Back to Main Page

 

“THE WAR OF THE ROYAL GOD’S”

 

 

PART FOUR

 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 (      , 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.

    "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..."

    "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 Zachariahs 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..." 

PART 10

    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 way 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.

PART 11

    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

    The Greek Proves Eve

    Was Beguilded Mentally & Physically

    If it were speaking of being mentally "beguilded" by words, it would have used the word #538, apatao, meaning to deceive, bring, seduced 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.

    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.

PART# 12

LAST ONE  

The Two Seedlines  

    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)

 

 

Home