We know from the New Testament as well as the Old that the sin of fornication, which describes several sorts of sexual indecency, such as prostitution, also includes race-mixing. One place where this is clearly evident is at Jude 7, where we read that fornication is the pursuit of strange, or different, flesh. Then in 1 Corinthians chapter 10, Paul of Tarsus had used the same word and warned the Christians at Corinth not to commit fornication, referring them to a race-mixing event for which the ancient children of Israel were severely punished, which is found in Numbers chapters 24 and 25. In the words of Christ Himself, He proclaims that He will kill the children of those who commit fornication, as He punishes the sinners themselves, in Revelation chapter 2. Fornication is one of the acts expressly prohibited by the apostles in Acts chapter 15, and Paul admonished different sorts of fornicators in his epistles.
Why have the churches abandoned these teachings? Until the 1970’s the Southern Baptist Convention opposed such fornication. But eventually, and primarily because the government had ultimately forced the issue, in part by threatening to revoke tax-exempt status, the Baptist churches all relented, and so had all other churches. This was facilitated by a 1967 SCOTUS decision named, rather ironically, Loving vs. Virginia. In the history of the early American colonies, laws barring miscegenation were generally not needed since most Christians would never do such a thing. But there were always exceptions, and in diverse places such laws became necessary in order to maintain a Christian society. After the so-called “Civil War”, many States did find such laws to be necessary, and they stood for a hundred years. By devout Christians, it was considered natural, normal and godly to maintain one’s own race and not to mingle with others. Those laws were not made because of some sort of unfair “racism”, but rather they were made because men loved God and sought to keep His Commandments, as Christ insisted that they do.
So we must ask, has God changed? If a Christian does not believe the words of Christ or His apostles, how can he still be called a Christian? God has not changed, as Paul of Tarsus also proclaims in his epistle to the Hebrews, in chapter 13: “8 Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever.” If Christ despised race-mixing fornication when John received the Revelation, He despises it now, and He will always despise it. The modern churches, which have forsaken His Word, shall all one day receive His judgment.
Naturally, Bible-believing Christians, which are those who acknowledge that Christ expects Christians to keep His commandments, are going to be despised by sinners. This is an inevitable phenomenon concerning which the Scriptures themselves warn. But modern church-goers, who have accepted these recent government commandments, worship the government rather than Christ. For that they certainly are all sinners, and they are also idolaters.
As Europeans were turned from paganism to Christ in the first few centuries of the Christian era, the pagans began to despise and persecute them simply because they would no longer engage with them in their idolatry. So the apostle Peter had written in chapter 4 of his first epistle that “1 Forasmuch then as Christ hath suffered for us in the flesh, arm yourselves likewise with the same mind: for he that hath suffered in the flesh hath ceased from sin; 2 That he no longer should live the rest of his time in the flesh to the lusts of men, but to the will of God. 3 For the time past of our life may suffice us to have wrought the will of the [nations], when we walked in lasciviousness, lusts, excess of wine, revellings, banquetings, and abominable idolatries: 4 Wherein they [the pagans] think it strange that ye run not with them to the same excess of riot, speaking evil of you: 5 Who shall give account to him that is ready to judge the quick and the dead.”
This attitude of sinners was not new even at the time when Peter had made those warnings found in his first epistle. It is a phenomenon that has manifested itself all throughout history. As we have discussed, and as we are still discussing in our ongoing commentary on the Wisdom of Solomon, in Wisdom chapter 2 we read of this same attitude of the wicked towards the righteous:, where the wicked are portrayed as saying “10 Let us oppress the poor righteous man, let us not spare the widow, nor reverence the ancient gray hairs of the aged. 11 Let our strength be the law of justice: for that which is feeble is found to be nothing worth. [So the wicked espouse the notion that “might makes right”.] 12 Therefore let us lie in wait for the righteous; because he is not for our turn [or better, he is difficult for us, or intractable to us], and he is clean contrary to our doings: he upbraideth us with our offending the law, and objecteth to our infamy the transgressings of our education. [Many otherwise good people have accepted the ways of the wicked because of the quality of their modern government education. So continuing to speak of the righteous, the wicked then say:] 13 He professeth to have the knowledge of God: and he calleth himself the child of the Lord. 14 He was made to reprove our thoughts. 15 He is grievous unto us even to behold: for his life is not like other men’s, his ways are of another fashion.”
