement which we believe yo will find interesting; although his conclusions, as in his foregoing postulation, are flawed:

“The Origin of the False Teaching: If, as I contend, the Satanic Seedline doctrine (as taught by the Seedliners) is not found in the Scriptures, and since it was not taught by any of the early church fathers as being correct, how dit it find its way into the Christian belief system known as ‘Identity?’ To find the answer we need to properly define Identity. There are at least three specific systems of belief which are very similar, and yet each is distinctly different. There are the Anglo-Israel, British-Israel, and Christian-Israel beliefs. Identity can include all three of these beliefs, depending on how they are taught. For a definition of Identity we will go to the man who first made the term popular in America over 50 years ago (see The National Christian, 1991 Ed., p. 25).

“That man is Howard B. Rand. ‘The preaching of the Identity has been going on for years now. It has resulted in millions in Anglo-Saxondom becoming acquainted with the fact that they are lineal descendants of the northern ten-tribed Kingdom of Israel (This writer, like all those who try to condemn the Christian Identity beliefs, never mentions that Judah, Benjamin, and Levi were also carried into Assyrian captivity with the other ten tribes, but a hundred or so years later)...Thus, the Anglo-Saxon, Germanic, Scandinavian, Celtic, Nordic, and Slavic people stand out as Israel in these latter days.’ (Study in Revelation, by Howard B. Rand, p. 115)

“Thus Identity is the belief or teaching that the Anglo-Saxon and kindred peoples are the physical descendants of the northern ten-tribed Kingdom of Israel in the Old Testament. (He is wrong here, we believe that all 13 tribes are Israelites) I will note here that many believe that Wesley Swift founded Identity (see Bitter Harvest, by James Corcoran, p. 38) in 1946 and others that the ‘Identity movement was conceived and first spread by three men with times to the Radical Right. Wesley Swift, Bertrand Comparet, and William Gale.’ (See God, Guts, and Guns, by Philip Finch, p. 68) Although this view is set forth, it is simply the product of those who do too little research and do not yet have all the facts. The simple fact is that the term ‘Identity’ as used to describe the Anglo-Saxon history was used as far back as 1884, when Elieser Bassin used it. He tells how he picked it up from others before him. However, it was Howard B. Rand that called the Anglo-Israel history “Identity.’ Rand did not hold or teach the Satanic Seedline doctrine. ‘Two sons were born to Adam and Eve and they were named in their order: Cain and Abel,’ (Primo-Genesis, by Howard B. Rand, p. 41) The Satanic Seedline was brought into the Identity teaching with San Jacinto Capt an Wesley A. Swift. Actually, San Jacinto Capt claimed to have gotten Wesley Swift started (in Identity) (see Committee of the States, by Cheri Seymour, p. 83)

In any case, Wesley Swift presented the Seedline doctrine to Gerald L. K. Smith (see Besieged Patriot, by Gerald L.K. Smith, pp. 238-239) and shortly later Jacinto Capt (father of E. Raymond Capt, who has written many outstanding books on archaeology) introduced William P. Gale to Swift. In later years Richard Butler would take over Swift’s Church (now know as Aryan Nations).

“As this is not meant to be a history of the identity movement, I will stop here, but suffice it to say that the Seedline doctrine saturated Identity through the influence of San Jacinto Capt, Wesley Swift, and William P. Gale. Where did they get this belief? Capt and Swift both got it from the Ku Klux Klan (they bother were members; see Committee of the States, by Cheri Seymour, p. 84).”

We need to interrupt Weakley at this point, for he is making a dangerous and uncalled for false assumption. From this point on, for the rest of chapter 4, he builds a case based on circumstantial supposition. (1) He first makes the claim, just quoted, that San Jacinto Capt and Wesley A. Swift got the Satanic Seedline doctrine form the Ku Klux Klan; (2) He next presents evidence the Ku Klux Klan was instituted by the Mason; (3) Then, he makes a connection of the Masons with the Gnostics; and (4) Lastly, he connects the Gnostic with the Jews and the Talmud, and makes the claim the Satanic Seedline doctrine originated with the “Jews.”

