Two Seedline Taught In Dead Sea Scrolls, #2

As I said in Two Seedline Taught In Dead Sea Scrolls, #1, should you desire more insight on the Scriptures, I highly recommend you investigate the Dead Sea Scrolls. One should never go about making remarks on a subject unless they have thoroughly studied the issues involved. Sadly, many in the Identity Message today do just that, on a variety of subjects, especially the antichrist, anti-seedliners and those preaching universalism (that is, to attempt to bring the other races, termed “heathen” in the Bible, via the backdoor of the Kingdom under our Covenant). To all the apologists for the other races, I say this: It is high time to either get fully into Israel Identity or get entirely out. Should you decide on the latter, I suggest you return to the Jew-deo-unchristian churches, from where you came, to preach your anti-seedline and universalist doctrines. Astonishingly, there are so-called Identity “teachers” who erroneously call themselves “pastors” who are advocating that even the impostor “Jews” can be saved if only they will accept “Jesus Christ” as their personal Savior. In Detroit, at a small Identity church, they have a “Jew” in the congregation. There could be nothing more out-of-place than a black, Mongolian or “Jew” at an Israel Identity meeting. When Identity starts bringing such people into its meetings, they cease to be “Identity” gatherings.

Our people must start to understand that we are in a RACE WAR, and have been for over 7,000 years. That RACE WAR started in Genesis 3:15 and 4:1, and has continued until this very day. The antichrist, anti-seedliners falsely claim that RACE WAR is a “flesh war.” Yes, there are problems with the “flesh”, but this RACE WAR is an entirely different and far more serious matter. This RACE WAR is a genocidal war designed to completely destroy an entire race of people, that being the White Anglo-Saxon Race. One need only look around himself to observe it happening right before his very eyes on a daily basis. I highly recommend that those so-called “Identity pastors” who are apologizing for the other races start preaching “segregation” and “separation” from them as the Bible so loudly proclaims. When I hear those so-called “Identity ministers” apologize for the other races, saying we should be ashamed of such an attitude, I realize they are actually helping the enemy’s cause. Ted R. Weiland is one of them. I am fully persuaded that when Weiland stands before the Almighty in judgment, Yahshua will ask him, “Why did you give aid and comfort to My enemies?”

On one of his audiocassette tapes entitled Some Basics, Weiland apologizes for the other races by saying:

“... but that doesn’t mean that a non-Israelite cannot join himself to Yahweh, and partake — and why wouldn’t we want them to? Why wouldn’t we want the nations around to be serving our God?, and under His Laws? — so we could have commerce with those nations .... not only for my race but for their race as well ... I have come to appreciate the other races and their individuality more since understanding this [Identity] message than before I understood it. God created everything to be good ... have you ever noticed the media always says we call the other races ‘mud people’? I have never in my life ever heard the term except in the media. Not amongst the people I preach to ... so why wouldn’t we want to embrace others into this message? ... If anything, we should be absolutely ashamed of ourselves because of our past reputation and our past history as a people and what we have squandered because of who we are. We should be ashamed of ourselves and our forefathers more than the rest of the races. They are wallowing in their sin because of our sin. Let’s just face it. And again, it wasn’t the Jews of today who crucified our Lord and Savior — it was us.”

 Then Weiland had the guts to ask Yahweh to bless his message! What ever happened to the passage, “Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith Yahweh, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you ...”, 2 Corinthians 6:17. The other races are “unclean” to us, and Yahweh commands total “separation.” To endeavor to bring in the foreign heathen is tantamount to trampling Yahweh’s Covenant underfoot and spitting in His face. Additionally, the other races have never “sinned” as they were never under Yahweh’s Law. So where does Weiland get off saying, “They are wallowing in their sin because of our sin.” Our sins have nothing to do with the behavior of other races!

This is an example of one of Weiland’s many personally contrived doctrines. He surely doesn’t get it from Scripture, and noticeably he didn’t quote chapter and verse. Therefore, it’s not Christianity; it’s Weiland-ism! Truthfully, the behavior of the heathen rubs off on us, and that is the best reason in the world to keep separate from them! Where in the Bible are we commissioned to take our Law to the non-Israelites? Maybe Weiland should move his whole operation from Nebraska to the Congo.

