Difference of Opinion

Copied from the sermon notes of Pastor Don Elmore

May 12, 2024

Scripture Reading: Genesis 5:27:

“And all the days of Methuselah were nine hundred sixty and nine years; and he died.”

THE AGE OF THE OLD TESTAMENT PEOPLES

The book of Hebrews tells of the Hebrews who were living in the beginning of the New Testament days. What did this epistle say to this group who were the ancestors of the Abrahamic covenant? This was not the people who are known as the Jews today, but it was the people who were of the Abrahamic covenant, the descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. It was the descendants of Eber (Hebrews), who was the great-great grandson of Noah.

This family tree went from Noah, to Shem, to Arphaxad, to Salah to Eber. After Eber, it was Peleg, Reu, Serug, Nahor, Terah, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Why, one must ask, were they called Hebrews when Eber was the great-great-great-great-great-great-grandfather of Jacob? It was because Eber either outlived or lived during the lifetime of many of his descendants --eight of his sons, grandsons, great-grandsons, etc., including Abraham,Isaac, and Jacob.

Isaac was 139 years old, and Jacob was 79 years old when Eber died. Eber out lived everyone else that was in his family line; that is, Peleg, Reu, Serug, Nahor, Terah and Abraham.Eber lived for over four centuries and a half—464 years.

After the flood of Noah, the life span of the people drastically lowered. Noah lived 950 years, Shem 600 years, Arphaxad 438 years, Salah 433 years and Eber 464 years. Then the life span dropped much lower: Peleg 239 years, Reu 239 years, Serug 230 years, Nahor 148 years, Terah 205 years, Abraham 175 years, Isaac 180 years, Jacob 147 years and Joseph 110 years.

Put into today’s world, suppose your great-great-great-great-great-great-grandfather was living with you! That would be a relative who was living before the United States became a nation. And in comparing the Old Testament length of days with New Testament times, it would mean that Eber was born in the 1500s and would still be living in today’s world.

Eber lived for 464 years! That would mean that if he died this year, he would have been born in the year 1560—right after the Protestant Reformation began (1517).

A lot of things have changed in those five centuries. For example, the antichrist Jews were in a lot lower position; they were restricted to ghettos and were forbidden to hold any political office and certain jobs and were kicked out of several Israelite countries,including England.

The United States and Canada were wilderness territories with a few indigenous Indians. Europe was in the midst of a widespread religious, cultural, and social upheaval that broke the hold of the medieval Church, allowing for the development of personal interpretations of the Christian message and ending up with the development of modern nation-states. It took until the early 1800s for the Jews to be emancipated and to begin their ascent upwards till they are the head today.

You can see it a lot easier from the chart displayed below that Noah could have visited with Abraham, and did according to books, like Jasher, that are not in the Bible, but are mentioned in the Bible.This was the only time in recorded history where this could have happened. It had to be when a drastic change in the life span of ages suddenly decreased to about 1/12 of the average life span.

Notice that Noah lived during the lives of Shem, Arphaxad, Shalah, Eber, Peleg, Reu, Serug, Nahor and Terah (Abraham’s father), and Abraham. Eber lived during the days of Peleg, Reu, Serug, Nahor, Terah, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

But…there is a second opinion. There are others who believe that Noah died about two years before Abraham was born. Here is what they say:

Genesis 7:1 says that Noah was 600 years old when the flood began. Then we go to Genesis 9:28-29 which tells us that all the days of Noah after the flood were three hundred, fifty years. So, when one adds these times together, we get that Noah was 950 years old we he died. So far, so good.

Then we go to:

Genesis 11:10 tells us that Shem was a hundred years old, and begat Arphaxad two years after the flood. Noah would have been 602 years old.

Genesis 11:12 tells us that Arphaxad lived 35 years and begat Salah. Noah would have been 637 years old.

Genesis 11:14 tells us that Salah lived 30 years and begat Eber. Noah would have been 667 years old.

Genesis 11:16 tells us that Eber lived 34 years and begat Peleg. Noah would have been 701 years old.

