Of late, this has become a topic being tossed about within Israel Identity circles. It isn’t as though we didn’t already have enough confusion circulating among our ranks! It seems that there is always someone out there trying to spawn some new kind of revelation to somehow aggrandize their personal ego. It’s the old “king of the hill” syndrome. The rules are very simple inasmuch as they come naturally without the aid of a teacher. All one need do is observe a mound of earth being piled high by a back-hoe in the neighborhood. It isn’t long until some children gather around it climbing to the top. By fleshly instinct, one of the group soon tries to tower above all the other children by dominating the top position. In order to get to the top of the pile, one must reach to those above him, pull them down to his level, and then thrust them down behind him. Sadly, this same game is being played by some in Israel Identity.

Of course, you always have a few of those dumb Christians who don’t play by the rules. Instead of pulling those above them down to their own level, they reach for those below themselves, pull them up to their plane, then assist them to a higher level. This latter hill is Calvary, Luke 23:33.

One such person playing the “king of the hill” game in Israel Identity is Don Campbell, P.O. Box 301, Pipestone, MN, 56164. On three occasions Campbell has attacked my teaching ministry in an attempt to build up his own, and in all three instances he was, and continues to be, woefully wrong! Just how inaccurate his nefarious charges are will be addressed in this paper.

Campbell first took a crack with his sledgehammer at my brochure Irish And Scottish Genealogy. In the first paragraph of that paper I made the following statement:

Many have heard, and are very familiar with, the terms “Irish” and “Scottish”, and really don’t know the difference between the two. The Irish and Scots are really the same people except they arrived in Britain two thousand years apart. The ancestors of the Irish arrived in Britain about 1600 B.C., while the Scots arrived about 501 A.D. It is simply amazing that two groups of the same people would wander through the earth and end up locating within a few miles from each other two thousand years later in Britain. Had Campbell read the rest of the brochure, he might have understood the context. Had Campbell studied the subject before ranting, he might have discovered that the Scots began to arrive in Britain about 200 A.D., and that the ancestors of the Irish alone began to arrive in the isles about 1600 B.C. There were several waves of them, Phoenicians, Milesians, Danaan etc.

I say “twin heresies”, because where a person will find one, he will usually discover the other! It is quite evident, then, that if one is adamant about the false doctrine of one seedline [anti-seedline], he would attempt to support his erroneous position of one seedline by maintaining there is no such thing as a devil. It is obvious that if one can make a case for “No Devil” it would automatically eliminate “Two Seedline.” Thus, no serpent of Genesis 3:15, no seduction of Eve! This demonstrates how, if one tries to establish a false doctrine, he must continually prop it up with one lie right after another. And perpetually time after time, that is what they do!

In my possession I have two small pamphlets; one entitled Satan Dispelled by Kalamos (whoever that is) and the other The Bible Devil And Satan Defined (again anonymous). The first was republished from a publication entitled Lucifer Scrutinized, Satan Dispelled, by Christian Research, 279 Spring St. Eureka Springs, AR, 72632, and distributed by America’s Promise, P.O. Box 5334, Phoenix, AR, 85010. The latter is distributed by the inheritors of America’s Promise located now at P.O. Box 157, Sandpoint, ID, 83864, and also Col. John R. Niemela, Ret., 1776 Wainwright Dr., Reston, VA, 20190.

The whole plot of the “No Devil” doctrine is based on the conjecture that the “flesh” is the devil. To show you this, I will quote excerpts from The Bible Devil And Satan Defined, pages 2, 10, 11, 12, 17 & 18:

“But once it is recognized that the devil relates to sin, and that sin comes from within, it will be acknowledged that the atoning blood of Jesus is a powerful weapon to defeat and destroy it! It defeats the power of sin by providing the means of forgiveness; it conquers death through the promise of a resurrection to life eternal ... Though the devil basically relates to human nature, or the lusts of the flesh, it is manifested in various forms ... The ‘devil’ against which he warned them constituted the pagan, social and political world which was ruled by the flesh ... They were men of flesh, being dominated by its lusts, and therefore the progeny of the devil ... We have shown that the devil relates to the sinful tendencies of the flesh ... Immortal life in the Kingdom of God to be set up on earth ... is the hope set before us. To attain unto it we must conquer the devil, or sin in the flesh.”