Attempting to spiritualize and take a figurative view of the “tares” in Matthew 13, Weiland, in his Eve, Did She Or Didn’t She?, rebutting a statement by James E. Wise, makes this comment:

“Furthermore, if the seedliners’ interpretation of the wheat and tares parable is accurate, and if the tares in Matthew 13 represent all the seed line of Satan through Cain, then there is no alternative but to accept that the wheat represents all the physical seed line of Eve through Seth. The wheat in this parable depicts the sons of the kingdom, and by this interpretation, the wheat would automatically be sons of the kingdom by their heritage, that is, they would be saved by their race or lineage. If this is true, then Yahshua’s death, burial and resurrection were wholly unnecessary. Of course, this hypothesis flies in the face of the entire Bible ...”

To show how inconsistent Ted R. Weiland is, concerning the racial issue, I will quote from his audiocassette tape entitled The Real Significance Of Pentecost, #2. Notice how he reverses himself and decides that Israel can be saved by race after denying it in the quote from his book above:

“... however, and this is where I’ll pick it up with, however we need to understand, and I think we probably all do, and if we don’t, we should — it was not automatic. What I mean by that is that no longer — at this point, now that we are talking New Covenant, and we’re into Acts 2, and after Israel has been divorced, God has proposed marriage again to her, but her coming to Him is not automatic. Again, what I mean by that is, no longer did Israel have automatic genetic privileges. In other words, there’s no salvation by race. Now there was at one time. Is [stutter] is that [stutter] was not [stutter] is that not so, if we talk of salvation in context of Exodus 19, 5 and 6? — of the marriage and the Kingdom, and becoming a people, and all that came with that? We talked of salvation in that sense, There was salvation by race. It was automatic in the sense that it was all Israel. Now she still had to say ‘I will.’ But it was [stutter] it’s no longer as a nation of people for Israel — even though God makes His [stutter] His proposal, or presents His proposal to all — it’s no longer simply by the leaders saying ‘I will’, become automatic for Israel as a whole — no salvation by race ...”

When, then, did Yahweh’s salvation by race change? Contrary to Weiland, there is no salvation without race, for He is our Kinsman Redeemer. How can Weiland delete race from the equation? Yet he tries. Notice how Weiland said, “but her coming to Him is not automatic.” Weiland hasn’t learned yet that it is impossible for us to “come to Him”, for we are dead in trespasses and sin. Therefore, He had to come to us, and we have no choice in the matter, as Hebrews 11:6-10 proclaims, He can chastise us until we obey. The choice is His, not ours. How does Weiland sidestep the fact that it is the Shepherd who brings back all His sheep? (Matthew 18:11-14). I ask you: did the sheep, in that case, seek out his Shepherd? Yet that is what Weiland is implying must be done. We should never forget, it is the sheep that do the wandering and the Shepherd who does the finding! Weiland has the Shepherd doing the wandering and the sheep doing the finding! Well, let’s read Matthew 18:11-14 and see who did the finding:

“11 For the Son of man is come to save [Gr. #1482, save; rescue; deliver; protect; make whole; preserve safe from danger, loss or destruction; restore] that which was lost. 12 How think ye? if a man have an hundred sheep, and one of them be gone astray, doth he not leave the ninety and nine, and goeth into the mountains, and seeketh that which is gone astray? 13 And if so be that he find it, verily I say unto you, he rejoiceth more of that sheep, than of the ninety and nine which went not astray. Even so it is not the will of your Father which is in heaven, that one of these little ones should perish.”

Who was “lost” but Israel? How dare Weiland invite the “unclean” heathen in among us?! How dare he say we should be ashamed of our forefather’s racial background?! How dare he elevate the heathen while demeaning our forebears in the same breath?! How dare Weiland falsely proclaim that we Israelites were responsible for our Redeemer’s Crucifixion?! How dare Weiland, like the Pope, pardon today’s “Jews” for His Crucifixion?! It was the impostor “Jews” who said: “... His blood be on us, and on our children” (Matthew 27:25). Weiland still doesn’t comprehend that Genesis 3:15 proclaims the “seed of the serpent”, NOT “US”, would bruise the heel of the “seed of the woman.” Please, notice how Weiland is getting everything backwards. The next thing Weiland will be saying is: “the seed of the serpent” will bruise the “head of the seed of the woman”, and that would make Satan the victor. I hope you are becoming aware of how dangerous this turkey in Israel Identity really is!