Indeed, God has not changed, and what was sinful three thousand years ago is still sinful today. True Christians stand for that, or they are not truly Christians – they are only deceiving themselves. True Christians, if they really do love and seek to please God, are intractable to the wicked. If race-mixing was a sin to the apostles of Christ, then race-mixing is still a sin, and anyone who denies that actually despises Christ. For that we read, in John chapter 15: “ 10 If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love; even as I have kept my Father’s commandments, and abide in his love….” And then a little further on: “17 These things I command you, that ye love one another. 18 If the world hate you, ye know that it hated me before it hated you. 19 If ye were of the world, the world would love his own: but because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you.”
In January of 2007 Clifton Emahiser had written his first paper on this subject of the unforgivable sin, which, we are certain, is fornication, the label that is given to miscegenation, or race-mixing, in Scripture. That essay was titled The Unpardonable Sin, and we reviewed and expanded upon it here just three weeks ago. Now we shall review a second of Clifton’s papers, which was written only a few months later, in September of that same year, and which is titled Unforgivable Sin, a Step By Step Explanation.
Unforgivable Sin, Step By Step Explanation , by Clifton Emahiser
It is simply amazing the concocted ideas that some dream up for which they theorize to be the unpardonable sin! After listening to a professed teacher on television on this subject, I decided that I needed to write him a letter concerning his error. Then the thought came to me, while I was at it, that I should write an article explaining it to everyone at the same time, killing two birds with one stone, so to speak. In order to accomplish this, it will be necessary to start at ground-zero, assuming that all who read this are unenlightened novices in this area of Biblical theology.
To start with, this television rancher-teacher has several faulty premises on which he bases his flawed conclusions, [which is] a problem which the reader of this paper might also have. Among the many inaccurate and unBiblical positions this man holds, a few should be pointed out. (1) he uses the terms “jew” and “Israelite” synonymously supposing they are one and the same entity; (2) he also reduces everyone to a category of either being a “jew” or “gentile”, falsely believing – as well as teaching – that the definition of the Latin term “gentile” [gentilis] means “non-jew”, a definition the original Latin never had, nor did any of the writers of the New or Old Testaments ever use, and (3) he holds to the false doctrine of a trinity of three gods, God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit, and that somehow the unforgivable sin is blasphemy against the latter one. In addition to these three flawed premises, he is totally oblivious of the fact that at Jeremiah chapter 24, Jeremiah separates the citizens of Judaea into two classes, (1) “good-fig-Judahites”, and (2) “bad-fig-jews”. And once the reader becomes aware of who the “bad-fig-jews” are, he is getting closer to the appropriate meaning of our subject.
Of course, the apostles used the terms Judaeans and nations, and Judaea was a mixed-race nation, as they also explain in their epistles. But it would take a series of lessons to prove these things, which we cannot elaborate upon here. The “nations” of which the apostles had spoken were actually the scattered twelve tribes of ancient Israel (Acts 26:6-7, James 1:1) and because most of the Judaeans were not actually Israelites at all, Jesus was not a Jew in the sense in which the term was used today. For that we have several articles at Christogenea, one of the more recent being titled Exactly Why Jesus Christ is NOT a Jew. Continuing with Clifton:
This rancher-teacher first went to Matthew 12:31-32 and read the passage and said that anyone who would commit the unpardonable sin is doomed forever to the lake of fire. (You will need to read all these scriptures as we go along.) He next implied that the condemning unpardonable sin was unbelief. In order to find support for his untenable position, he next read Hebrews 3:15-19, applying it to jews only, and again claiming it was the sin of unbelief. He next commented that many people go through life afraid they have committed the unpardonable sin, blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, the vilest sin of all, and again asserts that it is the sin of unbelief.
In Hebrews chapter 3 we read: “15 While it is said, To day if ye will hear his voice, harden not your hearts, as in the provocation. 16 For some, when they had heard, did provoke: howbeit not all that came out of Egypt by Moses. 17 But with whom was he grieved forty years? was it not with them that had sinned, whose carcases fell in the wilderness? 18 And to whom sware he that they should not enter into his rest, but to them that believed not? 19 So we see that they could not enter in because of unbelief.” Of course, Moses and the Israelites were not Jews, but Paul was speaking of the 40 years in the desert by which the unbelieving were prohibited from entering the land of milk and honey, because their generation had died off during those forty years. It has nothing to do with salvation of the spirit and resurrection into the Kingdom of Heaven.
