Under consideration is Clifton A. Emahiser’s Special Notice To All Who Deny Two Seedline, #6 (he has written a couple dozen of these). Note that I previously wrote Clifton A. Emahiser’s “Two Seedline” racism part 1 and part 2.
Clifton A. Emahiser
Speaking for myself: I am pro the Bible’s depiction of the seedlines but against the serpent seedline of Satan theorist’s depiction of the same. The Bible depicts the two seedlines as being those who commit sinful actions and those who commit godly actions. However, the theorists’ view is, as Emahiser puts it, “the proposition that there is a literal walking, talking, genetic Satanic seedline people in this world.”
He plays the victimhood card in asserting that “the anti-seedliners were the first to make an issue of this teaching. Stephen E. Jones, in his 1978 book The Babylonian Connection [between ancient and modern religions], was the first, to my knowledge, to take issue with the Two Seedliners. (Jeffrey A. Weakley wrote his The Satanic Seedline, Its Doctrine and History in 1994.)…Ted R. Weiland came out with a ten-tape audiocassette series Eve, Did She Or Didn’t She?”
In answering his own question as to why he is writing the notice, he likens denying his seedline theory (which is also racist in his case) to committing a crime.
Within the note, Clifton A. Emahiser seeks to buttress his theory by appealing to “the Zohar, the ‘sacred’ book of the Cabala” aka Kabbalah (circa the 13th century AD) to the effect that as per “The Talmud Unmasked by Rev. I. B. Pranaitis, page 52…In Zohar (I, 28b) we read”:
“Now the serpent was more subtle than any beast of the field, etc. (Genes. III, I.) ‘More subtle’ that is towards evil; ‘than all the beasts’ that is, the idolatrous people of the earth. For they are the children of the ancient serpent which seduced Eve.’
The best argument used by the Jews to prove Christians are of a race of the devil is the fact that they are uncircumcised. The foreskin of the non-Jews prevents them from being called the children of the Most High God. For by circumcision the name of God — Schaddai — is completed in the flesh of a circumcised Jew.
The form of the letter Isch is in his nostrils, the letter Daleth in his (bent) arm, and ain appears in his sexual organ by circumcision. In non-circumcised gentiles, therefore, such as Christians, there are only the two letters Isch and Daleth, which make the word Sched, which means devil. They are, therefore, children of the Sched, the Devil.”
Well, the Zohar is primarily interested in promulgating extremely allegorical Rabbinic folklore peppered misinterpretations of the Bible and does so toward mystical ends.
According to Genesis’ context “beast of the field” of chapter 3 refers to exactly that: the animals that were mentioned in the previous two chapters. Yet, according to extremely late dated, as in recent, misinterpretations it refers to “the idolatrous people of the earth.” Yet, you can see why Emahiser references it since it notes that these people “are the children of the ancient serpent which seduced Eve.”
Interestingly, and tragically, what Emahiser does is to take the statement about how Jews attempt to “to prove Christians are of a race of the devil” and he simply turns it around as he claims to be a Christian and yet attempts to to prove Jews are of a race of the devil because he is a racist—a position which is 100% again the Bible.
Since Clifton A. Emahiser is an anti-Semite racist he writes, “A ‘Jew’ could be circumcised a hundred times and it would not bring him under the Covenant.” He quotes the word “Jew” because he believes that Aryan Whites such as himself are the true Jews and Semitic Jews are not.
He quotes the Talmud Shabbath 146a and Avodah Zarah 22b thusly, “For when the serpent came upon Eve he injected lust into her.” Of course, besides the fact that the Talmud also reflects Rabbinic folklore, etc. one can “lust” after many things without necessarily a sexual connotation. The Talmud was answering its own question, “Why are idolaters lustful? Because they did not stand at Mount Sinai. For when the serpent came upon Eve he injected a lust into her.”
Interestingly, Emahiser quotes more from that which he claims is “Shabbath 146a” to the effect that “The idea is that the serpent infected Eve (i.e., the human race) with lust, from which, however, those who accept the moral teachings of the Torah are freed.” He fails to note that this is a footnote (from a version edited by Rabbi Dr. Isidore Epstein). Also, I am unsure as to why he quoted it since it discredits his view as Emahiser claims that the seed is genetic but the Talmud’s footnote notes that one can be freed from serpent’s infection via the Torah’s moral teachings.