Genesis 11:18 tells us that Peleg lived 30 years and begat Reu. Noah would have been 731 years old.

Genesis 11:20 tells us that Reu lived 32 years and begat Serug. Noah would have been 763 years old.

Genesis 11:22 tells us that Serug lived 30 years and begat Nahor. Noah would have been 793 years old.

Genesis 11:24 tells us that Nahor lived 29 years and begat Terah. Noah would have been 822 years old.

Genesis 11:26 tells us that Terah lived 70 years and begat Abram, Nahor, and Haran. Noah would have been 892 years old. Noah would have lived for 58 years after Abram (Abraham) was born, since Noah lived to be 950 years old. Noah and Abraham would have lived 58 years together.

But…it implies that Terah begat Abram, Nahor and Haran all in the same year, but were they triplets? No, they were not triplets. So how old was Terah when Abram was born?

Genesis 11:32 tells us that Terah lived 205 years old when he died in the city of Haran.

Genesis 12:4 tells us that Abram was 75 years old when he left Haran, and he left right after Terah died.

So, 205 years old – 75 years old = 130 years old.

Terah was 130 years old when Abram was born. Noah was 892 years old when “Terah…begat Abram, Nahor and Haran” Genesis 11:26.

Noah would have been 952 years old when Abram was born, but Noah died at 950 years old. Therefore, Noah died two years BEFORE Abram was born.

The person that made this chart agreed with scenario #2. He has Terah being 130 years old, instead of 70 years old when Abram was born. So, Noah died two years before Abram (Abraham) was born; Noah died in 2006, Abram born in 2008. But Shem, Arphaxad, Salah, Eber, Reu, Serug, and, of course, Terah was alive during the lifetime of Abraham. Eber lived four years after Abraham died.

But there is a third opinion. If one uses the dates which are calculated from the Septuagint:

By using the Septuagint, Noah died in the year 2837, while Abraham was born in 1955. Quite a difference – 822 years. Eber died in 2386 while Abraham was born in 1955, a difference of 431 years.

Which one is correct?

1) Noah died 58 years after Abram was born, or

2) Noah died two years before Abram was born, or

3) Noah died 882 years before Abram was born.

THE PARABLE OF THE WHEAT AND THE TARES

If you believe that the ages of the Old Testament people could be confusing, look at the just one of the parables that Jesus told. There are dozens of different interpretations.

Matthew 13:24-30:

24) “Another parable put He forth unto them, saying, The kingdom of heaven is likened unto a man which sowed good seed in his field.

25) But while men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat, and went his way.

26) But when the blade was sprung up, and brought forth fruit, then appeared the tares also.

27) So the servants of the householder came and said unto him, Sir didst not thou sow good seed in thy field? From whence then hath it tares?

28) He said unto them, An enemy hath done this. The servants said not him, Wilt thou then that we go and gather them up?

29) But he said, Nay; lest while ye gather up the tares, ye root up also the wheat with them.

30) Let both grow together until the harvest: and in the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, Gather ye together first the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them: but gather the wheat into my barn.”

Matthew 13:37-43:

37) “He answered and said unto them, He that soweth the good seed is the Son of man;

38) The field is the world; the good seed are the children of the kingdom; but the tares are the children of the wicked one;

39) The enemy that sowed them is the devil; the harvest is the end of the world; and the reapers are the angels.

40) As therefore the tares are gathered and burned in the fire; so shall it be in the end of this world.

41) The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity;  

42) And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth.

43) Then shall the righteous shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father. Who hath ears to hear, let him hear.”

Now the big question is, who do these two similar plants, wheat, and the tares, represent? In between the giving of the parable and His explanation to His disciples was this added fact.

Matthew 13:35:  “That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, saying, “I will open My mouth in parables; I will utter things which have been kept secret from the foundation of the world.”

This is one of the parables that goes back to the Garden. What was the secret that it told?The wheat was sown by the Son of man. The tares were sown by the devil.

There are many different interpretations, which one do you think is correct?

