Addressing Charles Weisman’s What About the Seedline Doctrine? Part 16, The Blessed and the Cursed

In our last presentation in this series, which was subtitled The Blood of Abel, we left off where Charles Weisman discussed the episode in Matthew chapter 23 where Christ had told His adversaries that their race would be held accountable for the blood of all the prophets, from Abel to Zacharias, which, discounting the interpolation in verse 35 we believe refers to the father of John the Baptist. We do not believe that it referred to the Old Testament prophet Zechariah as Christ had laid direct blame for the murder of this Zacharias on his adversaries, and not merely on their ancestors, where He said “whom ye slew between the temple and the altar.” Here we will continue that discussion of Cain and those who are responsible for the death of Abel and the prophets, as we are not finished with the portion of this fourth chapter of Weisman’s book which concerns that subject.

Speaking of Abel, in Hebrews chapter 11 Paul of Tarsus had written: “4 By faith Abel offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain, by which he obtained witness that he was righteous, God testifying of his gifts: and by it he being dead yet speaketh.” We have already discussed at length the sacrifices of Cain and Abel, and provided Scriptures supporting the plausibility of our argument that the only reason Cain’s sacrifice was rejected is that Yahweh would not acknowledge Cain himself, Cain not even having been eligible to make such a sacrifice. But the only reason that Abel’s sacrifice was better lies in the mere fact that Abel was even making a sacrifice, by which he had asserted that he was indeed the eligible son.

Addressing Charles Weisman’s What About the Seedline Doctrine? Part 15, The Blood of Abel

Here we shall once again continue with our rebuttal to Charles Weisman’s book, What About the Seedline Doctrine?, and we are still in the middle of Chapter 4, which is titled The Role of Cain. Our last presentation in this series brought us to the middle of page 35, and we have tarried quite awhile addressing his arguments under the subtitle Of Your Father the Devil. Doing this, so far we hope to have made it fully evident that Charles Weisman is guilty of three primary and crucial mistakes in his method of interpreting the Scriptures.

First, he has consistently misread verses, and especially important verses such as Genesis 6:4, John 8:44 and Matthew 12:34, where in each instance he had failed to realize what the passage actually means, and based his arguments on his own poor, or perhaps purposefully wrong interpretations. Secondly, making those interpretations he also twisted the meanings of the plain words of Scripture in the same manner as the Gnostics and universalists who have for ages insisted that father does not mean a literal ancestor, or that children are not literal offspring in Scripture. Yet when we examined the passages of Scripture which he himself had used as examples, we showed that the literal meanings of the words make perfect sense once they are understood in the actual historical context of Scripture, and in the context of the words of the prophets. Thirdly, Weisman himself has thus far refused to even consider the historical context of the New Testament, an understanding of which clearly refutes his own insistence, made without any supporting evidence, that all of the adversaries of Christ were Israelites. We have proven from the pages of Josephus as well as from the epistles of Paul and the words of Christ Himself that Weisman is wrong in making that insistence.

Addressing Charles Weisman’s What About the Seedline Doctrine? Part 14, The Bad Figs

Over our last two presentations in this series we have covered perhaps only two pages of Charles Weisman’s book, What About the Seedline Doctrine?, and have had a few long digressions. But we hope to have shown that in relation to many words found in the New Testament, Weisman had used the same methods of interpretation which had crept into the early universalist church, which were adopted from Gnosticism and Greek Philosophy, but which are not at all Christian.

So last week, in Part 13 of this series, subtitled Children of Wrath, we addressed a claim by Weisman that where Christ referred to His adversaries as children of the devil, He was only speaking metaphorically and telling them that they were mere followers of the devil. Making that argument, the first flaw is that he seems to have purposely ignored the fact that Christ was speaking in reference to Cain, and not to the serpent of Genesis. So if Christ was implying that His adversaries were mere followers of the devil, why would He make a reference to Cain as their father, and not to the serpent itself?