The Talmud Sotah 9b makes a statement that various serpent seed of Satan theorists play off of, “The Holy One, blessed be He, said…I declared, let it walk with an erect posture; but now it shall go upon its belly.” At this point, the Talmud also has God stating, “I declared: Let its food be the same as that of man; but now it shall eat dust. It said: I will kill Adam and marry Eve; but now, I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed.”
Note that indeed, the serpent wanted to marry Eve but God put enmity between them. That section also notes that “Cain, Korah, Balaam, Doeg, Ahitophel, Gehazi, Absalom, Adonijah, Uzziah and Haman” all “set their eyes upon that which was not proper for them; what they sought was not granted to them and what they possessed was taken from them” thus, again, this was about desires and desires to take actions and not about genetics.
Clifton A. Emahiser then sets up a strawman and knocks it down, “The anti-seedliners base their whole argument on the premise that anything found in the Talmud has to be entirely false. As a matter of fact, this is their ace in the hole, so they think. All they have to do is point out that the Two Seedline doctrine is found in the Talmud, and magically, the teaching is condemned in many people’s minds.”
Speaking for myself (and I am sure for any “anti-seedliners”) there is much truth and much falsehood in the Talmudim (as there are two of them) and my counterarguments have nothing to do with claiming that anything found in the Talmud has to be entirely false, wiping my hands and being done with it.
Interestingly, he goes on to state the following of the Talmud, “It is well recognized they are the most evil books ever written. But we must even give the devil his just dues.”
He then authors a logical fallacy by writing, “If the Two Seedline doctrine is condemned for being part of the writings of the Talmud, then all of their contents are condemned.” Be that as it may, the two seedline theory is not condemned for being part of the writings of the Talmud. Rather, the two seedline theory is condemned for not being part of the writings of the Bible.
He then quotes Talmud Sotah 11b thusly:
… Judah [is called] a lion’s whelp; of Dan [it is said] Dan shall be a serpent, Naphtali [is called] a hind let loose; Issachar a strong ass; Joseph a firstling bullock; Benjamin a wolf that ravineth. [Of those sons of Jacob where a comparison with an animal] is written in connection with them, it is written: but [in the instances where such a comparison] is not written, there is the text: What was thy mother? A lioness; she couched among lions etc. (brackets in original)
Clifton A. Emahiser then continues to commit errors by making comments premised upon his aforementioned logical fallacy thus, or so he asserts:
…anti-seedliners are going to have to reject the main tenets of Israel Identity because they can be found in the Talmud…they will have to go back to Judeo-churchianity. They are going to have to take a black permanent marker and blot out the entire chapter of Genesis 49 along with all the cross-references, all because it can be found in the Talmud. If they blot out Judah, there goes the Redeemer! Are you beginning to see how ridiculous an argument the anti-seedliners advocate? Can you see now how dangerous the ploy of guilt by association can be? Actually, its a “Jewish” kind of trick.
What?! He thinks that if someone disagrees with the Talmud then they must reject the Bible wherever the Bible states something that was later referenced in the Talmud—such illogicality speaks for itself.
It is also interestingly telling that he begins his quote of Sotah 11b where he did since if he had begun it one mere sentence earlier, he would have realized (and had his readers realize) that it states, “This people are compared to an animal.” Thus, this is merely a comparison and nothing to do with genetics. He seems to be wanting to tie the tribe of Dan to the serpentine seedline but are we then to think that the line of Judah came from Eve having sex with a lion or Joseph from her having sex with a bullock or Benjamin with a wolf, etc., etc., etc.?
After another similar line of illogical folly, he references Lt. Col. Jack Mohr, AUS RET. whom he describes as a “very adamant unyielding anti-seedliner.” Mohr wrote Seed of Satan, Literal or Figurative?. It would appear that Clifton A. Emahiser disagrees with Jack Mohr on the serpent seedline of Satan theory but not on overall views as Mohr begins his article by noting “A hot argument is inflicting Identity Christianity today” and his website tells one where to “Find the most up-to-date and advanced Christian Identity exegesis and scholarship.” Identity Christianity is, in reality, Identifying oneself as an anti-Christian racist as biblically there is only one race: the human race, since we all come from Adam and Eve.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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: #Seedlines, #Racism, #CliftonEmahiser
Facebook: #Seedlines, #Racism, #CliftonEmahiser