You are probably wondering what all this has to do with Two Seedline being taught in the Dead Sea Scrolls. For that, I will demonstrate how the “enmity” of Genesis 3:15 worked its way into their discovery and translation. I will use the book Understanding The Dead Sea Scrolls, edited by Hershel Shanks. Even though it was edited by a “Jew”, I still recommend this book to get an all-around view of the Scrolls’ findings and translations. Shanks is only the managing editor of several other authors’ writings. Besides Hershel Shanks, other contributing authors were Harry Thomas Frank, Frank Moore Cross, Lawrence H. Schiffman, James C. VanderKam, Raphael Levy, Yigael Yadin, Magen Broshi, Hartmut Stegemann, Ronald S. Hendel, Otto Betz, P. Kyle McCarter and Avi Katzman. You, no doubt, already notice several “Jewish” names among these writers. For our purpose we will start at the back of the book, first in chapters 20 and 21 of its 22 chapters. These chapters are entitled “Interview With Chief Scroll Editor John Strugnell” by Avi Katzman, and “Silence, Anti-Semitism, And The Scrolls” by Hershel Shanks. Both Katzman and Shanks are “Jews.” The following will be a critical review of those two chapters, and the object is to show the “enmity” of the two seeds of Genesis 3:15 in action:

Chapter 20 shows the motive for the demotion and final dismissal of the former directing editor on the Dead Sea Scrolls, John Strugnell. It all started when Avi Katzman interviewed Strugnell for the newspaper Ha-Aretz in Tel Aviv, October 28, 1990, and it became known as the “Dead Sea Scroll scandal.” Katzman claims that Strugnell was the first to bring up the subject of anti-Semitism. You can decide for yourself, as Katzman asked Strugnell whether he was anti-Israel. Upon this Strugnell replied: “That’s a sneaky way of coming at the anti-Semite question, isn’t it?” Continuing, reportedly, Katzman asked Strugnell if he were anti-Semitic. Strugnell retorted:

“I can’t allow the word anti-Semitism to be used. I think it’s a sort of mixed-up, messed-up term that was introduced in Germany, a country of muddle-headed philosophers. It’s a cover word for: Are you against Jews? Are you against Israelis? Are you against the state of Israel? Are you against Zionism? [It has] nothing to do with being against Semites. I’m not an anti-Semite. I’ve spent my life studying various Semites from Ethiopia to Baghdad. I don’t know anyone in the world who’s an anti-Semite.”

Katzman then claims Strugnell told him he was an “anti-Judaist.” Continuing, Katzman continues to quote Strugnell:

“Judaism ... is originally racist ... it’s a folk religion; it’s not a higher religion. An anti-Judaist, that’s what I am. There, I plead guilty. I plead guilty in the way the Church has pleaded guilty all along, because we’re not guilty; we’re right. Christianity presents itself as a religion which replaces the Jewish religion. The correct answer of Jews to Christianity is to become Christian. I agree that there have been monstrosities in the past — the Inquisition, things like that. We should certainly behave ourselves like Christian gentlemen. But the basic judgment on the Jewish religion is, for me, a negative one.”

Katzman then claims that Strugnell denied that his feelings toward “Judaism” affected his work [on the scrolls]. According to Katzman, Strugnell allegedly said:

“Unless someone talks to me about the subject [of Judaism], I don’t when I’m working on a Qumran text, think how stupid and wrong the Jews were. I’m concerned with trying to find out what a document is saying in its context.” Supposedly, Katzman asked Strugnell what there was that “annoyed” him about Judaism. Allegedly Strugnell was to have replied:

“The fact that it has survived when it should have disappeared. Christianity now uses much more irenic [conciliatory] language for this. These are brutal terms; I’m putting it in harsh terms. For me the answer [to the Jewish problem] is mass conversion.”

Katzman pressing Strugnell for more, he allegedly continues:

“It’s the subsistence of the group, of Jews, of the Jewish religion. It’s a horrible religion. It’s a Christian heresy, and we deal with our heretics in different ways. You are a phenomenon that we haven’t managed to convert — and we should have managed ... I believe that the answer for Islam, and Buddhism, and all other religions is to become Christian. Judaism disturbs me in a different sense, because, whereas the others became Christians when we worked hard on them, the Jews are stuck on an anti-Christian position.”

Then, Strugnell allegedly expressed himself regarding the state of Israel by indicating to Kaztman, in so many words, his first love was for Jordan, and continued:

“That’s where the scrolls were found; the Jordanian government collected the scrolls. I worked with the Jordanians and I got to know and like them. I dislike Israel as an occupier of part of Jordan. And it’s quite obvious that this was part of Jordan.”