I would like to make it clear from the very start, we are not talking about Fido, the family pup, here. Rather, Psalm 22 speaks of a particular kind of dog. This Psalm is very important for recognizing the identity of “the power of the dog”. At Acts 2:29-30 we are informed that David was a prophet, and his prophecy of Christ at Psalm 2:7 validates that fact. Acts 2:29-30 reads: “²⁹ Men and brethren, let me freely speak unto you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his sepulchre is with us unto this day. ³⁰ Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne ...” Not only did David prophecy that Christ would rule over the Israel nations (mistranslated “heathen”) at verse 8 of Psalm 2, but in Psalm 22, David prophesied of Christ’s crucifixion by “the power of the dog”. Some people read their Bible from cover to cover and never comprehend to whom “the power of the dog” pertains!

Let’s now start by taking some excerpts from Psalm 22, with verses 7, 13, 16, 20: “⁷ All they that see me laugh me to scorn: they shoot out the lip, they shake the head ... ¹³ They gaped upon me with their mouths, as a ravening and a roaring lion ... ¹⁶ For dogs have compassed me: the assembly of the wicked have inclosed me: they pierced my hands and my feet ... ²⁰ Deliver my soul from the sword; my darling from the power of the dog.” With this essay, one will not be left in the dark for understanding to whom “the power of the dog” refers!

But to understand Psalm 22, one must identify what is meant by the term “dog”, which has several shades of meanings in our Bibles. With this passage, it can only point to one group of people, for that gang can only be those who “pierced my hands and my feet” in reference to Yahshua Christ at His crucifixion.

That the “Jews” are neither Israel nor Judah may be difficult for some to grasp. With this paper it will be shown that there is an appropriate usage for each of these three terms. Therefore, to use them synonymously (as if all three had the same identical meaning) exhibits gross ignorance on the part of the one speaking or writing with such an inference. It will be demonstrated that the house of Judah is not the house of Israel, nor is the house of Israel the house of Judah in a national sense! It was after the death of Solomon, under King Rehoboam, that the house of Israel and the house of Judah became two separate entities. Now one might properly call all twelve and/or thirteen tribes of Israel “Israelites”, but it would be improper to call any one or all of the ten northern tribes by the term “Judah”. It is also urgently imperative that we do not use the term Judah to mean “Jew”, nor the term “Jew” to mean Judah! (“ ” around Jew = disowning the term.)

180° DIFFERENCE BETWEEN JEW & JUDAH

To grasp the extreme contrast between “Jew” and Judah, one must comprehend some of the activity involved in the worship of Baal among both the northern kingdom of Israel as well as the southern kingdom of Judah. Baal is a term that designates several gods, but in particular the god Hadad, a popular fertility-god of Canaan. Another Baal-god of note is Dagon. There was also the Amorite Baal representing the god of rain and storm. Israel and Judah had been warned by Yahweh not to get involved in the gods of Canaan, but to drive all the Canaanites out of the land, and their gods with them, which they failed to do. Because most of the Bible dictionaries and commentaries use veiled language to describe Baal worship, many do not realize the danger it imposed to Israel and Judah. For instance, the Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible says this in vol. 1, p. 433 under “Baal”: “... It was attended by the appropriate response from the worshipers, culminating in grossly sensuous rites accompanying the sacred marriage, in which ritual prostitution of both sexes was a prominent feature.” Had this source described these rites as sexual orgies practiced with reckless abandon, the reader might absorb what is being said. To make a long story short, some of the women of Judah and Israel were becoming pregnant, giving birth to half-breed Canaanite children. Not only that, but by the same sexual rites, Canaanite women were also giving birth to half-breed Judahite children.

I will now borrow a passage from William Finck’s Broken Cisterns, #2: “In the first tract of this title, the sexual nature of certain ancient pagan cult religions was investigated, namely those of Baal (Bel or Belus) and Ashtaroth (Astartê or Aphroditê). Hopefully the realization was made – from the historians’ descriptions of these cults and from the utterances of the Hebrew prophets – that by following the so-called ‘religious’ cults of the alien peoples, it was necessary to have sexual relations with those peoples: for sex was at the core of those pagan cults!

