Special Notice to All Who Deny Two-Seedline, #9

This matter of Two Seedline is of the utmost importance in our day, for we are beginning to see the culmination of this age-old “enmity” coming to a head. While it has been lying festering just below the surface for several thousands of years, today it is reaching its peak. It’s like a giant abscess getting ready to erupt and spill out all its foul, infectious, corrupt, putrefying poison. And, while these great evil underground forces are at work, churchianity sits idly on the sidelines pretending all is well. In fact, the infection from this giant abscess is seeping into their midst, and they consider it “Christian.” As if this were not bad enough, the anti-seedliners disavow the cause of the infection. To the anti-seedliners, it’s just a theological game of words. They simply haven’t done their homework on the subject. To show you this, I will now quote excerpts from Dr. Lightfoot in his A Commentary on the New Testament from the Talmud and Hebraica, volume 2, pages 367-369 concerning Matthew 27:38-46:

“Among the monsters of the Jewish routs, preceding the destruction of the city, the multitude of robbers, and the horrible slaughters committed by them, deservedly claim the first consideration; which, next to the just vengeance of God against that most wicked nation, you may justly ascribe to divers originals. 1. It is no wonder, if that nation abounded beyond measure with a vagabond, dissolute, and lewd sort of young men; since, by means of polygamy, and the divorces of their wives at pleasure, and the nation’s unspeakable addictedness to lasciviousness and whoredoms, there could not but continually spring up bastards, and an offspring born only to beggary or rapine, as wanting both sustenance and ingenuous education. 2. The foolish and sinful indulgence of the council could not but nurse up all kind of broods of wicked men, while they scarce ever put any one to death, though never so wicked, as being an Israelite [Jew]; who must not by any means be touched ... All the rout indeed and force of hell was let loose at that time against Christ, without either bridle or chain: he calls it himself ... the power of darkness, Luke 22:53. God who had foretold of old, that the serpent should bruise the heel of the promised seed, and now that time is come, had slackened the devil’s chain, which, in regard of men, the Divine Providence used to hold in his hand; so that all the power and all the rancour of hell might, freely and without restraint, assault Christ; and that all that malice that was in the devil against the whole elect of God, [would be] summed up and gathered together into one head, might at one stroke and onset be brandished against Christ without measure.”

If you listen to the anti-seedliners, they will claim there was “no power of hell” at work in the Crucifixion of the Messiah. They delegate all of that to some kind of “spiritual” hocus-pocus, making mockery of the foundational tenets of Scripture. I addressed this subject of the “bruising of Messiah’s heel” in my Research Papers Proving The Two Seedline Seduction Of Eve. This passage, by Dr. Lightfoot, vindicates what I said in that article:




“We have a direct connection, here, with Judas, and the ‘serpent’ of Genesis 3:14-15! We can see the connection between Judas and the ‘serpent’, if we read John 13:18:

“I speak not of you all: I know whom I have chosen: but that the scripture may be fulfilled, He that eateth bread with me hath lifted up his HEEL against me.

The scripture spoken of here, which was fulfilled in Judas, was Genesis 3:15! Does that sound ‘spiritual’? Judas was a Kenite-Canaanite ‘Jew-devil’, a descendant of Cain fathered by Satan! However, there is a problem here because it says that ‘he (Judas) hath lifted up his heel against me’ whereas Genesis 3:15 says that ‘thou (the seed of the serpent) shalt bruise his (Yahshua’s ) heel.’ Is it the ‘heel’ of Judas or Yahshua that is affected? I am quite certain that John 13:18 is referring to Genesis 3:15, as it is indicating that it is a fulfillment of Scripture. Tell me, what other Scripture could it be? — there isn’t any. There is another Scripture, Psalm 41:9, that reads similarly to John 13:18, but John 13:18 is not a fulfillment of Psalm 41:9 — as a matter of fact, Psalm 41:9 is not a prophecy about anything. The prophecy then can only be Genesis 3:15! — and Genesis 3:15 is definitely a prophecy. Therefore, there has to be a slight mistranslation in Genesis 3:15! Let’s try to render it in a manner which makes some sense:

“And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it (her seed) shall bruise thy head and thy heel shall (rise up and) bruise him (her seed).