Jeffrey A. Weakley has a weak link in his hypothesis. He did not prove with any tangible evidence that there was a connection of the Satanic Seedline doctrine with the Ku Klux Klan! If he had had any evidence, you can be quite sure he would have quoted it. There isn’t any, and he didn’t. It is like saying he saw a person check in at a motel one night at Salem, Massachusetts, and then, swearing to God on a stack of Bibles 20 feet high, proclaiming he knew for a fact that person practiced witchcraft. We would sure hate to be on trial for our life and have Weakley as a juror.

Let’s now continue with Weakley’s remarks on the KKK on pages 15-16:

“The Klan takes some explaining. The first Ku Klux Klan was organized in Tennessee in 1867 under the leadership of Gen. N.B. Forrest. This Klan was disbanded sometime in 1869 (see “Vigilantes of Christendom, by Richard K. Hoskins, pp. 245, 247). The next official Ku Klux Klan was founded in 1915 as The Knights of the Ku Klux Klan. The founder was William Joseph Simmons, who was a Royal Arch Mason (see Occult Theocracy, by Lady Queensborough, aka Edith “Starr Miller, p. 607) thus the Ku Klux Klan got its Seedline doctrine from the Masonic teaching. Many people do not know that a Mason started the Ku Klux Klan, and fewer people know the Masons teach the Seedline doctrine.

“William P. Gale became an honorary member of the Kyu Klux Klan after he had already been teaching the Seedline doctrine for some time. He denied that he developed his belief from the Ku Klux Klan, and this may be true. William P. Gale was a long-time Mason and developed his Seedline belief from the same place the Ku Klux Klan got theirs: the Mason. Now I will prove that the Masons teach Seedline.” (Here let me state unequivocally that the Masons do not teach the Seedline doctrine, in fact they deny it. I was a Mason, Blue Lodge, Scottish Rite, and Shriner, and nowhere and at no time did they teach this Seedline doctrine)

Mr. Weakley, we may have another problem. We don’t know whether it is true or not, but we have heard that Howard B. Rand was also a Mason. If this is true, why did he teach against the Two Seedline doctrine? If this is correct, would this discredit all of Mr. Rand’s teachings also; or any other former Mason for that part? This is the old DISHONEST con-artist’s trice of GUILT BY ASSOCIATION, plan and simple.

                                                        Weakley Plays His Ace Card

On page 20, Jeffrey A. Weakly finally plays his ace card, and thinks he has won his argument. After going step by step from the KKK to the Talmud, he lays all his cards on the table. This is what he says:

“Next we find that the Kabalists go their teaching from the Jewish Babylonian Talmud. ‘...what evil, however, could be involved here? (8) That of infusing her with sensual lust. For R. Johanan stated: When the serpent copulated with Eve, (9) he infused her (10) with lust...’ (9) In the Garden of Eden, according to a tradition. (10) I.e., the human species...’” (The Babylonian Talmud, Soncino Press Ed., Seder Nashim (Yebamoth 203b))

“The Babylonian Talmud is the written form of the ‘tradition of the elders’ (Matthew 15:2-3) which had been orally taught since the Babylonian captivity. This teaching was a perversion of God’s Law. These traditions were actually a combination of Baal worship (as practiced in Babylon) and the Law of God as given to Israel by Moses ...Thus we have arrived at the human origin of the Satanic Seedline doctrine: Babylon. What I find especially fascinating is that most Seedliners express unfathomable hostility toward those who call themselves Jews today and at the same time they adopt the ‘Jewish fables’ (Titus 1:14) that came out of Babylon.”