Supposedly, Katzman claims that Strugnell indicated that some of his friends were Israeli, and continued to quote Strugnell: “You know what the anti-Semites say: ‘some of my best friends are Jews.’ Well, some of my friends are Israelis. But the occupation of Jerusalem — and maybe the whole state — is founded on a lie, or at least on a premise that cannot be sustained. That’s putting it crudely as I can. The occupation of Jerusalem cannot be sustained ... Just look at the Crusaders ... We couldn’t maintain it. We — the English and the French — couldn’t maintain the Crusaders even though we had immense military superiority at the start and we did great things in the country. One of the great building periods was the Crusades; but, basically, they were unsustainable. That’s me on Israel.”

Allegedly, Katzman claims that Strugnell didn’t suggest dismantling the “Jewish state”, saying: “The question whether I’m against the state of Israel is a political question, just like whether I’m against Kuwait or Iraq. I think I answered that.”

Katzman, egging Strugnell on, claims that Strugnell found Israel’s position untenable and recommended the dismantling of the Jewish state as follows:

“At the moment I find your position untenable, but I don’t think that the maintenance of an Israeli state or a Zionists’ state is impossible. In the future. It will require certain negotiation, but I see no reason why it ...” ... “But you’re not in favor of it?” ... “Well it’s a fact. You’ve got four million people here, even though the Zionists based themselves on a lie. But they’re here now; you’re not going to move populations of four million. Not even the Nazis managed that ... I disapprove of the present state of Israel but I’m not opposed to a ‘Jewish national home’, in the old language [of the Balfour Declaration], which could well be a state, or which could well be a canton or federation ... Am I opposed to Zionism? I think we’ve had enough of it, but you can’t say it’s not there. It would’ve been nice if it hadn’t existed, but it has, so it’s covered by a sort of grandfather clause.”

You can see that Strugnell is falling right into the serpent’s trap with Katzman. Had Strugnell understood that he was up against one of the children of Satan himself, he shouldn’t have given him the time of the day, but Katzman egged him to continue. At this point Katzman asserts that Strugnell claims that four other scrolls which were found, somehow, are missing: “I’ve seen, with my own eyes two.” Then Katzman alleges that Strugnell claims that one of the two is a complete book of Enoch, and that Israeli archeologist Yigael Yadin is the reason for their not coming into the hands of scholars. According to Katzman’s account of Strugnell, after the Six-Day War, archaeologist Yadin had confiscated the famous Temple Scroll from a Bethlehem antiquities dealer known as Kando, paying him $250,000. But according to Yadin the sum was $105,000. Strugnell is alleged to have said:

“Yadin gave Kando two hundred fifty thousand dollars where we’d offered Kando one million five weeks earlier. When the owners of the manuscripts heard that, they just crossed the Jordan River.”

Then Strugnell is alleged to have indicated the Temple Scroll came from Cave 11 at Qumran. [The manuscripts are now] “somewhere in Jordan. Various people own them. Several of them have been sold to big bankers. They’re investments for these people ...”

Another interesting remark that Strugnell is alleged to have said at that Katzman interview, showing his lack of concern that the scrolls might deteriorate, is as follows:

“They’re [the scrolls] all being kept very carefully; no one need worry about them. They’re a better investment than anything on the Israeli or New York stock exchanges.”

Strugnell is also alleged to have blamed Israelis’ Antiquities Authority for the loss of millions of dollars in research funds in delaying his own confirmation as chief editor for the scrolls, following the death of Pére Pierre Beniot in 1987, when he is claimed to have said:

“The Israeli Department of Antiquities took such a long time about it [confirming Strugnell as chief editor] that we lost quite a large amount of money. People who were wanting to give money wanted to make sure that I was in charge, so we lost one very handsome gift of some two hundred fifty thousand dollars.”

Then, allegedly, Katzman was able to sucker out of Strugnell some “racial” jokes, and Strugnell is supposed to have said:

“Racial stereotypes are one of the greatest things in our humor — where would we be without Armenian jokes, Jewish jokes? This may be taken to mean that I detest a whole class of people, but that’s not true.”

Had Strugnell had the foresight to see that, in the future, the “Jews” would be the leading proponents of “political correctness”, he could have avoided that trap. He would later pay a large price for this. Then Katzman contends that Strugnell claimed that many “Jews” were able to see the Dead Sea Scrolls while they were still in Jordanian hands. Allegedly, this is what Strugnell said:

“Although tourists had to get a certificate of baptism [to enter Jordan], I saw the most Jewish-looking people come into the museum [in Amman] with [these certificates].”