“It’s not the seed of the serpent that was to bruise the heel of Yahshua, but the seed of the serpent will lift up his heel and bruise Yahshua (the seed of the woman). Now, Yahshua is not the only seed of the woman. All of Eve’s descendants are the seed of the woman. Once we understand that it is the seed of the serpent (in the person of Judas) that was to lift up his heel against the Messiah, we can better understand Isaiah 53:5:

“But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.

“One good comment on John 13:18, is from the Jamieson, Fausset & Brown Commentary On The Whole Bible, page 1058:

“I speak not of you all — the ‘happy are ye,’ of vs. 17, being on no supposition applicable to Judas. I know whom I have chosen —in the higher sense. But that the scripture may be fulfilled —i.e., one has been added to your number, by no accident or mistake, who is none of Mine, but just that he might fulfil his predicted destiny. He that eateth bread with me — ‘did eat of my bread.’

“It was Judas that raised up his heel against Him and bruised Him. It probably should be pointed out here what is meant by ‘lifting up the heel.’ It is described as someone who kicks out at the person who is feeding him. Judas, planning to betray Yahshua while eating of the sacrificial supper, did just that, and it is known as ‘lifting up the heel.’ This ‘heel’ in John 13:18 is the same ‘heel’ as in Genesis 3:15. This type of action was considered one of the most insulting things a man could do. Of course, what else would you expect of a devil?

“Just before this ‘lifting up the heel’ on the part of Judas by partaking of the last supper, some interesting statements are made. They were having a foot washing lesson from Yahshua. Verse 10 says, ‘Yahshua saith to him, He that is washed needeth not save to wash his feet, but is clean (pure) every whit: and ye are clean (pure), but not all.’ Yahshua is indicating that all the disciples are clean (pure) racially, but no amount of washing would make Judas clean (pure).

“A second statement in this 18th verse is also interesting. It says, ‘I speak not of you all.’ Again Yahshua is excluding Judas from the others. ‘I know whom I have chosen.’ I am not deceived in My choice. I knew what was going to happen from the very beginning of the enmity of the serpent. I have chosen Judas as a ‘serpent’ and I plainly foresaw that he would raise up the heel and deliver Me. Did not I foretell this at the time of the curse upon the ‘serpent’? Matthew 26:14-16:


“14 Then one of the twelve, called Judas Iscariot, went unto the chief priests, 15 And said unto them, What will ye give me, and I will deliver him unto you? And they covenanted with him for thirty pieces of silver. 16 And from that time he sought opportunity to betray him.

“If you can’t see ‘Jew’ written all over this action on the part of this ‘serpent’, Judas, you have to be blind. He was only doing his father’s bidding, John 12:4-6:

“4 Then saith one of his disciples, Judas Iscariot, Simon’s son, which should betray him, 5 Why was not this ointment sold for three hundred pence, and given to the poor? 6 This he said, not that he cared for the poor, but because he was a thief and had the bag, and bare what was put therein.

“Not only was this ‘serpent-Jew’ a traitor, he was a thief — just like the ‘Jewish’ IRS and Federal Reserve of today. Here is more evidence that Judas was the offspring of Satan ...