Continuing again with Clifton:
He then reads Ephesians 2:11-13 trying to gain further support, but those three verses mention absolutely nothing about unbelief. His incorrect premise is a result of not truly understanding verse 12 of Ephesians 2. He falsely applies verse 12 to what he terms “gentiles”, but rather verse 12 is directed to the lost tribes of Israel. Thus, he incorrectly assumes that the Gospel is being offered to the gentiles (as he puts it) because of the jews’ unbelief.
In Ephesians chapter 2 Paul wrote: “ 11 Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past [the nations] in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands; 12 That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens [properly alienated, the Greek is a past-tense verb ] from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise [because they had been alienated], having no hope, and without God in the world: 13 But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ.” Paul was speaking to people whose ancestors were Israelites, and ancient history and Scripture can prove that assertion. That is why, later in that same chapter, Paul spoke of their reconciliation to Christ.
Clifton continues talking about the rancher-teacher he saw on television:
He cites a parable of Christ at Matthew 21:33-40, 45. This rancher-teacher concludes correctly that Yahshua’s words were directed toward the jews, and that at verse 45, the jews understood He was speaking of them. All of these conclusions are based upon this rancher-teacher’s belief that the jews are God’s chosen people, and also in a trinity. In so many words he says that the jews rejected the overture of the Father by killing the prophets; they rejected the overture of the Son by killing the Christ; and that they also rejected the overture of the Holy Spirit at Acts chapters 6 & 7. He finally points out that Stephen was full of the Holy Spirit, and in the stoning of Stephen the jews rejected the overture of the Holy Spirit in unbelief at Acts 7:54-60. Such teachings change the context into a pretext!
First it is a Jewish myth that all Jews rejected Christ. As we read in Acts chapter 21, in the words of the apostle James, there were myriads of Christian Judaeans by that time. But being Christians, they would have forsaken their identity as Judaeans. There are historic sects of Christians in Judaea, such as the Ebionites, which provide proof of this. Not all so-called Jews, or Judaeans, rejected Christ.
Of course, the Holy Spirit descended upon Judaeans, those true Israelites in Judaea whom Paul prayed for as he had said that they were his “kinsmen according to the flesh”, in Romans chapter 9. But Paul in that chapter did not pray for those Judaeans who were not true Israelites, as he also explained in that chapter that they were actually Edomites. There in Romans and in Hebrews chapter 12 Paul explained that Edomites were rejected by God. Now Clifton addresses the rancher-teacher’s main premise:
If the unpardonable sin is the sin of unbelief – which it isn’t – there will be no forgiveness in this life or the next. Yet this rancher-teacher in his very next breath claims that the jews will repent and be in the millennial Kingdom. Let’s take a very close look at Matthew 12:31-32: “31 Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men. 32 And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come.” The reader should take note that the one who blasphemes in this manner is condemned in this age as well as any future age. Therefore, the sin of unbelief is not the unpardonable sin! It is much more serious than that! This sin of blasphemy is so vile, and without remedy, that unbelief would look lily-white in comparison.
Clifton is correct here, that where Evangelicals teach that the unforgivable sin is unbelief, they makes themselves out to be hypocrites, because they also claim that Christ is going to save the Jews at the last minute of the world, the Jews who never believed. And they do indeed teach this, as can be seen at the website of one of the most famous evangelical preachers, Billy Graham. There we read in part:
Many Christians have heard that there is an unpardonable sin and live in dread that something grave they have done before or after conversion might be that sin.
Their fears are unfounded. While there is an unforgivable sin, it is not one that a true believer in Jesus Christ can commit….
The point for us is that if we have received Jesus as our Savior and Lord, we have not blasphemed the Holy Spirit; we have accepted His witness….
Once again, the unpardonable sin is not some particularly grievous sin committed by a Christian before or after accepting Christ, nor is it thinking or saying something terrible about the Holy Spirit. Rather, it is deliberately resisting the Holy Spirit’s witness and invitation to turn to Jesus until death ends all opportunity.
So Evangelicals do believe that mere unbelief is the unforgivable sin, but as we shall see, that is not the truth. So Clifton continues, under the subtitle:
FORNICATION = BLASPHEMY AGAINST THE SPIRIT
Now that we have discussed what the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit isn’t, let’s examine what it truly is according to Scripture. We will begin at 1 Corinthians 6:18-19 where Paul says: “18 Flee fornication. Every sin that a man doeth is without the body; but he that committeth fornication sinneth against his own body. 19 What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own?”