To catch you off your guard, Weakley wants you to presume that every last statement in the Babylonian Talmud is a 100% total lie. If this were true, even the “Jews” would repudiate their own Talmudic books. Weakley believes he has pulled some type of magic string by quoting directly from the Babylonian Talmud, and you will automatically, like a programmed robot, buy his argument. It’s similar to the way the “Jews” use the magic word “anti-Semite.” Again, it’s the old dishonest “Jewish” con-artistt’s trick of guilt by association, plan and simple, and Weakley is playing it to the hilt of his sword. Our advice is: Don’t ever stay at a motel overnight in Salem, Massachusetts, or you might be accused of being a witch.

                                                                   Another Witness

One of the very first things the anti-Seedliners who are opposed to a literal Satan-spawned genetic physical Seedline do, is point to the fact the informatin can be found in the Babylonian Talmud. Jeffrey A. Weakley, and many others of his particular beliefs, is no exception as quoted above. This is a sneaky, deceptive, and dishonest method used by “many” (not all by any stretch of immignation, but by may) to delare guilt by association. The question must be asked: Is every single word in the Talmud false?

This idea is built on the assumption, that if it is found in the Babylonian Talmud, it is automatically evil. For anyone who uses this approach, we would challenge them to prove every single word in the Babylonian Talmud to be false.

It can’t be done, because not everything that is said in there is false, even though it is a collection of the most evil writings ever put together. Only some one who does not know anything about the Talmud would believe or accept such a totally flimsy premise. Not only is there evidence found in the Talmud substantiating the seduction of Eve, but evidence can be found in “The Lost Books of the Bible and The Forgotten Books of Eden.”

The “Protevangelion” 10:1-10:

“And when her sixth month was come, Joseph returned from his building houses abroad, which was his trade, and entering into the house, found the Virgin grown big: Then smiting upon his face, he said, With what face can I look up to the Lord my God? Or, what shall I say concerning this young woman? For I received her a Virgin out of the temple of the Lord my God and have not preserved her such. Who has thus deceived me? Who has committed this evil in my house, and seducing the Virgin from me, hath defiled her? IS NOT THE HISTORY OF ADAM EXACTLY ACCOMPLISHED IN ME? FOR IN THE VERY INSTANT OF HIS GLORY, THE SERPENT CAME AND FOUND EVE ALONE, AND SEDUCED HER. JUST AFTER THE SAME MANNER IT HAS HAPPENED TO ME Then Joseph arising from the ground, called her, and said, O thou who hast been so much favored by God, why hast thou done this? Why hast thou thus debased thy soul, who wast educated in the Holy of Holies (she was able to stay and live there until she started to have her period, and after that the priests married her off), and received thy food from the hand of angels? But she, with a flood of tears, replied, I am innocent, and have known no man.”

If you will remember, Jeffrey A. Weakley made this statement on page 14:

“The Origin of the False Teaching. If, as we contend, the Satanic Seedline doctrine (as taught by the Seedliners) is not found in the Scriptures, AND SINCE IT WAS NOT TAUGHT BY ANY OF THE EARLY CHURCH FATHERS as being correct, how did it find its way into the Christian belief system known as ‘Identity?’”

As he seemed to have such a high regard of his own ability to research, and was so critical of the Two Seedliners to do so, let’s see whether or not the “early church fathers” understood anything concerning this doctrine. For this we will use part of an article from “The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible,” volume E-J, pages 799-800:

“James, Protevangelium Of...The earliest of the infancy gospels, recounting the birth, childhood, adolescence, token marriage, supernatural pregnancy, and delivery of Mary. Together with the Gospel of Thomas...it was the chief source of several other infancy gospels. Its original title appears to have been History of James Concerning the Birth of Mary; ORIGEN REFERS TO IT AS THE BOOK OF JAMES...It was first styled Protevangelium (i.e., Protogospel) of James by its sixteenth-century discoverer, Guillaume Postel. THE EARLIEST CERTAIN REFERENCE TO THIS WRITING IS BY ORIGEN, ho cites it as the source of the tradition that Jesus’ brothers were ‘sons’ of Joseph by a former wife whom he had married before Mary’...’Now I, James, who wrote this history in Jerusalem, when there arose a tumult when Herod died, withdrew myself into the wilderness until the tumult ceased in Jerusalem. Glorifying the Lord God who gave me the gift and wisdom to write this history.’”

