The doctrine that holds that it's acceptable to claim that a brethren, that is a member of your own race, and in particular an upstanding member of the White Christian Israelite or Caucasian Race like Clifton Emahiser, "rant[s], invent[s] and build[s] strawmen", "feigns stupidity", and says "stupid thing[s]", but it's not acceptable to call a member of an alien enemy foreign race, one which has publicly announced its desire to destroy your own Caucasian Race, and which has achieved a remarkable level of success in such a short period of time, a nigger.
Sent: Monday, July 12, 2004 9:43 PM
Subject: BibleDcgo> Re: Seedliner Debate
Thanks for the email and concern. This is my first response to
Emahiser's work. I do it not for his benefit (as his mind is made up)
but for those still willing to prove all things. I never responded
before as most of his arguments are addressed in my book. Also, in his
first chapter, his first page identifies him for who and what he is. He
"Let's consider 1 John 3:12: 'Not as
Cain, who was of that wicked one,
and slew his half brother ...' "
Notice that he added the word "half" to the Word of God. The Greek word
for half is Strong's #2255 hemisu and does not appear in any Greek text
of I John 3:12. Emahiser (hereafter Emah) simply added it to prove his
point. However, adding to God's word has a heavy penalty per Rev.
22:18. I know many Seedliners (most of them are friends) and they don't
add to God's Word. They simply interpret it differently. Thus, I
believe that Emah has identified himself with those who have throughout
history added to and taken away from God's Word.
For your benefit, I'll address his chapter one and (Lord - willing)
in a later email address his chapter 4.
Chapter 1 -
Emah starts off by identifying me as a one-seedliner or non-seedliner.
I find this amusing because anyone who has read my book knows that I
believe that the fallen angels of Gen. 6 produced a demonic seedline.
But for Emah to tell folks that would not allow him to prejudice their
minds as he wishes. On top of this, had he bothered to write me at the
address provided in my book, he would have learned that I believe that
God created 3 separate groups of humans; the Orientals being the oldest,
the Negroids, and the Adamic people. But it is easier to rant, invent
and build strawmen rather than investigate.
Emah next blows off Genesis 4:1 by saying that Eve was already
pregnant. Yet the Hebrew does not agree. "Conceived" is #2029 harah /
to conceive / become pregnant / progenitor / etc.. It comes down in the
Hebrew that Adam had sex with his wife and the result of this sexual
relationship was that his wife became pregnant. The child that was
produced from this pregnancy was Cain. If you are confused by the
wording in the KJV, then read it in the NIV:
"Adam lay with his wife Eve, and she
became pregnant and gave birth to
Cain. ..." Gen. 4:1 NIV
Next Emah makes a big deal out of the word "of" in I John 3:12 and
claims that "When used of a person, it means 'a son of.'" While this is
often true it (the word "of") is also used to mean "a part or member of"
too (See Acts 10:1 where Cornelius is a member of the Italian band).
"Of" is Strong's #1537 and is the Greek word "Ex" and is a primary
preposition denoting origin (the point whence motion or action
proceeds), from, out (of) .... So you can see that "Yes" it can mean
"son of" or it can also refer to the one who causes action (without the
moving person being an actual physical son) - i.e. the driving spirit.
There are other applications for the word "of" also but I'm not going to
type the whole Lexicon here.
Next Emah quotes I John 3:12 from several Bible translations as
"proof" for his position but each one of them supports my position
Now Emah quotes 3 commentaries (The Wycliffe Bible Commentary,
Matthew Poole's Commentary, and Matthew Henry's Commentary) dealing with
I John 3:12 to prove that his position is right. What he fails to tell
the readers is that none of those commentators ever taught or believed
the Satanic Seedline teaching and taken in context, all three were
saying that Cain was spiritually of the Devil. In short, Emah wilfully
mislead his readers. Of course, knowing what he did with Scripture
earlier I find this par for the course.
Now Emah actually comes up with an argument of merit. He points out
that the word "seed" in I John 3:9 is Strong's #4690 sperma and thus
concludes that you can't get more genetic than that. My position is
that when we are born again this spiritual birth is also described with
sperma just as physical birth is. For some proof I would like you to
note that those born of God by... "his seed" in I John 3:9 are also
called "children of God" in verse 10. So we know that children of God
become God's children by God's sperma. But is this only a physical
process? Galatians 3:26 says we become children of God by faith in
Christ Jesus. This sounds more like a spiritual process rather than a
physical process. Then in Gal. 3:29 these children of God are called
the "seed" (sperma) of Abraham. Tie this with Rom. 9:8 where it clearly
"... They which are the children of the
flesh, these are not the children of
God: but the children of the promise
are counted for the seed (sperma)."
You can also tie in Romans 4:13-18.
Lastly on the sperma issue, I must point out that Christ told the
Jews that He knew that they were Abraham's seed (sperma) in John 8:37.
Thus I can logically conclude that they were Abraham's physical seed
(sperma - John 8:37) and thus Edomites (because they had never been in
bondage - John 8:33) and they were ALSO Satan's spiritual seed (sperma -
In dealing with Gen. 3:15 he does not present my position but it's
in my book and is just as plausible as his position. In my opinion it's
better than his but we all do think highly of ourselves, so you be the
Next Emah feigns stupidity by building a ridiculous strawman. In
dealing with John 8:44 he tells his readers that those who oppose his
views interpret this verse as saying that Cain only spiritually murdered
his brother. I've never taught such a stupid thing nor have I ever
heard such a thing from others who oppose the Satanic Seedline teaching.
Once again, his deception is par for the course. In my book I pointed
out that the word "father" #3962 in John 8:44 is used of both physical
and spiritual children (See I Cor. 4:15). So if we are honest with John
8:44 we must confess that this verse can be viewed either way. It does
not prove the issue.
So here you have my reply to chapter one of Emah's "Special Notice
to ALL WHO DENY two seedline IDENTITY".
For those who wish to read my book it is "The Satanic Seedline: It's
Doctrine and History" by Jeffrey A. Weakley. You can order it from CPA
Books, P.O. Box 596, Boring, Oregon 97009. It costs $5.00 and shipping
is $3.00 (total $8.00). And for those who don't want to buy it, Sir
Charles is going to try to post it on the web for you. (Note that the
one from CPA Books is slightly revised - Charles will be posting the
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Tuesday, August 03, 2004 10:55 AM
Subject: BibleDcgo> Re: are nokriy niggers?
Without debating the subject of "who can be saved and who can't"
again, I do want to ask you to seek the higher road of nobility when
discussing these things. Specifically, I am referring to your use of
the term "niggers". Even if your view is correct (that they can't be
saved), that is no reason to be disrespectful and offensive. Can you
not hold your views and express them without lowering yourself to use
We should strive to better ourselves (and the world God has put us
in). That is why we should (for example) listen to Mozart instead of
jungle music. We should seek refinement. When we use terms such as
"nigger" we show that we are common (base, vulgar, etc.). We should
represent Christ in the best light possible if we are His ambassadors.