The term Holy Spirit certainly may refer to the spirit of separation which the children of Israel were expected to embrace. Yahweh God is holy, and demands of the children of Israel that “ye shall therefore be holy, for I am holy”, in Leviticus 11:45. The apostle Peter cited this verse in 1 Peter 1:16. The word ἅγιος which is holy means separated and dedicated to God. The children of Israel were dedicated to God in the loins of Isaac from the time he was placed on the altar to Abraham. In Exodus chapter 19, they were told that they would be “a peculiar treasure unto me above all people: for all the earth is mine”, and Peter also cited that in his first epistle.
Continuing with Clifton:
Paul had spoken those words immediately after describing those who would have no reward after death, because they piled wood, hay and stubble onto the foundation of Christ rather than gold, silver and precious stones. Then, immediately after this warning about defiling the temple, he condemned the “wisdom of this world”, as it is contrary to the wisdom which is of God. Now Clifton addresses another claim:
To show you that the term fornication is separate from the term adultery all we need do is go to Galatians 5:19-21 where Paul said: “19 Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, 20 Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, 21 Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.” Notice here that Paul uses both the terms fornication and adultery, and he wasn’t wasting words in doing so. For our purpose here we will notice that fornication is in the same category with witchcraft! So it would appear that most of today’s churches would be better designated as covens (assemblies of witches and warlocks).
Clifton refers to all those churches which have gone from forbidding to accepting race-mixing in recent history. Now continuing, he says:
We are told at 1 Samuel 15:23 (where Samuel addresses king Saul): “For rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, and stubbornness is as iniquity and idolatry. Because thou hast rejected the word of Yahweh, he hath also rejected thee from being king.”
Ironically, later on in 1 Samuel chapter 28, Saul consulted a necromancer so that he could speak to Samuel, which was witchcraft, and it was forbidden in the law. So Saul sinned even after being warned against it. Now Clifton speaks of rebellion:
We are told in Revelation chapter 12 of the rebellion of Satan and the third part of the angels (= stars) under him who were all cast to the earth to persecute the woman (Adamic-Israel). Thus, Satan [a fallen angel who is identified as “Satan”] was the first warlock practicing witchcraft. And because, as Paul explained at Galatians 5:19-21, witchcraft and fornication go hand in hand, Satan and his fallen angels committed fornication first with animal-kind and later with Adam-kind at Genesis 6:1-4. Thus, the non-Adamic [non-White] races are not created beings but rather the products of a mixture of angel-kind with animal-kind (See The Dead Sea Scrolls, A New Translation by Michael Wise, Martin Abegg Jr. and Edward Cook, ©1996, on page 247, a translation of 1Q23, fragments 1 and 6). This is presented in detail in Watchman’s Teaching Letter #114.
This is indeed the meaning of what is found in the Enoch literature among the fragments of the Dead Sea Scrolls, and it is also evident in Scripture. Clifton had already cited Paul of Tarsus where he explained that fornication is the sin which is against one’s own body. In Genesis chapter 2, Adam was presented every animal which Yahweh God had created, and he named each of them. Then it says “but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.” If the Enoch literature had not been removed from Scripture in ancient times, we would recognize this as the anti-thesis to the sin of the fallen angels. So the response was that Yahweh God made a helpmate for Adam, a wife, of his own flesh and bone, who was acceptable for a mate. Then Adam exclaimed: “This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.” That is the Biblical marriage, that a man’s wife be of his own bone and flesh, and not of strange flesh.
Continuing with Clifton:
At Ecclesiastes 3:21 we read: “Who knoweth the spirit of man that goeth upward, and the spirit of the beast that goeth downward to the earth?” From this verse we can substantiate that there are Adamic-people as opposed to beast-people. And for anyone who contradicts this, it becomes necessary to quote Jeremiah 31:27: “Behold, the days come, saith Yahweh, that I will sow the house of Israel and the house of Judah with the seed of man [#120 Adam-kind], and with the seed of beast [#929 beast-kind].” This is a prophecy that is being fulfilled today en masse. But in order to grasp this, one must first understand that the “house of Israel” and the “house of Judah” are White-Caucasian people. It is an incorrect premise to conclude that because of various ethnic backgrounds (such as Irish, German, Danish etc.) that the White-Caucasian people are of a mixed-racial group, for they are all of pure Israelite extraction, and not to be confused with the bad-fig-jews! Once comprehending these things, one can begin to see just how vile a sin fornication is!