As you can clearly see, THE EARLY CHURCH FATHERS WERE VERY MUCH ACQUAINTED WITH THE PROTEVANGELIUM, and this they understood the physical seduction of Eve by Satan as described in the quotation from said book above. We believe Mr. Jeffrey A. Weakley, that Origen was indeed an “early church father.” Weakley uses some very underhanded tactics is his unwarranted and groundless argument trying to prove the Two Seedliners in error. We will look at one of them now. On page 21 of his “The Satanic Seedline, Its doctrine and History,” he tries his best (or maybe his worst) to mislead his readers. He tries in vain to convince them that the Seedliners are mistaken by quoting from “Matthew Henry’s Commentary.” In doing this, he does not name the volume or page as he so faithfully did with his other quotations. It is glaringly apparent he didn’t want anyone to go to “Matthew Henry” and heck on him on this one. All he said was: “The best explanation for this is found in Matthew Henry’s Commentary.” After searching for some time, it was found that he was quoting from page 29 in volume 1 concerning Henry’s comments on Genesis 3:14-15 and this is what he quoted:

“Observe here, The serpent and the woman had just now been very familiar and friendly in discourse about the forbidden fruit, and a wonderful agreement there was between them; but here they are irreconcilably set at variance. Note, Sinful friendships justly end in mortal feuds: those that unite in wickedness will not unite long.”

Weakley deliberately omitted Matthew Henry’s remark just three paragraphs later on the next page (page 30), hoping you would never find where Matthew Henry says the following:

“A perpetual quarrel is here commenced between the kingdom of God and the kingdom of the devil among men; war is proclaimed between the seed of the woman and the seed of the serpent.”

The single seedliners always fall back on Genesis 4:1:

“And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the LORD.” (Genesis 4:1)

The New King James relates it this way:

“Now Adam knew Eve his wife, and she conceived and bore Cain, and said, "I have acquired a man from the LORD."

However, the single seedliners never pay any attention to the “;” after the word wife. In the King James Version. This “;” separates the first part of the verse from the rest of it.

So Adam knew Eve his wife, but there is no proof that she got pregnant from that union. A man can have intercourse with his wife many times and not get her pregnant; or he can have it one time and she becomes pregnant.

Also in both verses she thought she had gotten a man child from the “Lord.” She did not say that she got it from Adam, but she got it from the “Lord.” Because she thought that Satan was a “lord” when he was talking to her and beguiled her.

How the single seedliners can say that the woman has seed that relates to Christ and then deny that the part about Satan having seed, is beyond belief. They pick and choose the parts of a verse they want to believe and discard the parts they don’t want.

Genesis 3:16 has many children coming from Satan, not just Cain. Which the single seedliners never mention. In fact, there are many sons and daughters of Satan, but they are not called that.

We find the first mention of them in:

“Certain men, THE CHILDREN OF BELIAL, are gone out from among you, and have withdrawn the inhabitants of their city, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which ye have not known.” (Deuteronomy 13:13)

Now who is this Belial you ask? Well lets look at a couple of Bible commentaries and see what they have to say.

Belial:

[BEE lih uhl] (worthlessness); AN OLD TESTAMENT TERM DESIGNATING A PERSON AS GODLESS OR LAWLESS. The NKJV translates corrupt (1 Samuel 2:12), perverted (Judges 19:22), rebel (2 Samuel 20:1), scoundrel (1 Kings 21:10,13), worthless men (1 Samuel 30:22), and worthless rogues (2 Samuel 16:7). A "daughter of Belial" (1 Samuel 1:16), (KJV) means a wicked woman (NKJV, NIV), one who is base (RSV) and worthless (NASB).