So while he made that assertion, Weisman then sought to show that being “children of the devil” was only a metaphor by comparing the phrase to similar metaphors which appear in the epistles of Paul or in the gospel accounts. Among these are the phrases children of wrath, children of light, children of the world, child of hell, children of disobedience and son of perdition. So we began to examine each instance that Weisman had cited, and a few that he did not cite, where these and similar phrases appear. Doing that, we found that these phrases certainly were used by the writers of Scripture to describe a class of people other than the children of God, a class which has no offer of mercy, forgiveness or redemption, nor any part in the promises of God. Weisman failed to examine those phrases in their original Biblical contexts, and therefore he expected his readers to take for granted his implication that they are all just metaphors describing people who are merely disobedient, rather than people who in fact could never really be obedient in the first place because they are literally not of God.

Addressing Charles Weisman’s What About the Seedline Doctrine? Part 13, Children of Wrath

In our last presentation addressing Charles Weisman’s book What About the Seedline Doctrine?, we began to answer his contention where he said that “The Jews… that Jesus was talking to in John 8 were true Israelites. They were not hybrids like those called ‘Jews’ today, and they were not the seed of the serpent or of Cain.” Later in this fourth chapter of his book, Weisman states, speaking of the words of Christ, that “Words may be spoken figuratively, symbolically, allegorically, poetically, typically, or anti-typically.” But he fails to mention anything of understanding words in their original historical context, which is an important aspect of understanding any real-life narrative or discussion from the past. None of the Judeo-Christian commentaries upon which Weisman has relied, as his citations throughout this book indicate, had ever interpreted the words of Christ or his apostles through the proper historical context of the captivities of Israel, the relatively small remnant which returned to Judea, and the history of that remnant over the 450-year period from the time of Ezra to the birth of Christ. Weisman, as well as the mainstream commentators, all take it for granted that the people of Judaea at the time of Christ were all Israelites, and that is certainly not true.

In his voluminous Antiquities of the Judaeans, in Book 13, Flavius Josephus described in detail how the high priest John Hyrcanus, around 129 BC, had conquered several of the cities of Palestine which had formerly belonged to Israel and Judah, but which were occupied by the Edomites since the 6th century BC. In that same book, Josephus later described how in the days of Alexander Jannaeus, a successor of Hyrcanus, he had done that same thing in 30 other towns or regions in Palestine, during his long rule as high priest in Jerusalem, from 103 to 76 BC. Both of these rulers had forcibly converted the Edomites whom they had conquered to Judaism, the Edomites accepted the conversion, and that is also explained by Josephus. These passages are cited and described in detail at Christogenea, notably in Part 12 of the commentary on Romans: The Epistles of Paul - Romans Part 12, 06-27-2014: Jacob and Esau.

Addressing Charles Weisman’s What About the Seedline Doctrine? Part 12, Children of the Devil

In our last presentation from Weisman’s book, where we are still in chapter 4 , The Role of Cain, under the subtitle Of Your Father the Devil, we actually only presented one paragraph from the bottom of page 31. There Weisman claimed that Christ, in His discourse with His adversaries as it is recorded in John 8:41-44, did not mean father where he said father, but was instead using the word metaphorically. However the answers which John attributed to the Jews themselves reveal that they understood Christ to have been speaking plainly and literally, and the words of Christ in the surrounding dialogue also demonstrate that He was speaking plainly and literally, where He was clearly referring to the origin of His adversaries and not merely to what they believed.

So we had a necessary and long digression to explain that the origin of such allegorical interpretations of the plain words of Scripture are found in early Greek philosophy and in Gnosticism, and that early Church Fathers were following the philosophers and Gnostics in their own interpretations of Scripture, in spite of the plain meanings of words and the clear intent of the speakers, Christ and His apostles.