We would rather assert that at least most of them are of pure Adamic extraction, as there were certainly other Adamic Genesis 10 tribes in the places which they came to inhabit in Mesopotamia and Europe. And of course, we do believe that the prophecy of Jeremiah is being fulfilled today. It could not have been fulfilled when Christ came, which only fulfilled the promise of a New Covenant, because the 42,000 Judahites, Levites and Benjaminites who returned to Jerusalem in 520 BC do not represent “the house of Israel and the house of Judah”. But it is being fulfilled now, as the modern White nations are their descendants, and the New Covenant is yet to be consummated, yet we are being punished by being overrun with aliens. The consummation will not happen until Christ’s return, and He will separate the sheep from the goats.
Returning to Clifton:
We should take into consideration Hebrews 12:16 where Paul says: “Lest there be any fornicator, or profane person, as Esau, who for one morsel of meat sold his birthright.” Any time a White-Caucasian commits fornication, that person is selling their birthright by flushing it down the toilet. And the product of such a union is a biblical-bastard (mamzer), a mutation of genetic confusion which can never be corrected in this age or the next! This is not a game of tinker-toys, for it is no small matter!
The fact that Paul wrote this in his epistle to the Hebrews proves that race-mixing was still considered a sin by the apostles, and this was written nearly 30 years after the crucifixion and resurrection of Christ! So now Clifton explains why Esau was called a fornicator:
What is it that Esau did? He married Hittite wives of the Cain-satanic-seedline. Now don’t go quoting Genesis 4:1 to me, for that is a corrupt passage as described by the 12-volume The Interpreter’s Bible and The Interpreter’s One-Volume Commentary on the Bible by Charles M. Laymon, commenting on Genesis 4:1. The Aramaic (not bad-fig-jewish) Targums spell Genesis 4:1 out quite clearly: that Eve committed fornication with Satan producing Cain!
Clifton took for granted that the author of Targum Jonathan, or perhaps pseudo-Jonathan, was not an Edomite Jew, something which I will not decide one way or another. But he does correctly point out another way that shows that Cain was not legitimate, as Genesis chapter 3 is indeed an account of sexual seduction related in a parable, where he wrote:
That is why Yahweh told Cain at Genesis 4:7: “If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door [of the birth canal] …” Thus, Cain was a genetic misfit without the Holy Spirit breathed into Adam, of which Paul says our bodies are the temple. And being dead to the Spirit, he had no compunction about killing his half-brother, Abel.
That is also the reason Eve said at Genesis 4:25: “… For God, said she, hath appointed me another seed instead [in place] of Abel, whom Cain slew.” Had Cain been Adam’s son, Eve would have said “For God, said she, hath appointed me another seed instead [in place] of Cain …” But by stating “instead of Abel” at Genesis 4:25 – as Eve did – she included Abel in Adam’s genealogy while excluding Cain.
That is because it is the oldest legitimate son who is the appointed heir of the father, so Abel needed replacing and not Cain. As Clifton shall mention next, that is also evident in the sons of Judah, where the oldest of his surviving sons was Shelah, a bastard, yet Pharez and Zarah who were born much later stood before him in the line of inheritance, and Shelah was pushed aside. Now Clifton continues in regard to a debate within Christian Identity as to the true nature of Cain:
Now both the one seedliners [properly, non-seedliners] and the Two-Seedliners recognize the three sons by Eve as Cain, Abel and Seth. The Two-Seedliners, however, would recognize Abel as the firstborn of Adam whereas the one seedliners would recognize Cain as Adam’s firstborn. Hence, it will be necessary to cite a similar Biblical situation. Such a passage can be found at Genesis 38 where twin sons are born to Judah by Tamar. It is recorded at verses 2-4 that born unto Judah by the Canaanite (daughter of Shua) were three sons, Er, Onan and Shelah. The usual Hebrew reckoning would be: (1) Er, (2) Onan, and (3) Shelah, with Er as Judah’s firstborn. But after Judah’s first wife died, leaving him a widower and Tamar (his intended daughter-in-law) an unwed lawful wifely candidate (though she played the part of a harlot to avoid a union with the half-breed Shelah) she bore for Judah the twin sons at verses 28-30.