BELIAL SOMETIMES TAKES THE FORM OF A PROPER NAME (or a personification), APPLIED TO A DEMON OR TO SATAN (Nah. 1:15). MANY SCHOLARS BELIEVE THAT BELIAL IS ANOTHER NAME FOR SATAN. (from Nelson's Illustrated Bible Dictionary) (Copyright (C) 1986, Thomas Nelson Publishers)

Belial:

BE'LIAL (be'li‑al; "worthlessness, wickedness"). Belial is often used in the KJV as if it were a proper name, but beyond question it should not be regarded in the OT as such, its meaning being "worthlessness," and hence "recklessness, lawlessness."

The expression "son" or "man of Belial" must be understood as meaning simply a worthless, lawless fellow (Deuteronomy 13:13; Judg. 19:22; 20:13), see marg.; etc.)

In the NT the term appears (in the best manuscripts) in the form Belias, and not Belial, as given in the KJV. THE TERM, AS USED IN (2 Corinthians 6:15), IS GENERALLY UNDERSTOOD AS APPLIED TO SATAN, AS THE PERSONIFICATION OF ALL THAT IS BAD.

Belial occurs only once in the NASB and NIV (2 Corinthians 6:15). Elsewhere in those translations the Hebrew terms rendered "sons [or children] of Belial" in the KJV are given as "worthless men," "worthless fellows," or "wicked men," often with a marginal reading, "lit., sons of Belial." (from New Unger's Bible Dictionary) (originally published by Moody Press of Chicago, Illinois.  Copyright (C) 1988.)

Belial:

(worthlessness): recklessness, lawlessness. Not strictly a proper name, but used so by personification. [Beli] = "without" and [ya'al] "usefulness," i.e. good for nothing. "A man of Belial" is a worthless, lawless fellow (Deuteronomy 13:13; Judges 19:22; 1 Samuel 2:12). Later [Raqa'] ("vain fellows" (2 Samuel 6:20), [hareeqiym]), and "Fool" were used instead: (Matthew 5:22). [Nabal] (= fool) is called "man of Belial" (1 Samuel 25:25) In the New Testament "Beliar" is the form in some oldest manuscripts (2 Corinthians 6:15) AS SATAN IS OPPOSED TO GOD, ANTICHRIST TO CHRIST, SO BELIAL STANDING HERE IN CONTRAST TO CHRIST MUST DENOTE ALL ANTI-CHRISTIAN POLLUTIONS PERSONIFIED. (from Fausset's Bible Dictionary)

When reading on in the scriptures after Deuteronomy 13:13, we see that Yahweh orders the children of Belial destroyed, every man, woman and child and all their goods:

“Then shalt thou inquire, and make search, and ask diligently; and, behold, if it be truth, and the thing certain, that such abomination is wrought among you; THOU SHALT SURELY SMITE THE INHABITANTS (Yahweh is saying here all of the inhabitants of the city, the men, women and children they are so evil) OF THAT CITY WITH THE EDGE OF THE SWORD, DESTROYING IT UTTERLY, AND ALL THAT IS THEREIN, AND THE CATTLE THEREOF, WITH THE EDGE OF THE SWORD. And thou shalt gather all the spoil of it into the midst of the street thereof, and shalt burn with fire the city, and all the spoil thereof every whit, for the LORD thy God: and it shall be an heap for ever; it shall not be built again. And there shall cleave nought of the cursed thing to thine hand: that the LORD may turn from the fierceness of his anger, and shew thee mercy, and have compassion upon thee, and multiply thee, as he hath sworn unto thy fathers; When thou shalt hearken to the voice of the LORD thy God, to keep all his commandments which I command thee this day, to do that which is right in the eyes of the LORD thy God.” (Deuteronomy 13:14‑18)

The men and women of Belial were and are queers as the following verse attests:

“Now as they were making their hearts merry, behold, the men of the city, certain sons of Belial, beset the house round about, and beat at the door, and spake to the master of the house, the old man, saying, BRING FORTH THE MAN THAT CAME INTO THINE HOUSE, THAT WE MAY KNOW HIM.” (Judges 19:22)

The man of the house asked the queers to go away and leave him and the man alone and that they should not do such evil.

