Addressing Charles Weisman’s What About the Seedline Doctrine? Part 1

Christogenea is reader supported. If you find value in our work, please help to keep it going! See our Contact Page for more information or DONATE HERE!

  • Christogenea Saturdays
ChrSat20200215Weisman01.mp3 — Downloaded 5280 times


Addressing Charles Weisman’s What About the Seedline Doctrine? Part 1

Most of this program was extemporaneous, however I did prepare some notes in advance which address points in Weisman’s book, with which I have contentions and which I thought were significant enough to present here. So those notes shall be included below in the form in which I wrote them. A PDF copy of Weisman’s book, which we obtained from the Internet Archive, is also linked below.


Here we are joined by Truth Vids, where we shall have a discussion of many points addressing aspects of the book: What About the Seedline Doctrine? A Biblical Examination and Explanation of the Cain-Satanic Seedline Doctrine by Charles A. Weisman. The copies available on the internet are all missing pages 2 and 3, so I do not know what Weisman wrote under the subtitle “The Basis of the Satanic Seedline Doctrine”. Looking through Clifton’s library for a copy, which there is a very good chance that he has, I have not yet located one. Today, most of our discussion will be limited to the second chapter of Weisman’s book, which is subtitled “A Scriptural Analysis”. Once we see some of Weisman’s arguments and methods of analysis, I am certain we shall find that he failed to answer the question in the title of his book.

Pages 4-5:

Here Weisman acknowledges that trees can represent people and nations. But he makes a dishonest conclusion where he states “Because the cedar tree of Ezekiel 31 was described as having great beauty, it is next said that this tree was able to sexually seduce Eve.” Perhaps he believes this ridiculous conclusion which he himself contrived discredits our position.

He also admits that the Hebrew word for touch can mean to lie with a woman, but then he dishonestly insists that if it were used in that manner of Eve, she must have lain with a woman. He evidently doesn’t think to mention that if the word is used of a woman, it could mean to lie with a man. That is because there is a difference between a word with a technical definition, and a word used as a euphemism or allegory. In English, the word manslaughter can be used to describe a woman who had killed a man, or even another woman. This sort of sophistry is common throughout Weisman’s arguments, and anyone who cannot immediately see his dishonesty cannot possibly be reading his material objectively.

Page 6:

Weisman insists that “Fruit is not the act of sex, it is the result or product of sexual relations, or of a seed that is germinated. Nowhere in Scripture is the term ‘fruit’ used for sexual relations, or to mean a seed or taking of a seed.” Here once again he fails to see that the word was also sometimes used allegorically.

First, there is the Epic of Gilgamesh, and we can know that the ancient Hebrews were familiar with this epic because Gilgamesh is mentioned as one of the giants in the Dead Sea Scrolls. It was a significant Akkadian legend in the time of Abraham and Moses, and both men were indeed acquainted with the Shemitic culture of Mesopotamia. Abraham was a lifelong resident of Mesopotamia before he was called to Canaan, and Moses was a prince raised in the house of Pharaoh so he would have been educated in the cultures of the surrounding nations.

Several significant inscriptions containing at least much of the Epic of Gilgamesh in Akkadian and other languages have been discovered. In the epic, there is an similar allegory using fruit to describe an act of sexual relations. So long as the character Enkidu was a virgin, he had a special relationship with the animals of the forest. Gilgamesh wanted to undermine that relationship, so he instructed a hunter as to how to corrupt Enkidu. Then where it describes what Enkidu would do if he saw a harlot, it reads “She shall pull off her clothing, laying bare her ripeness. As soon as he sees her, he will draw near to her.” Then it says of Enkidu’s relationship with then harlot that “The lass freed her breasts, bared her bosom, And he possessed her ripeness.”

But there is more. After Enkidu lost his virginity, we may read where it is described of him: “But now he had wisdom, broader understanding.” Then the harlot herself proclaims to him “Thou art [wi]se, Enkidu, art become like a god!” These words are exactly similar to what we find in the aftermath of the sin of Adam and Eve in Genesis chapter 3. So there is much more evidence than our claims concerning the allegorical uses of the words tree, eat and touch which proves the veracity of our interpretation, and Weisman never addressed most of that evidence.

But while we see the allegory in the contemporary (to Abraham and Moses) Epic of Gilgamesh, Weisman’s argument that “Nowhere in Scripture is the term ‘fruit’ used for sexual relations, or to mean a seed or taking of a seed.” is also a lie. While the allegory was not used often, and while it really does not matter whether it was ever used again, it is found again, in the Song of Solomon, near the end of chapter 4. The context is set in verses 9 to 11 where we read “9 Thou hast ravished my heart, my sister, my spouse; thou hast ravished my heart with one of thine eyes, with one chain of thy neck. 10 How fair is thy love, my sister, my spouse! how much better is thy love than wine! and the smell of thine ointments than all spices! 11 Thy lips, O my spouse, drop as the honeycomb: honey and milk are under thy tongue; and the smell of thy garments is like the smell of Lebanon.” Then, in verse 12, we read “A garden inclosed is my sister, my spouse; a spring shut up, a fountain sealed.” Then, after likening her endowments with many types of fruit, we read her answer in verse 16 “Awake, O north wind; and come, thou south; blow upon my garden, that the spices thereof may flow out. Let my beloved come into his garden, and eat his pleasant fruits.” Since the king had described her as this garden, this answer to his words must also be the woman making a reference to herself. The picture drawn in this chapter is clearly one of the sensual love which a man has for his wife. She was the garden, she wanted him to eat of it, and in plain language, she was inviting him to bed.

I originally hoped to present much more than this in the first segment, but we had a longer-than-expected conversation at the beginning, covering many of the points about which Truth Vids receives frequent inquiries. We plan a second segment next week, and while surely there will be more digressions, we will continue then with our disputations with Charles Weisman.