Actually, Tamar played the part of the harlot to get what she had coming from Judah: a son from his family, since Judah would not give her to Shelah. If Tamar had not done that, evidently there would be no legitimate offspring from Judah. Yahweh did not forgive Esau for fonication, but evidently He forgave Judah, most likely on account of the promises to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Clifton continues to discuss the circumstances:
But the midwife of Tamar must have been aware of the half-breed status of the sons born by the Canaanite woman, and bound a scarlet thread on the hand of the twin she anticipated would be born first. Well, if Tamar’s twins were #s 4 and 5 to Judah, why did it matter which was born first? Like Cain, Er, Onan and Shelah were not counted as legitimate, lawful sons of Judah. Thus Pharez became Judah’s firstborn and Zerah his second, just as Abel was Adam’s firstborn with Seth taking Abel’s place upon his death by Cain’s murdering hand.
For that same reason, all of the descendants of Esau were discounted, so Rebecca was troubled and made certain that the birthright and inheritance fell to Jacob instead. Continuing again with Clifton:
The revealing difference between a half-breed as compared to a purebred is described in parable form by Yahshua at Matthew 7:15-19, and I will amplify the wording for a better understanding: “15 Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. 16 Ye shall know them by their [racial] fruits. Do men gather grapes of [racial] thorns, or figs of [racial] thistles? 17 Even so every good [racial] tree bringeth forth good [racial] fruit; but a corrupt [racial] tree bringeth forth evil [racial] fruit. 18 A good [racial] tree cannot bring forth evil [racial] fruit, neither can a corrupt [racial] tree bring forth good [racial] fruit. 19 Every tree that bringeth not forth good [racial] fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.” Why? Because it is the SIN UNTO DEATH for which there is ABSOLUTELY NO REMEDY in this world age or the next! The final outcome is on record and cannot be changed!
Families and races had been described as trees or plants ever since Genesis chapter 1, and in the New Testament it is no different. So Christ is also recorded as having said, in Matthew chapter 15: “Every plant, which my heavenly Father hath not planted, shall be rooted up.” There He was also speaking in reference to people. Everything Yahweh God created is “kind after kind”, or to use another possible translation of the same word, “kindred after kindred”, and nothing He created was a bastard, so there were no bastards until men rebelled against Him. Now in modern history, men and women are rebelling on a large scale once again. Once more, Clifton goes back to Cain:
Cain was, therefore, a corrupt tree incapable of bearing good racial fruit. The only thing mamzers can do is to breed more mamzers (bastards), and this continues down-line forever, or until the corrupt family tree finally dies out.
The word mamzer is the Hebrew word for bastard, for example where it says in Deuteronomy chapter 23 that “ 2 A bastard shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD” So Clifton continues and, appropriately, he comes full circle:
This brings us right back to our Matthew 12:31-32 reference to the unforgivable sin with verses 32 through 35 stating: “32 And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come. 33 Either make the tree [racially] good, and his fruit [racially] good; or else make the tree [racially] corrupt, and his fruit [racially] corrupt: for the tree is known by his[racial] fruit. 34 O generation [race] of vipers, how can ye, being [racially] evil, speak good things? for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh. 35 A good [racial] man out of the good treasure of the heart bringeth forth good things: and an evil [racial] man out of the evil treasure bringeth forth evil things.”
It certainly can be established from the prophecies of the Old Testament, from chapter 9 of Paul’s epistle to the Romans, from Book 16 of Strabo’s Geography, and from Book 13 of the Antiquities of the Judaeans written by Flavius Josephus, all of these being writings of the first century AD, that many, or even most, of the Judaeans of the time of Christ were Edomites. The Edomites, the descendants of Esau, came from Esau and his Canaanite wives. The accursed Canaanites had mingled with the Kenites, who were the descendants of Cain, and with the Rephaim, who were the descendants of another cursed group, the Nephilim or Fallen Ones. Together, all of these are a corrupt racial trees, as they all mingled together in ancient times, and many of them today are called Jews, and many Arabs, while others have migrated elsewhere throughout history so they are known by other names.
Again, Clifton continues on about Cain:
From this we can see that it was an impossibility for Cain and all of his descendants right up to the bad-fig-Pharisees and bad-fig-Sadducees to bring forth good things from an evil treasure. Nor can we expect any product of fornication to bring forth good things from an evil treasure! Cain is the first example of such a product! Such people are mule-people. A mule is half horse and half donkey (ass). Evidently that is where the expression “half-assed” came from (suggesting something which is good-for-nothing). One will notice in this last quoted passage that Yahshua Christ first spoke of the unpardonable sin, and then used the bad-fig-jews as a prime example. In my churchgoing days, the pastors seemed intensely preoccupied with what they termed “the original sin”, but I don’t remember them ever once identifying it as the unforgivable sin of fornication! Yet, the fornicator him/herself will survive with zero reward, but the works (products) of fornication will be judged and destroyed by fire! Just such a judgment is spoken of at Malachi 4:1 where it is stated: “… and the day that cometh shall burn them up, saith Yahweh of hosts, that it shall leave them neither root nor branch.”