“Like the Spirit that is within Yahweh’s children (seed of the woman), so there is a counter-spirit within the ‘serpent’s’ children. That is why it just came natural for Judas to betray Yahshua. It says here that the devil put it into the heart of Judas to betray the Messiah. The children of Satan have a certain nature about them, and under various circumstances, they will react in predictable behavior patterns. The Messiah understood exactly what the behavior pattern of the ‘serpent’, Judas, would be. That behavior pattern is yet more evidence that the ‘Jews’ are a Satanic seedline. You cannot change the nature of a rattlesnake, nor can you change the nature of a ‘Jew.’ So much for ‘Jews for Jesus’!” (See also Jeremiah 13:23)

All this is totally oblivious to the anti-seedliners! Speaking further on page 83 of volume 2, Lightfoot says of that nation: “That the nation, under the second Temple was given to magical arts beyond measure ... That it was given to easiness of believing all manner of delusions beyond measure. And one may safely suspect, that those voices which they thought to be from heaven, and noted with the name Bath Kol, were either formed by the devil in the air to deceive the people, or by magicians by devilish art to promote their own affairs ... The very same which I judge of the Bath Kol, is [in] my opinion also of the frequent appearances of Elias, with which the leaves of the Talmud do every where abound; namely, that in very many places the stories are false, and, in the rest, the apparitions of him were diabolical.”

The “magical arts” used by the “Jews” is called the “Cabala” (sometimes spelled Cabbala, Kabbalah or Qabbalah). According to Warren Weston in his Father Of Lies, page 51: “The four collections of works composing the Dogmatic Kabbalah are: 1. The Sepher Yetzirah, or ‘Book of the Formation’: it treats of the cosmogony as symbolized by ten members and twenty-two letters of the Hebrew alphabet, which it calls the ‘thirty-two paths’ or symbols,— with the esoteric zero making thirty-three in all ... The whole Kabbalah is usually classed under four heads: (1) The Practical Kabbalah. (2) The Literal Kabbalah. (3) The Unwritten Kabbalah. (4) The Dogmatic Kabbalah ... 2. The Zohar, or book of ‘Splendour’, itself composed of five important books (besides other treatises) ... These five are: Siphra Dtzenioutha, or ‘Book of Concealed Mystery’; Idra Rabba Qadisha, or ‘Greater Holy Assembly’; Idra Zuta Qadisha, or ‘Lesser Holy Assembly’; Beth Elohim, or ‘House of the Elohim’; and the ‘Book of the Revolutions of the Soul.’ 3. The Sepher Sephiroth, or ‘Book of Numbers’ (or Emanations) ... Sephira, ‘number’ (singular); Sephiroth (plural). 4. The Asch Metzareph, or ‘Purifying Fire’, dealing with Alchemy.”

While a good deal of the form of the Cabala can be traced to the second century, the substance appears to originate from remote antiquity, possibly as remote as Cain. In the book Trail of the Serpent by Miss Stoddard, page 25, the Cabala is described: “The Practical or Magical Cabala with its combinations and correspondences was the astrological, magical, and magnetic basis used by the Alchemists and Magicians of the Middle Ages in working their transmutations and conjurations. It was impregnated with the ‘fluidic magic’ derived from very ancient cults, and still practiced at the time of the Captivity among the Persians and Chaldeans. To-day, all Rosicrucians and cabalistic sects use this Magical Cabala for their works of divining, clairvoyance, hypnotic and magnetic healing, making of talismans, and contacting their mysterious masters. As the Jewish writer Bernard Lazare said: ‘Secret societies represented the two sides of the Jewish mind, practical rationalism and pantheism, that pantheism which, metaphysical reflection of the belief in One God, ended at times in cabalistic theurgy’.”

Let us now see an example of what is contained in the Cabala. For this, I will now quote from The Esoteric Tradition by G. de Purucker, volume 1, page 62:

“Turning to the Jews, one may find in the Zohar — a Hebrew word meaning ‘splendor’, which is perhaps the greatest text-book of the Jewish Qabbalah, and which has been mentioned before — a statement to the effect that the man who understands the Hebrew Bible in its literal meaning is a fool. ‘Every word of it’, says the Zohar in this connexion, ‘has a secret and sublime sense, which the wise [that is, the initiated] know.’ One of the greatest of the Jewish Rabbis of the Middle Ages, Maimonides, who died in 1204, writes:

“We should never take literally what is written in the Book of the Creation, nor hold the same ideas about it that the people hold. If it were otherwise, our learned ancient sages would not have been [sic. gone] to so great labor in order to conceal the real sense, and to hold before the vision of the uninstructed people the veil of allegory which conceals the truths that it contains. Taken literally, that work contains the most absurd and far-fetched ideas of the Divine. Whoever can guess the real sense, ought to guard carefully his knowledge not to divulge it. This is a rule taught by our wise men, especially in connexion with the work of the six days ...’”