1. First, here is what one Judeo-Christian says. It is a common point of view on who were the tares. It is found on pointoflife.com web site:

   “However, in the Parable of the Wheat and the Tares, we find that an enemy (identified in Matthew 13:39 as the devil, Satan), sowed a false gospel. He sowed a false word. As a result, true believers (wheat) and fake believers(tares) grow alongside one another in this world waiting for the day of the harvest, when the Lord will separate the believers from the non-believers, condemning the non-believers to Hell while gathering the believers into His Heaven.”

   This is typical of what most Judeo-Christians believe and teach. They say that the tares are “fake believers.” They don’t explain what the belief was that they were faking in the Garden, in fact, they don’t place them in the Garden at all. Nor do they say if they were Israelite, or Jews, or Asians, or Africans, or South Americans—but they imply that it is in every race that tares appear. But all the “tares” are condemned to Hell.

   They also deny that the two opposing plants, wheat, and tares, are racial. If fact, they deny that there are two opposing plants. They say that there is one plant, part believers and the other non-believers.

2. Here is another interpretation from Wheat and Tares – What Does This Parable Mean?(Christianity.com):

   “Jesus told the story to point out that there are people in the church who have infiltrated our ranks. While there is wheat, there are also tares. We don’t know who is who, necessarily. You will find them sitting side by side in a pew, breathing the same air, and singing the same songs. One may be a believer, while the other may be an unbeliever. One may be wheat, and one may be a tare.”

   They ignore Matthew 13:35 which says that Jesus told these parables which tell of things that have been kept secret from the foundation of the world. Their conclusion is that the tares are unbelievers in the church.

3. How about this one? It is from ONEFORISRAEL.com web site, which is a messianic Jewish church web site. Here is their interpretation of Jesus’ parable:

   “Jesus tells us the parable of the wheat and the tares to help us understand the situation we are living in. We must accept the reality that evil is inseparably intertwined with the good. We might long to put a comfortable distance between good and bad, but this is not an option available to us. Instead, we are offered the assurance that God will sort it all out with perfect justice in the end.”

   Do you agree with this interpretation? It doesn’t give us anything that tells of the origin of wheat or the tares. This messianic Jewish group doesn’t give any racial interpretation. They don’t tell of the hatred that is placed in both by Almighty God.

4. What do the Mormon’s teach about this parable.

   “According to John W. Welch and Jeannie S. Welch [Mormon authors], this significant parable reveals the basic truths of the Great Apostasy and the wonderful blessings of the Father’s plan of restoration and eternal salvation. This graphic teaching of Jesus reveals that ‘trouble would arise soon after Jesus had started His Church’ while humans were not paying close enough attention and that these problems would be widespread. In particular, the parable appears to address ‘the challenges presented by the apostasy in the early Christian church, its communities, and its families.’ At the same time, it becomes clear that Jesus prophetically anticipated all these challenges and offered encouragement to His audience so that they might recognize the tares for what they truly were.”

   Since there were no Mormons until the 1830s, they interpret this parable as teaching that there was trouble that would arise soon after Jesus started His church. By the 1800s the church needed to be restored. Thus, the Mormon church.

5. In his 1974 Parables of Matthew 13 tapes, Sheldon Emry stated that wheat were the children of the kingdom, and tares were the children of the devil. He continued saying on the tapes that eventually the children of the kingdom in North America would be corrupted and deceived by the children of the evil one – the devil, before Jesus the Christ will come, and the tares would be harvested first.
6. There are other views that different writers and speakers give as to who the tares represent, such as:
   • Counterfeit Christians,
   • Hypocrites who talk like Christians but don’t act like them,
   • Backslidden sinners who have begun to be influenced more by Satan and the world,
   • Embracers of the wrong doctrine of work salvation, and
   • Many others.

7. Another opinion of who the tares are, is given by one of the main leaders of Christian Identity. In his book, Eve: Did She or Didn’t She, Ted Weiland says on page 72, that: “…this parable [parable of wheat and tares] is simply contrasting righteous Israelites [wheat] with wicked Israelites [tares]…” (emphasis mine).