That is the judgment of fornicators which is also described by Christ Himself, in Revelation chapter 2, where He says He will kill their children with death.
Where Clifton spoke of good and bad figs, if one reads the prophecy in Jeremiah chapter 24, it is clear that the prophet refers to 3 groups of people. The first are good-fig Judahites who will return to Jerusalem and be built up for their good. The second are the bad figs, and they are so vile they cannot be eaten, but it never says they are Judahites. Then there is a third group, “Zedekiah the king of Judah, and his princes, and the residue of Jerusalem, that remain in this land, and them that dwell in the land of Egypt”, they were wicked Judahites who would be turned over to the bad figs for their punishment. This was fulfilled by the time of Christ, as the good fig Judahites turned to Christ and became Christians, and other Judahites had race-mixed with the bad figs, the Edomites and Canaanites in Judaea. Now they are known as Jews and until this day they are “a reproach and a proverb, a taunt and a curse, in all places” where Yahweh God has driven them, as Jeremiah also attested in that prophecy.
Now Clifton returns with Paul’s admonition to the Corinthians concerning fornication:
At 1 Corinthians 10:8, Paul brings to memory an incident where Israel engaged in race-mixing where he wrote: “8 Neither let us commit fornication, as some of them committed, and fell in one day three and twenty thousand.” This was in reference to the occasion at Numbers chapters 24 & 25 where the men of Israel were enticed to commit interracial fornication with Moabite women. The Moabites descended from Lot’s incest with one of his two daughters, one son of which was named Moab and another son of the other daughter named Amon. By the time of the incident of Baalpeor, the Moabites were no longer a racially pure people. We can be quite sure of this as Paul called Israel’s sexual encounter with the Moabite women “fornication”. What we do know is, shortly before the Israelites arrived in the Transjordan, Sihon, a king of the Amorites, had defeated the previous king of Moab (Num. 21:26) and absorbed much of the Moabite territory as far south as the [river] Arnon (The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible, vol. K-Q, p. 414). It is reasonable to assume that the Moabites mixed racially with the Amorites, as the women of the conquered became the booty of the conqueror. And how many times the Amorites had mixed their genetics would be hard to determine, but the Amorites are one of the Canaanite nations which are named at Genesis 15:19-21. Undoubtedly, the Amorites had even absorbed the genetics of Cain (Kenites, #7014).
As we have also explained elsewhere, and as it is evident in Genesis chapter 34 and elsewhere in Scripture, it was customary for the Canaanites to intermarry and to beg intermarriage with neighboring tribes, in order to facilitate peace and trade with them, but this practice was forbidden to the Israelites by the law. So now Clifton felt he had to establish a proof of this in reference to the Moabites:
Amorites absorb Moabites: What the serious Bible scholar must understand is that during the Joshua period, the Israelites destroyed the Amorites, who had absorbed the Moabites, killing and / or displacing both of them. Upon driving the Amorites (+ absorbed Moabites) out of the promised land, it is recorded at Joshua 18:7 that half of the tribe of Manasseh along with the tribes of Gad and Reuben moved into the former land of Moab east of the Jordan. It was later, during the Judges period, that an Israelite lady from the conquered land of Moab by the name of Ruth journeyed with her mother-in-law Naomi back to Bethlehem. Ruth never told Naomi “your god will be my god”, rather “I will leave the jurisdiction of my judge, and your judge will become my judge”. That is because the term elohim is used for angels, judges, pagan gods, and the Almighty Yahweh Himself. And it has both a singular and plural meaning, and when used of Yahweh [where it is almost always plural in form], it is always singular in spite of what others say to the contrary. The only sense in which Ruth was a Moabitess is that she was a Moabitess by geographic area rather than by Moabite genetics. But nearly all of nominal churchianity today use the story of Ruth to promote their perverted ideology of multiculturalism, and in doing so are guilty of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, of which our body is the temple.