At the end of that last program, we also heard from a friend who has been involved in Christian Identity circles for a very long time, perhaps over 40 years. So according to our friend Michael, as we heard towards the end of our presentation last week, Charles Weisman did indeed admit to having some Jewish ancestry in a quip which he had made at a dinner party over 20 years ago, and the Christian Identity pastors and teachers and their wives in the circles in which he traveled had chosen to cover it up because they were impressed with his supposed learning. But here we have proven that if Weisman was indeed learned, he consciously chose to spread lies instead of the truth.

Identifying the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil

In Genesis chapter 2, there are two trees mentioned which Yahweh did not plant into the ground, but which were “in the midst” of the garden. These trees are actually distinguished from literal trees, where we read in verse 9: “And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.” So we have all the other trees which had been purposely planted “into the ground”, but these two particular trees are merely present, and not planted in that same manner.

Perhaps the first clue to identifying these trees is found in Ezekiel chapter 31, where we see nations of men described as trees and the Word of Yahweh says “3 Behold, the Assyrian was a cedar in Lebanon with fair branches, and with a shadowing shroud, and of an high stature; and his top was among the thick boughs. 4 The waters made him great, the deep set him up on high with her rivers running round about his plants, and sent out her little rivers unto all the trees of the field. 5 Therefore his height was exalted above all the trees of the field, and his boughs were multiplied, and his branches became long because of the multitude of waters, when he shot forth. 6 All the fowls of heaven made their nests in his boughs, and under his branches did all the beasts of the field bring forth their young, and under his shadow dwelt all great nations. 7 Thus was he fair in his greatness, in the length of his branches: for his root was by great waters. 8 The cedars in the garden of God could not hide him: the fir trees were not like his boughs, and the chestnut trees were not like his branches; nor any tree in the garden of God was like unto him in his beauty.”

So races and nations of men are described as trees, and in this particular allegory, as trees of different sorts. However we must be cautious in the interpretation of this verse. It is not telling us that the Assyrians had existed in the time which Genesis chapter 2 describes, simply because it refers to the “garden of God”. Wesley Swift actually made that mistake. The Assyrians are the descendants of Asshur, who is first mentioned as a son of Shem in Genesis chapter 10. Rather, Ezekiel is describing the Adamic portion of the world in the time of the Assyrians, in his own time, as the “garden of God”. At the time in which Ezekiel was writing, the Assyrians had been the most powerful nation in that world, and therefore they are described as the greatest of the trees, while the other nations are lesser trees.

Christian Identity: What Difference Does it Make?

It is no mistake that 2000 years ago, Christianity spread and was accepted by tribes of White Europeans as they encountered it. It is no mistake that for the last 1500 years Europe has been predominantly Christian. Christianity had spread not only to both Greece and Rome, but also to Britain and other points in Europe as early as the middle of the first century. Tribes in Gaul were converting to Christianity in the second century. By the third century, if not sooner, Germanic tribes of the Goths and Alans had accepted Christianity. All of this was long before the official acceptance of Christianity began with Constantine the Great, the Edict of Toleration and the Council of Nicaea.

To mock Christianity today is to mock a hundred generations of our ancestors. People who mock Christianity think they know something better about our past than their own ancestors, the people who actually lived in those times many centuries ago. The truth is that the people who mock Christianity know little-to-nothing about the world of the past and the circumstances under which their ancestors ultimately accepted Christianity.

There are many incongruities in the perception of the people who mock Christianity today. On one hand they claim that it is a “cuck” religion, and on the other they complain that their ancestors were forced into Christianity by Christians. So they admit that their own ancestors were weaker than the “cucks” they despise. On one hand they claim that Christianity is an effeminate religion, and a Jewish religion, but then they complain that their ancestors were forced into it by Christians. So they admit that their ancestors were weaker than effeminates and Jews. All the while, they proclaim the “might is right” mantra of their own neo-paganism, while professing that their weak ancestors, forced to subject to Christianity, were somehow treated unfairly! Those who mock Christianity are simply too stupid to realize all of these cognitive disconnects, and there are many more that we won’t get into here. We already presented them here a few years ago, in two podcasts titled White Nationalist Cognitive Dissonance.