   Weiland says that the Wheat are the righteous Israelites, and the Tares are the wicked Israelites. What is wrong with this view?

   Dual seed liners and others say that this view is incorrect, because:

   1) One reason is that the tares were not only sown by the enemy, but the seed of the serpent are today’s Jews—not wicked Israelites, unless they have intermarried with the Jews.

   2) Wheat and tares are racial.

   3) They are unable to change from one seed to the other.

   4) Another reason is that there were no Israelites in the Garden.

   There are many more disagreements that could be made, here are ten more:

8. Who was Jesus preaching to?

   Jesus was preaching to the multitude in the land of Palestine. The multitude were made up of Edomites, evil Judahites who had interracially married with the Edomites (today they both are called Jews); along with a few good Judahites. Why did Weiland fail to mention who made up the crowd that heard this parable?

   And who else is missing? Most of the Israelites! There was no one from the ten tribes of the House of Israel, and most of the three tribes from the House of Judah who had been divorced, were taken captive, and were scattered throughout the land of the middle east and then most of them had migrated to Europe. They had been gone from the Promised Land for over seven centuries. By today’s dates they would have been divorced in the 1300s! 

   So, we are to believe, according to Weiland, that Jesus was telling his mixed audience that one of the secrets since the foundation of the world only pertains to the origin of the Israelites. Some were sown by God [righteous Israelites] and others were sown by the devil [wicked Israelites].But both, according to Weiland, had the same parents, Adam and Eve. So, are we to conclude from Weiland’s reasoning that Adam was both the Son of man and the devil?

   There were two seed lines, Cain, and Abel/Seth, that had their origin in the Garden. Weiland, just like the other Judeo-Christian web sites doesn’t point out who the two seed lines are. Therefore, they don’t say that both seed lines had hatred or enmity placed in them by Almighty God and have been at war with each other since the Garden. Almost all the groups which interpret this parable, totally ignore these two seed lines and the enmity placed in each one.

9. Who was the enemy of God who sowed the tares?

   The text says that it was the devil. Weiland doesn’t believe that the devil exists. So, he doesn’t mention this enemy at all.

   If Weiland doesn’t believe there is a devil, he doesn’t believe he has children who are in the world today. So, those that believe the Jews are the main enemy of God, and believe Weiland, where and how did this come to pass if the origin of the Jews was Adam and Cain? Adam and Eve would have procreated Cain which would have a good DNA, not one that would be cast into hell.

10. Weiland says on page 74 that John 10:26-27:

    “…is not saying that those who do not hear and respond to the shepherd’s voice are spurious Jews and thus the seed of Satan…”,

    and

    “…Instead, it contrasts the remnant of Israel who hear and respond to the shepherd’s call to other Israelites who spurn their shepherd’s beckoning.”

    Weiland duplicates the same argument that he gave as to who was the “wheat” and the “tares” when he says who will hear our Savior’s voice or who will not hear. For he says, those who hear are the righteous remnant Israelites who are His sheep and those who don’t hear are unrighteous Israelites who are not His sheep.

    John 10:26, 27:

    26) “But ye believe not, because ye are not of My sheep, as I said unto you.

    27) My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me.”

    Weiland says that verse 26 refers to Israelites who spurn the call of their shepherd. So, are these Israelites not sheep? Nevertheless, Weiland teaches that all these Israelites who failed to hear the shepherd’s voice are doomed to hell.

    Weiland says that only a remnant of Israelites will be saved; the remainder are or have already gone to hell. Sounds a lot like Judeo-Christianity. That includes many of our relatives and friends. It seems that he doesn’t believe that Jesus Christ was the second Adam.

    Weiland again does not mention the Jews. Aren’t the Jews anti christian? And these anti christian Jews are one of the subjects that were taught?

    For whom was Jesus talking to in verses 26 and 27? Just two verses prior to verse 26, the Edomite Jews asked their question.

    John 10:24:

    24) “Then came the Jews round about Him, and said unto Him[Jesus], How long dost thou make us to doubt. If thou be the Christ, tell us[Jews] plainly.”