It is true that the Bible is written, to a great degree, in allegory and symbols, and if we don’t understand them, we cannot grasp the message contained therein. The “Jews”, on the other hand, attach an occult meaning to every word and phrase. Their views of Scripture are so foreign to our perspectives one would not recognize them. In spite of this, their view is not always entirely incorrect. From the above, it is obvious that the “Jews” do not believe in a six, twenty-four hour day Creation as do some Christian fundamentalists! If we take the same stance as the anti-seedliners like Ted R. Weiland, Jeffrey A. Weakley, Stephen E. Jones, Jack Mohr, Charles Weisman, etc., that everything found in “Jewish” writings is evil, we will have to take the opposite position and start advocating a six, twenty-four hour day Creation also. Can you see now how absurd some of the positions taken by the anti-seedliners are? You will remember, as I showed you before, if we throw everything out which can be found in the Talmud and other “Jewish” writings, we will have to pitch out most of the contents of our Bibles, along with the truth of our Identity. One thing I have noticed with the anti-seedliners is: they are strangely quiet about “Jewish” history, and never seem to quote “Jewish” history books. This should run up a red flag for us, indicating they’re not as knowledgeable on the subject as they pretend to be. And that hardly qualifies them as students who have studied to show themselves approved, (2 Timothy 2:15). As I have said oft before, we need a Bible in one hand and a history book in the other (“Jewish” history books without exception).

Referring again to A Commentary on the New testament from the Talmud and Hebraica by John Lightfoot, volume 2, page 209: “That nation and generation might be called adulterous literally; for what else, I beseech you, was their irreligious polygamy than continual adultery? And what else was their ordinary practice of divorcing their wives, no less irreligious, according to every man’s foolish or naughty will?”




Again on Lightfoot, volume 2, pages 295-297 concerning Matthew 23:13-14: “Under a pretence of mighty devotion, but especially under the goodly show of long prayers, they so drew over the minds of devout persons to them, especially of women, and among them the richer widows, that by subtle attractives they either drew out or wrested away their goods and estates. Nor did they want nets of counterfeit authority, when from the chair they pronounced, according to their pleasures, of the dowry and estate befalling a widow, and assumed to themselves the power of determining concerning those things ...

“Yet in making of these they used their utmost endeavours for the sake of their own gain, that they might some way or other drain their purses, after they had drawn them in under the show of religion, or make some use or benefit to themselves by them. The same covetousness, therefore, under a veil of hypocrisy, in devouring widows’ houses, which our Savior condemned in the former clause, he here also condemns in hunting after proselytes; which the scribes and Pharisees were at all kind[s] of pains to bring over to them. Not that they cared for proselytes, whom they accounted as ‘a scab and plague’; but that the more they could draw over to their religion, the greater draught they should have for gain, and the more purses to fish in. These, therefore, being so proselyted, ‘they made doubly more the children of hell than themselves.’ For when they had drawn them into their net, having got their prey, they were no further concerned what became of them, so they got some benefit by them. They might perish in ignorance, superstition, atheism, and all kind[s] of wickedness: this was no matter of concern to the scribes and Pharisees; only let them remain in Judaism, that they might lord it over their consciences and purses.”