Most of you are aware of the extensive research I have done on the subject of Two Seedline. I will now present solid evidence that Two Seedline is no new doctrine as some so cocksurely insinuate. I get this testimony from the book The Celtic Church In Britain by Leslie Hardinge, in a chapter entitled “The Role of the Scriptures”, page 48. Though Hardinge does not trace the Celtic Church back to the Church set up at Glastonbury by Joseph of Arimathea about five years after the Passion, he does, however, quite well after 400 A.D., and proficiently documents his material. In this chapter he demonstrates the various methods of teachings used by the Celtic clergy. One of those methods was a question and answer liturgy of which the following is an authentic specimen (answers in parentheses):

“Who died but was never born? (Adam) Ÿ Who gave but did not receive? (Eve, milk) Ÿ Who was born but did not die? (Elias and Enoch) Ÿ Who was born twice and died once? (Jonas the prophet, who for three days and three nights prayed in the belly of the whale. He neither saw the heavens nor touched the earth) Ÿ How many languages are there? (Seventy-two) Ÿ Who spoke with a dog? (St Peter) Ÿ Who spoke with an ass? (Balaam the prophet) Ÿ Who was the first woman to commit adultery? (Eve with the serpent) Ÿ How were the Apostles baptized? (The Saviour washed their feet).”

A better question might be: Biblical Canaanites, who are they today? Many are acquainted with the term as used in the Old Testament, and a few occasions in the New, but do they still exist today? And if so, how would we recognize one if we were to meet one of them? The first mention of “Canaan” in Scripture is at Gen. 9:18, as a person. We have to be careful, though, using this designation, as at various times it can mean different things (i.e., a person; a geographic area; a nation or a tribe or a group of nations or tribes). Canaan, as a person, has a peculiar origin. At Gen. 9:18 we are told: “And the sons of Noah, that went forth of the ark, were Shem, and Ham, and Japheth: and Ham is the father of Canaan.” At verse 22 we read: “And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brethren without.”

Now there is a lot of speculation that because Ham saw his father’s nakedness, it was a matter of homosexuality, which is not true. Yet about 95% of those who read this verse insist upon that explanation, ignoring such verses as:

• Leviticus 18:7-8: “The nakedness of thy father, or the nakedness of thy mother, shalt thou not uncover: she is thy mother; thou shalt not uncover her nakedness. 8 The nakedness of thy father’s wife shalt thou not uncover: it is thy father’s nakedness.”
• Leviticus 20:11: “And the man that lieth with his father’s wife hath uncovered his father’s nakedness: both of them shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.”
• Deuteronomy 22:30: “A man shall not take his father’s wife, nor discover his fathers skirt.”
• Deuteronomy 27:20: “Cursed be he that lieth with his father’s wife; because he uncovereth his father’s skirt ...”
• Ezekiel 22:10 (RSV): “In you, men uncover their fathers’ nakedness; in you they humble women who are unclean in their impurity.”
• 1 Corinthians 5:1: “It is reported commonly that there is fornication among you, and such fornication as is not so much as named among the heathens, that one should have his father’s wife.”
• Amos 2:7: “That pant after the dust of the earth on the head of the poor, and turn aside the way of the meek: and a man and his father will go in unto the same maid, to profane my holy name.”
• •            Genesis 35:22: “And it came to pass, when Israel dwelt in that land, that Reuben went and lay with Bilhah his father’s concubine: and Israel heard it ...”
• Genesis 49:4: “Unstable as water, thou (Reuben) shalt not excel; because thou wentest up to thy father’s bed; then defiledst thou it: he went up to my couch.”
• 1 Chronicles 5:1: “Now the sons of Reuben the firstborn of Israel, (for he was the firstborn; but, forasmuch as he defiled his father’s bed, his birthright was given unto the sons of Joseph the son of Israel: and the genealogy is not to be reckoned after the birthright ...”)
• 2 Samuel 16:22: “So they spread Absalom a tent upon the top of the house; and Absalom went in unto his father’s concubines in the sight of all Israel.”