    Jesus answered a question that the Edomite Jews had just asked Him. It was the Jews that Jesus was talking to, not the Israelites [Judahites].Weiland has misidentified who Jesus was answering in these two verses. It was not the Israelites, but it was the Edomite Jews.

11. Weiland says on page 74 on his book, the following:

    “In such passages [as John 10:26, 27], Yahshua was speaking of a spiritual seed out of the physical seed line of Israel who would be saved, not by race, but by grace through the blood of Yahshua the Messiah.”

    According to Weiland, Jesus began His discourse against them, i.e. Israel, not the Edomite Jews. The Edomite Jews, who were not mentioned at all in these two verses by Weiland, got so angry with Jesus that they attempted to murder Him. Why would the Jews be so angry with how Weiland interprets these two verses to mean, when he fails to mention them at all?

    John 10:31:

    31) “Then the Jews took up stones again to stone Him.”

12. Weiland says that the only difference between the wheat and the tares is “righteous” and “wicked” Israelites, in essence, claiming wheat and tares are genetically identical.

    But the truth is that the wheat and tares are NOT genetically identical which means that before the foundation of the world the “seed of the serpent” and “the seed of the woman” were not genetically identical either. They had the same mother, but they had very different fathers! And Weiland doesn’t explain what happens when some of the righteous eventually become unrighteous and some unrighteous eventually become righteous; so, do they switch from the seed of the serpent to the seed of the woman and vice versa?

    The seed of the serpent and the seed of the woman are two different seeds. Have you ever wondered why the Jews trace their lineage after their mothers and not their fathers? The Jews go all the way back to Eve, through the serpent. They don’t want the world to know that their father was the serpent, but they have no problem with letting the world know that their mother was Eve. It is a secret as to who their father was.

13. If “wheat” and “tares” had the same origin, how could the devil have planted one of them?

    Matthew 15:13:

    13) “But He answered and said, Every plant, which My heavenly Father hath NOT planted, shall be rooted up.”

    Who are the plants that were not planted by Jesus’ heavenly Father? It was one of the two plants that wherein the Garden. It was not some random plant, but people who were not sown by our heavenly Father, who are represented by the tares.

    In a long conversation with the interracially married Edomites and Judahites (Jews, verses 22, 31, and 48):

    John 8:41a and 44a:

    41a) “Jesus said unto them[Jews], IF God were your [Jews’] father…”

    44a) “Ye [Jews] are of your [Jews’] father the devil…”

    Jesus told these Jews that they had a different father than He had.

    Lt. Colonel Jack Mohr, says in his Seed of Satan, Literal or Figurative? on page 15:

    “In no way does this Parable [of the wheat and tares] point to specific people by race, who are literal descendants of Satan, coming from his union with Mother Eve.”

    But the parable shows that it was literal descendants, one fathered by the serpent and the other by the Son of man. And these two literal descendants have been enemies with each other since the Garden. They have been at war with each other for over 6000 years. Both the Judeo-Christians and those who believe there is no Satan do not identify the Jews as being the offspring of the serpent, for they deny the existence of the serpent.

    Some say that the tares are fake wheat. Today’s Jews are fake Israelites. They claim that they are the descendants of the Abrahamic covenant.

    We shall know “who is who” at the end of this age. Their fruit or lack thereof will reveal who they both are: anti christian or Christian.

14. Weiland is saying that most of the Judahites and most of the other Israelites are doomed to hell.

    It says in Matthew 13, verse 30 that the tares are to be gathered to be burned and in verse 42, it further says that they are to be cast into a furnace of fire where there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth. Weiland says, on page 72 of his book, that the tares are the wicked Israelites. So, he says many of the Israelites are doomed to hell-that would be a large percentage of the Israelites. He is quiet about where the antichrist Jews’ destiny is. Hell is the final destiny of all the anti christian Jews. Weiland doesn’t mention them as being in this parable.

15. On page 73, Weiland tells of his views on who will be “saved.” It is the Arminian view.

    “Furthermore, if the seedliners’ interpretation of the wheat and the 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.”