The main index of the History Of The Jews by Heinrich Graetz is found in volume 6, and on page 512 are listed the various peoples proselyted by the “Jews” during their extended history. The list is too extensive to elaborate on here. We will key in on volume 3, pages 60-62 concerning the subtitle “Arabs Become Converted To Judaism” (approximately 450-500 A.D.):

“Happily, the Arabian Jews bethought them of the genealogy of the Arabs as set forth in the first book of the Pentateuch, and seized upon it as the instrument by which to prove their kinship with them. The Jews were convinced that they were related to the Arabs on two sides, through Yoktan and through Ishmael. Under their instruction, therefore, the two principal Arabian tribes traced back the line of ancestors to these two progenitors, the real Arabs (the Himyarites) supposing themselves to be the descendants from Yoktan; the pseudo-Arabs in the north, on the other hand, deriving their origin from Ishmael. These points of contact granted, the Jews had ample opportunity to multiply the proofs of their relationship. The Arabs loved genealogical tables, and were delighted to be able to follow their descent and history so far into hoary antiquity; accordingly, all this appeared to them both evident and flattering. They consequently exerted themselves to bring their genealogical records and traditions into unison with the Biblical accounts. Although their traditions extended over less than six centuries on the one side to their progenitor Yarob and his sons or grandsons Himyar and Kachtan, and on the other, to Adnan, yet in their utter disregard of historical accuracy, this fact constituted no obstacle. Without a scruple, the southern Arabians called themselves Kachtanites, and the northern Arabians Ishmaelites. They readily accorded the Jews the rights of relationship, that is to say, equality and all the advantages attending it.

“The Arabs were thus in intimate intercourse with the Jews, and the sons of the desert whose unpoetical mythology afforded them no matter for inspiration, derived much instruction from Judaism. Under these circumstances many Arabs could not fail to develop peculiar affection for Judaism, and some embraced this religion, though their conversion had not been thought of by the Jews. As they had practiced circumcision while heathen, their conversion to Judaism was particularly easy. The members of a family among the Arabs were indissolubly bound to one another, and, according to their phylarchic constitution, the individuals identified themselves with the tribe. This brought about, that when a chieftain became a Jew, his whole clan at once followed him, the wisest, into the fold of Judaism. It is expressly recorded about several Arabian tribes that they were converted to Judaism; such were the Benu-Kinanah, a warlike, quarrelsome clan, related to the most respected Koraishites of Mecca, and several other families of the tribes Aus and Chazaraj in Yathrib.

“Especially memorable, however, in the history of the Arabs is the conversion of the powerful king of Yemen. The princes or kings of Yemen bore the name of Tobba, and at times ruled over the whole of Arabia; they traced their historical origin back to Himyar, their legendary origin to Kachtan ...”

This is only one example of the extensive amount of “Jewish” proselytizing in history. This is the kind of history the anti-seedliners are mute on. Their incompetent, inept commentary bears record of their immaturity on the subject. You may think it is out-of-place for me to mention names of the anti-seedliners. Before I wrote one jot, Jeffery A. Weakley in his The Satanic Seedline, Its Doctrine and History, wrote this on page 29: “If you have encountered an argument and you are sincerely seeking an answer [against Two Seedline], I suggest that first you completely study it out in God’s Word (look up definitions, check parallel passages, be sure of the context, etc.). After that I suggest you contact men such as Pete Peters, Dan Gentry, Earl Jones, Jack Mohr, etc. ...” From Jeffrey A. Weakley’s comment, here, there can be little doubt where Pete Peters and the three others mentioned stand on Two Seedline! After Weakley, writing a book against the Two Seedline doctrine, you surely wouldn’t expect him to recommend someone who didn’t agree with him, would you? Jeffrey A. Weakley was an anti-seedliner, and he knew Pete Peters was an anti-seedliner also. To the date of this writing, there is no pubic evidence that Pete Peters has changed his position on the subject, and I don’t believe he ever will! He may make all kinds of derogatory statements about the “Jews”, but he will never say, as our Messiah did, they are genetically Satanic. If he ever does, he will lose half of his following, one way or the other. The only way he can keep them is to talk out of both sides of his mouth. He must continue to try to please both the Two Seedliners and the anti-seedliners in his audience to keep the lucre flowing in. With the message of Two Seedliners, there is little financial support. All this in defense of the late Bertrand L. Comparet and Wesley A. Swift!