“And the man, the master of the house, went out unto them, and said unto them, Nay, my brethren, nay, I pray you, do not so wickedly; seeing that this man is come into mine house, do not this folly. Behold, here is my daughter a maiden, and his concubine; them I will bring out now, and humble ye them, and do with them what seemeth good unto you: but unto this man do not so vile a thing. But the men would not hearken to him: so the man took his concubine, and brought her forth unto them; and they knew her, and abused her all the night until the morning: and when the day began to spring, they let her go. Then came the woman in the dawning of the day, and fell down at the door of the man's house (she died from the abuse) where her lord was, till it was light. And her lord rose up in the morning, and opened the doors of the house, and went out to go his way: and, behold, the woman his concubine was fallen down at the door of the house, and her hands were upon the threshold. And he said unto her, Up, and let us be going. But none answered. Then the man took her up upon an ass, and the man rose up, and got him unto his place. And WHEN HE WAS COME INTO HIS HOUSE, HE TOOK A KNIFE, AND LAID HOLD ON HIS CONCUBINE, AND DIVIDED HER, TOGETHER WITH HER BONES, INTO TWELVE PIECES, AND SENT HER INTO ALL THE COASTS OF ISRAEL.” (Judges 19:23‑29) 

When he sent the pieces of the woman to the twelve tribes, one can just imagine what consternation it caused them. It caused such a furor that they had a meeting of all the tribes to see what they would do, to these evil men.

“And it was so, that all that saw it said, There was no such deed done nor seen from the day that the children of Israel came up out of the land of Egypt unto this day: consider of it, take advice, and speak your minds.” (Judges 19:30)

So the Tribes of Israel had their meeting and it was decided that they would destroy the evil men that did this awful deed. They told Benjamin in the city to:

“Now therefore deliver us the men, the children of Belial, which are in Gibeah, that we may put them to death, and put away evil from Israel. But the children of Benjamin would not hearken to the voice of their brethren the children of Israel.” (Judges 20:13)

But the Benjamites would not deliver the evil sons of Belial to the other Israelites. And because of them not giving up the evil ones, the sons of Satan, the Jews who were called “Belial” all but a few of the tribe of Benjamin were destroyed.

“Now therefore deliver us the men, the children of Belial, which are in Gibeah, that we may put them to death, and put away evil from Israel. But the children of Benjamin would not hearken to the voice of their brethren the children of Israel.” (Judges 20:13)

Then because they would not hearken unto their brothers:

“And the children of Benjamin said, They are smitten down before us, as at the first. But the children of Israel said, Let us flee, and draw them from the city unto the highways. And all the men of Israel rose up out of their place, and put themselves in array at Baaltamar: and the liers in wait of Israel came forth out of their places, even out of the meadows of Gibeah. And there came against Gibeah ten thousand chosen men out of all Israel, and the battle was sore: but they knew not that evil was near them. And the LORD smote Benjamin before Israel: and the children of Israel destroyed of the Benjamites that day twenty and five thousand and an hundred men: all these drew the sword. So the children of Benjamin saw that they were smitten: for the men of Israel gave place to the Benjamites, because they trusted unto the liers in wait which they had set beside Gibeah. And the liers in wait hasted, and rushed upon Gibeah; and the liers in wait drew themselves along, and smote all the city with the edge of the sword. Now there was an appointed sign between the men of Israel and the liers in wait, that they should make a great flame with smoke rise up out of the city. And when the men of Israel retired in the battle, Benjamin began to smite and kill of the men of Israel about thirty persons: for they said, Surely they are smitten down before us, as in the first battle. But when the flame began to arise up out of the city with a pillar of smoke, the Benjamites looked behind them, and, behold, the flame of the city ascended up to heaven. And when the men of Israel turned again, the men of Benjamin were amazed: for they saw that evil was come upon them. Therefore they turned their backs before the men of Israel unto the way of the wilderness; but the battle overtook them; and them which came out of the cities they destroyed in the midst of them. Thus they inclosed the Benjamites round about, and chased them, and trode them down with ease over against Gibeah toward the sunrising. And there fell of Benjamin eighteen thousand men; all these were men of valour. And they turned and fled toward the wilderness unto the rock of Rimmon: and they gleaned of them in the highways five thousand men; and pursued hard after them unto Gidom, and slew two thousand men of them. So that all which fell that day of Benjamin were twenty and five thousand men that drew the sword; all these were men of valour. But six hundred men turned and fled to the wilderness unto the rock Rimmon, and abode in the rock Rimmon four months. And the men of Israel turned again upon the children of Benjamin, and smote them with the edge of the sword, as well the men of every city, as the beast, and all that came to hand: also they set on fire all the cities that they came to.” (Judges 20:32‑48)

The children of Israel slew so many of the Tribe of Benjamin that they feared that Benjamin would cease to be a tribe; so they went to Yahweh and asked how they could remedy the situation as they had sworn that they would not give their daughters to Benjamin for wives. And Yahweh told them what to do and they did it, therefore Benjamin remained a tribe in Israel.

The sons or daughters are mentioned also in the following scriptures: 1 Samuel 1:16, 10:27, 25:17, 25:25, 30:22; 2 Samuel 16:7, 20:1, 23:6; 1 Kings 21:10, 21:13; 2 Chronicles 13:7; 2 Corinthians 6:15. And every time they are mentioned they are evil and are to be eventually destroyed.

There is no doubt that these are the children of Satan, just as was Cain. They were the descendants of Cain.

Belial:

(be'‑li‑al), (bel'‑yal) (beliya`al; Beliar): This name, occurring very frequently in the Old Testament, has the sense of "worthlessness" (compare (2 Samuel 23:6); accordingly in such phrases as "sons of Belial" (Judges 20:13; 1 Samuel 10:27, etc.), "Men of Belial" (1 Samuel 30:22; 1 Kings 21:13, etc.), which the English Revised Version usually retains, the American Standard Revised Version more correctly renders, "base fellows" (so "daughter of Belial" (1 Samuel 1:16), "wicked woman"). There is here no suggestion a proper name. AFTERWARD, HOWEVER, “BELIAL” BECAME A PROPER NAME FOR SATAN, OR FOR ANTICHRIST (thus frequently in the Jewish (should be rendered Israelite) Apocalyptic writings, e.g. in XII P, Book Jub, Asc Isa, Sib Or). In this sense Paul used the word in 2 Corinthians 6:15, "What concord hath Christ with Belial?" (Beliar). Bousset thinks that Paul's "man of sin" in 2 Thessalonians 2:3, where some authorities read "man of lawlessness," is a translation of this term. The sense at least is similar. See ANTICHRIST; MAN OF SIN. JAMES ORR (from International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, Electronic Database Copyright (C) 1996 by Biblesoft)

We have this from another commentary on the word Belial:

David, "what a mean creature is he!" "Lord, what is man," may we say upon the reading of this story, "what a vile creature is he, when he is given up to his  own heart's lusts!" THE SINNERS ARE HERE CALLED SONS OF BELIAL, THAT IS, UNGOVERNABLE MEN, MEN THAT WOULD ENDURE NO YOKE, CHILDREN OF THE DEVIL (for he is Belial), resembling him, and joining with him in rebellion against God and his government. (from Matthew Henry's Commentary)

So we can see that the Seedliners avoid the passages they can’t explain away, and hang on to those that can be explained and shows that their beliefs are fallacious.

                                                                     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 c