    Weiland continues and says on the same page:

    “Of course, this hypothesis flies in the face of the entire Bible. Not all Israelites, just because they are Israelites or because they are of the seed of the woman, will be saved…only a remnant out of all the tribes of Israel will share in salvation.”

    This is the big question. Is Weiland right or wrong in his statement? He wrote that only a small part, a remnant, of all Israel will be saved. Only those, both Israelites and non-Israelites, who are baptized in water will be saved.

    Weiland has indicated that he has sent a lot of money, Bibles, and tapes to the indigenous inhabitants of Nigeria. He is universal in his concept as he believes that other races can participate in the salvation of God.

    Weiland is, in my opinion, dead wrong. And why? Weiland is universal in his salvation approach and the Apostle Paul said that the Adamic race is indeed saved by its heritage, or race:

    1 Corinthians 15:22:

    22) “For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.”

    It all depends on if one believes that Jesus was the second Adam or not. Christ was manifested to reconcile His entire race to God by keeping the entire law of God for His people. Hebrews 12:8 says that we are either “sons” or “bastards”, and there isn’t anything in between. John 3:31 makes it clear there are “heavenly” people from above and people “that are of the earth…earthly” Our Redeemer told the Jews (tares):

    John 8:23b:

    23b) “Ye [Jews, tares] are from beneath; I am from above: ye [Jews, tares] are of this world; I am not of this world.”

    Jesus was the second Adam. He, like us, is also “born from above.” The first Adam caused all his offspring to go from eternal life to sin and death; The second Adam caused all his offspring to go from sin and death back to eternal life.

    Weiland, like most Arminians and Calvinists, never say much about any Israelite who:

    • Never hears anything about Jesus Christ during their entire life. Is he or she, according to their theology, saved or lost?
    • Dies before he/she grows up and becomes a man or woman. Is he or she, according to their theology, saved or lost?
    • Were divorced from Almighty God for over seven centuries and cut off from the covenant. Were they, according to their theology, all saved or lost?
    • Has a disability and is mentally unable to understand what Jesus did. Is he or she, according to their theology, saved or lost?
    • Decides for Christ, then backslides. Does that mean that his/her sins that were paid for had to be subtracted from the payment that was made 2000 years ago? How does that happen? Is he or she, according to their theology, saved or lost?
    • Dies as an infant. Is he or she, according to their theology, saved or lost?
    • Is aborted in the womb. Is he or she, according to their theology, saved or lost?

16. Weiland says on page 33 of his book, that:

    “Genesis 3:15 is referring to two dispositions within one physical seed line or group of people. To put it another way, there is one physical seed line, but two opposing spiritual outlooks on life. Some people follow evil and others follow good…” and “According to Genesis 4:1-2, both Cain and Abel were fathered by Adam. Genesis 4:3-7 states that one brother chose good and the other brother chose evil.”

    If Adam fathered Cain, after which Cain interracially married, why wasn’t all his seed destroyed in Noah’s flood like all the other Adamites who committed this sin of fornication? Think about this one for a while, for very few people ever answer this question.

    Where are the Jews in all of this? Weiland denies that ALL the seed of the serpent is doomed to hell. Weiland believes that there is NOT a “seed of the serpent” for there is no serpent. He believes that the Jew is not the enemy of God and His followers. He believes it is our race entirely.

    Then why did God tell His covenant people to annihilate all the men, woman, children, and infants of the Canaanites in the Promised Land. They were not to send any missionaries first. Because they could never be saved. They could never believe it because they, not the non-remnant Israelites, were not His sheep.

17. Who does Weiland blame for the death of Christ?

    On page 78, Weiland does not blame the death of Christ on the Edomite Jews, but on us.

    “It is time for us to cease blaming someone else for our own sins and for the sins of our forefathers. We killed our own prophets and Yahshua the Messiah…”

    And on page 79 is another blatant deliberant error: “[Yahweh] The God of our fathers raised up Yahshua, whom ye [men of Israel—verse 35] slew and hanged on a tree… (Acts 5:24-35).”