We can be very sure that all of this was immediately reported back at “Jewish headquarters” by Katzman. It is their Satanic-genetic-nature to always be in everyone else’s business and they don’t miss a thing. They are always calculating their evil stratagems to deceive, just as Satan deceived Eve into giving up her chastity and conceiving Cain. If you don’t believe Satan is capable of such a thing, observe all the Eves who are being deceived into giving up their chastity to another race today, which happens to be the primary evil stratagem of the Satanic “Jews”, and then there are people like Ted R. Weiland and company who are claiming the “Jews” are not a genetic, Satanic people, but that all evil is a problem with the “flesh.” By doing this, Weiland and company lend assistance to the “Jews” in their evil plot. Weiland talks like a man who has had “Jewish” designed racial “sensitivity training.”

As I am running short on space, I will have to save chapter 21 of Understanding The Dead Sea Scrolls for another paper. As I was preparing this paper, something struck me, and I am going to use the remaining space for that flicker of intuition. I have noticed, that when speakers are misrepresenting an issue, sometimes they will stutter, as Weiland did in the previously-cited quotation where he was extolling the other races. The very same phenomena, which I will demonstrate shortly, happened when Charles Weisman was lying about Two Seedline doctrine. For those who are not aware of it, Weisman is a hard-core antichrist, anti-seedliner. The following is some stuttering which he did on a presentation entitled Satanic Seedline made at the behest of Pete Peters in an attempt to discredit that important doctrine:

“... and thus His seedline is metic [stutter] meticulously spelled out in the Gospel ... thus the curse em [stutter] enmity that’s on the serpent, and it’s Satanic tra [stutter] traits were carried on in Cain it’s [stutter] and his descendants ... but mm [stutter] many people believe ... in this chapter of Ezekiel is doubtful to bb [stutter] be ... neither sh [stutter] shall ye touch it ... the problem with not [stutter] with touching [stutter] touching the tree ... Now it’s interesting that some supporting this doctrine have made ah [stutter] great [stutter] have gone to great length ... it says hrt [stutter] it shall brr [stutter] the King James has it shall bruise thy head ... concerning Christ, one, His Incarnation that He should be the sse [stutter] seed of the woman ... or by His death. He had victory over th [stutter] iss [stutter] entity, sometimes called Satan ... We also have a victory over ch [stutter] over a political power structure ... as is the word sa [stutter] serpent ... these cursed pe [stutter] people naturally have enmity ... and they also say that Cain is not listed gnn [stutter] genealogy ... now there is unn [stutter] other interesting statements here ... now also in John 6, Christ sut [stutter] speaks of the bread of God ... now some opponents of the Satanic Seedline doctrine says that the devil [stutter] it means that the devil is their spiritual father. Well that’s not true. It’s jes [stutter] nn [stutter] what’s he dn [stutter] what Christ was just barely do-in when he ‘you are the father the devil’, he was implying ... and the same when Christ used the term serpent, called them serpents, er [stutter] gnn [stutter] generation of vipers ... and dd [stutter] that he is a liar and-so-forth. And they [stutter] people will say ... now 1st John 3:12 is also quoted which exhorts us to be not as Cain who was of the [stutter] that wicked one. Here, again, we jus [stutter] it’s just same thing ‘you are of father the devil’, it’s just employing metaphors. And verse 10 compares the children of God with the children dv [stutter] the devil ... there all just types of [stutter] mt [stutter] use metaphorical phrases ... So they are going to be judged. Alla [stutter] alla [stutter] all the shed blood, the in [stutter] innocent blood is going to become on this people ... an [stutter] and therefore, if you tell somebody about a falsehood ... nn [stutter] in conclusion ...”

It’s my own personal theory that much of this stuttering is caused by the “Spirit of Truth” and the “spirit of error” at war within a person’s mind. From what I have presented here, you can see that both Ted R. Weiland and Charles Weisman were doing it. I am reminded of the Scripture which says: “A double minded man is unstable in all his ways”, James 1:8. Also, Matthew 6:22 & Luke 11:34 requires that “thy eye be single”, and that is speaking of the mind’s eye, not the physical eye. Romans 12:2 speaks of a “renewing” of our “mind”, which for many, has never happened!