This is true, and the average denominational Christian will cry “What about Ruth?” But it is demonstrable from several aspects of the Book of Ruth that she was an Israelite by race, and a Moabite only because she was living there. After David conquered or subjugated the surrounding nations, and the population of Israel began to grow, it is evident in 2 Samuel and the books of Kings and Chronicles, and sometimes as early as the book of Judges, that Israelites began to be identified by geographical terms, rather than by their tribe.
Paul warned against this [against race-mixing] at 2 Corinthians 6:14-17 (and I will use William Finck’s translation from his Letters of Paul): “14 Do not become yoked together with untrustworthy aliens; for what participation has justice and lawlessness? And what fellowship has light towards darkness? 15 And what accord has Christ with Beliar? Or what share the faithful with the faithless? 16 And what agreement has a temple of Yahweh with idols? For you are a temple of the living Yahweh; just as Yahweh has said, ‘I will dwell among them, and I will walk about; and I will be their God, and they will be my people.’ 17 On which account ‘Come out from the midst of them and be separated,’ says the Prince, and ‘do not be joined to the impure, and I will admit you’.” Knowing this, how dare anyone join their body (which is Yahweh’s temple) in sexual union with an impure alien! What is there about the words “be separated” that we don’t seem to understand?
I explained and defended my translation of that passage in Part 6 of my commentary on 2 Corinthians, titled Come Out from Among Them and be Separate!, which was presented here in April of 2015. Clifton used it because, as I also demonstrate, the translation in the King James Version is confounded in several ways. Now once again continuing with Clifton:
A paper on the subject of fornication being the unforgivable sin would not be compete without some mention of Sodom and Gomorrah and the experience of the men of those cities demanding to use angels as mates in unnatural sexual intercourse. Even the name of Sodom has come down to us today as a symbolic allegory for the act of sodomy. At 2 Peter 2:6 we read: “And turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrha into ashes condemned them with an overthrow, making them an ensample unto those that after should live ungodly.” Paul also condemned homosexuality in these words at Romans 1:26-27: “26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: 27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.”
On more than one occasion Paul warned against men who abuse or defile themselves “with mankind”. The word he used to say that is ἀρσενοκοίτης, and it is the same word used by the Greek poets and historians to describe what we call sodomy, or homosexuality, today. Just as fornication is a sin, sodomy is still a sin, and modern churches or radical leftists are not going to change the mind of God. In fact, for their sins they await the wrath of God, and it will indeed come upon them.
Now Clifton concludes:
As described by Peter and Paul, homosexuality is a very vile sin, even deserving death. Yet [even worse than] sodomy, as vile as it is – and I would not attempt to whitewash it in any way – the unforgivable sin of fornication by the mixing of race is by far the most reprehensible sin of all. At least homosexuality doesn’t create mule-people, which is “mamzer” from the Hebrew, and translated into English as “bastard”. NO, THE UNPARDONABLE SIN IS NOT THE SIN OF UNBELIEF!
I supplied the three words “even worse than” in brackets here, as there is clearly something missing even in the earliest electronic versions of this paper which I have on file.
As Christ Himself said, in Revelation chapter 2: “18 And unto the angel of the church in Thyatira write; These things saith the Son of God, who hath his eyes like unto a flame of fire, and his feet are like fine brass; 19 I know thy works, and charity, and service, and faith, and thy patience, and thy works; and the last to be more than the first. 20 Notwithstanding I have a few things against thee, because thou sufferest that woman Jezebel, which calleth herself a prophetess, to teach and to seduce my servants to commit fornication, and to eat things sacrificed unto idols. 21 And I gave her space to repent of her fornication; and she repented not. 22 Behold, I will cast her into a bed, and them that commit adultery with her into great tribulation, except they repent of their deeds. 23 And I will kill her children with death; and all the churches shall know that I am he which searcheth the reins and hearts: and I will give unto every one of you according to your works.”
Many fools, when we discuss the unforgivable sin, think that we do so out of hate, but that is not true. Rather, we teach this out of love, first for our God and then for our people. Because who wants to see a brother or sister have children whom God Himself has promised to destroy, whom Christ Himself said that He would kill? So can we stand by silently while our brothers and sisters consider raising children which can never enter the Kingdom of Heaven? Rather, those who accept or encourage race-mixing fornication, they are the true haters, they are the wicked.
Why, if the parents sinned, would Christ kill the children? There is only one reason which is evident throughout Scripture: Because fornication is race-mixing, and the children are bastards. That is the only reason why Jesus Himself would kill children. In this instance, Judeo-Christians surely should ask themselves, What would Jesus do? He tells them right here, and they ignore His warning.