    Weiland is quoting Acts 5:30, which is Peter’s and the other apostles’ answer to the question given by the Edomite Jewish high priest at the council. Weiland is incorrect when he gives “men of Israel” in verse 35 to explain what the pronoun “ye” in verse 30is replacing.

    Pronouns take the place of nouns. Nouns come first, before the pronoun. “Ye” means the high priest and the council, which were Edomite Jews, verse 27.

    You will find that the question the Edomite (Jewish) high priest asked the apostles was found in verse 28:

    “Saying, Did not we [high priest and counsel] straitly command you that ye should not teach in this name? and, behold, ye have filled Jerusalem with your doctrine, and intend to bring this man’s [Jesus Christ’s] blood upon us [high priest and counsel].”

    Two verses later, Peter says that ye [high priest and council—Edomite Jews] slew and hang on a tree the Messiah, not the men of Israel. Peter didn’t blame himself, the other apostles, and his own people for slaying their Savior. Which is just the opposite of what Weiland is saying.

CONCLUSION

There was a recent article in a popular newsletter entitled “You Are of Your Father the Devil.” It was written by another popular Christian Identity “no Satan” author. Here are four separate quotes from the article:

• “If we use the word ‘devil’ as it is usually meant in the Bible, often translated from ‘diabolos,’ then maybe it is not far fetched to say many churches have been diabolos. All churches which have stood by the killing of other nations of Christendom are of ‘that’ devil they believe in. Let’s take John 8:44, ‘You are of your father the devil…’ Whole books have been written on what this verse may imply or not. The word ‘devil’ in this verse is translated poorly from the word ‘diabolos.’ It does not mean a supernatural big bad spook.”
• “The verse in John 8 [John 8:44] is telling the Pharisees that their influence is a slanderous ‘father.’”
• “If we do not God’s will, then He is not our Father.”
• “The idea that the Pharisees are of a lineage impregnated from an evil spook is not Biblical. It comes from the Talmud, more specifically, Pirke de-Rabbi Eliezer ‘Chapters of Rabbi Eliezer’ chapter 21. 8th or 9th century Midrash (Mode of rabbinic interpreting the bible and the Talmud).

‘Samael riding on the serpent came to her, and she conceived; afterwards Adam came to her, and she conceived…’

Samuel is the king of all demons (Jewish tradition) from where the mythology of devils comes from.”

-----------------------------------

Where do I begin? The purpose of this sermon is not to change the belief of the leaders of the doctrine of “no Satan.” They have believed and taught this Christadelphian doctrine for many decades, and nothing is going to change their minds. Weiland and others like him blame their own race and the churches for the evil in the world. They have no blame for the antichrist Jews. They even blame us, Israel, for the murder of Jesus.

My purpose is to point out some of the errors of this biblical interpretation which contradicts many of the original beliefs of Christendom, as I see them. These errors led to other errors, which led to other errors.

There was a war that began in the Garden and is coming to a climax at the end of this age. This new interpretation of “no Satan” eliminates the origin of the people who are enemies of our God and us, His followers. If you are unaware of who your real enemy is, the end could be disastrous for you.

If we Christians are in a war, as it clearly states in the Bible, then it would behoove us to know and understand who our enemy really is. But there are some “no Satan” Christian Identity people who rightly believe the Jews are the enemy of God, but they support Weiland and others who do not teach the exclusiveness of Israel. Maybe they are unaware that this is true.

There are all kinds of opinions on what the Bible says – from Jews are the descendants of the Abrahamic covenant to Blacks are the descendants. All use the Scriptures. The opinion you believe must agree with the theme of the entire Bible.

Now let’s look at the quotes from the article:

1)   First, the devil is not some “supernatural big bad spook.” He is a fallen created angel who started a war in heaven and was defeated. He was one of the head angels, and he took with him 1/3 of all the angels in his rebellion. His main weapon was/is deceit.

The fallen angel’s desire was to destroy the creation that God had made with Adam and Eve. His desire was to hybridize the offspring so it would be of his own planting, not God’s. That has been his plan from the beginning. The serpent had a seed. Its seed are now the leaders of Communism who want every white girl to have intimate relations with a person of color. Their desire is to destroy the white race until every person of every race is no longer of many diverse colors but is mid-brown.

