It is simply amazing the various unreasonable, preposterous, nonsensical and twisted arguments that opponents of Two Seedline teaching advance to
secure their groundless, unfounded and insecure positions.
—Clifton A. Emahiser
In view is Clifton A. Emahiser’s The Great Two Seedline Controversy War in Identity (emphasis within quotes from Emahiser are his own). By “Identity” he is referring to identifying who is who towards the end of his “Identity” movement as in “Christian Identity” which is an anti-Semitic racist movement.
Thus, his ultimate aim is not to properly exegete the Bible but his preconceived premise is that “Without an understanding of Two Seedline, we are at a detrimental loss to know who the enemy is.” But who is the enemy, according to Emahiser? Well, he seeks to elucidate “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….the ‘Jews’ are devils. He quotes the word Jews because he claims that Jews are not Jews but only Aryan Whites, conveniently as himself, at the true Jews. Moreover, he appeals to Genesis 3:15 and asserts, “I will put enmity. The word ’êbâ denotes the blood-feud that runs deepest in the heart of man.” Thus, he thereby seeks to justify his racist hatred by claiming that God created the enmity between true Jews and false Jews.
Emahiser appeals to Genesis 2 to assert, “there was already a danger that Adam might mess-up by eating of the forbidden fruit, even before Eve arrived on the scene.” But just what was “the forbidden fruit”? He asserts, “Yahweh had a very important reason for instructing Adam at this time, for there were a lot of women unlike his kind (pre-Adamites) running around the garden to excite his natural manly instincts. ‘16 And Yahweh commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat…’”
So Adam being commanded to not eat the forbidden fruit becomes “a lot of women” who were “pre-Adamites.” But wait, he himself notes that “Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat” to, apparently, the women (plural) were up for Adam’s grab.
Here is Clifton A. Emahiser’s rendering from Genesis 2, “And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: (same DNA) she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.” He then quotes, Ephesians 5 thusly, “‘For we are members of his (Yahshua’s) body, of his flesh and of his bones.’ (same race).” Yup, you guessed it: the pre-Adamites were them colored folks and Adam was the first honkey—as was Jesus.
For some reason, Emahiser asserts that since “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.” Sadly, it is also very common knowledge to think that Cherubim and Seraphim are “angel of some rank” but Angels, Cherubim and Seraphim have different titled, different job functions and look differently. Thus, they are not different kinds of or ranks for Angels but are different categories of being.
Yet, his overall point is that the forbidden tree must be an angel of some rank. Well, considering that knowing good and evil is the earmark of God then this tree that has the knowledge of good and evil must be God.
But who is this tree, this Angel? Emahiser claims, “the tree of knowledge of good and evil and the serpent are the same thing.” Well, as aforementioned, Satan is not an Angels but is a Cherub. In any case, keep score: Satan and the tree and serpent are all the same being. So, for example, the serpent beguiles Eve to partake of the serpent, I mean the tree beguiles Eve to partake of the tree, I mean the serpent beguiles Eve to partake of the tree—which is himself.
He also wrote:
…the same serpent of 2 Cor. 11:3 which reads thusly: “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.”
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.”
I have been through this issue before within this context and the fact is that if you claim that the key word “beguiled” refers to sex then you are going to end up in a mess when you define the term in that way within any of its other New Testament usages, see Zen Garcia on symbolic Serpent Seed of Satan language in Genesis 3.
Well, of course, Clifton A. Emahiser asserts that “Eat & Touch Have Sexual Connotations” asks, “What was it that Eve did eat?, and What did Eve touch?” and answers that “‘eat’…means sexual intercourse, which it also means in Genesis 3:3 where Eve is confronted by Satan…the word eat sometimes have sexual connotations…to touch; also to have sexual intercourse…both the words eat and touch have sexual connotations, regardless of what the opponents of Two Seedline doctrine are touting.”
Well, this is another issue with which I have dealt before so that the interested reader can see Disambiguating the serpent seedline of Satan theory in Genesis 3, part 1 and part 2.
The bottom line is that context determines meaning and just because a word can mean something or has more than one definition (as all words do), that does not mean serpent seedline of Satan theorists can simply pick and choose their favorite definitions.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A plea: I have to pay for server usage and have made all content on this website free and always will. I support my family on one income and do research, writing, videos, etc. as a hobby. If you can even spare $1.00 as a donation, please do so: it may not seem like much but if each person reading this would do so, even every now and then, it would add up and really, really help. Here is my donate/paypal page.
Due to robo-spaming, I had to close the comment sections. However, you can comment on my Facebook page and/or on my Google+ page.
Twitter: #CliftonEmahiser, #Seedlines, #ChristianIdentity
Facebook: #CliftonEmahiser, #Seedlines, #ChristianIdentity