The failure of the traditional translations to distinguish the use of the term “satan” to mean adversary or “the Satan” which means a particular entity, like a fallen angel, is the cause of much confusion. It is wrong to make every place where the word “satan” or “the satan” occurs to mean the same thing. “The Satan” is a personal entity, “satan” means adversary. For example, when the word “wicked” is used with the definite article “ho” (in the Greek) in Matthew 13:19; Ephesians 6:16; 1 John 1:13, 14; 3:12, 5:18 it means Satan, the wicked one. This is not clearly seen in the KJV but is clear in the Greek translation.

The author of this article also forgot to mention that the two seeds in Genesis 3:15 had hatred or enmity placed in them and their descendants. They were at war from the Garden to the end of this age. The seed of the serpent would bruise the heel of the seed of the woman. But if the serpent doesn’t exist, then this is an impossibility. No mention of this either.

2) The author of this article says in John 8:44, Jesus was telling the Pharisees that their influence was a slanderous, rather than they are condemned to hell because they were fathered by the rebellious angel.

Who planned the murder of Jesus? Why were the Pharisees and their kin so evil towards Jesus and His followers. Why does their Talmud say that Jesus in now in hell being tormented in a cauldron of evil elements? No other people on the earth do this. Why? Most of the other religions say that Jesus was either a good man or a prophet of God. He is silent on this.

3)  The author of this article says that if we do not do God’s will, then He is not our Father. What? When King David arranged the murder of Uriah, then was the devil His father? Does it switch back and forth? Are you of your father, the devil, sometime in your life? God is no longer your Father. Then when you do God’s will once again, He is your father?

Who was the father of the giants? Who was the father of the Rephaim? Are there no giants, no demons, no Satan, no devil, no angels, no serpent, no dragon, no evil spirits in the world today?

Who is the offspring of the serpent? The “No Satan” people say that it is no one because there is no serpent. The Kenites, Canaanites, Edomites are off the hook. It is us who are the guilty ones according to them.  We are guilty of the murder of Jesus, not the Jews. But how then are the Jews, the one group more than all the other religions of the world, that has the most intense hatred of our Savior.

4) The author said in his article that,

“The idea that the Pharisees are of a lineage impregnated from an evil spook is not Biblical. It comes from the Talmud.”

And then he quotes from the Talmud that the serpent had sex with Eve.

Which came first, the Bible or the Talmud?  Does the Talmud say that they (the Jews) are the descendants of the serpent and Eve. No, they say that they are the offspring of the mother.

----------------------------------------

Chuck Baldwin has lamented that this generation has rebelliously and stubbornly given itself to the evils of Marxist-Zionism. And though Americans should have seen the murderous, genocidal nature of the Ashkenazi Zionist, it took the genocidal war against Gaza to awaken, not America’s conservative politicians or America’s evangelical pulpits or many Christian Identity pulpits, but kids on America’s college and university campuses.

And now the House of Representatives has passed an “antisemitism” bill. It will soon be a law in America as it is in other countries. Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene opposed the bill arguing that the “bill could convict Christians of antisemitism for believing the Gospel that says Jesus was handed over to Harod to be crucified by the Jews.” Who do you think will be found guilty of this bill? —dual seed liners or believers of Ted Weiland?

Ted Weiland writes on his web site the following:

“Accusations of antisemitism would disappear if people would stop blaming the progenitors’ of today’s non-Israelite Jews of killing Christ.

They [Jews] didn’t kill him. Instead, it was the progenitors of today’s true Israelites found in the Anglo-Saxon, Germanic, Scandinavian, Celtic and kindred people who crucified Christ, as proven biblically, archeologically, historically...”

And Weiland believes that the covenant is specific to Israelites, but unlike most Christian Identity people, he, “…also believes that non-Israelites can be proselytes to the New Covenant just like they could under the Old Testament.”

May God have mercy on our souls.

Blessed be the LORD God of Israel.