Addressing Charles Weisman’s What About the Seedline Doctrine? Part 10, The Nature of Cain

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
ChrSat20200418Weisman10.mp3 — Downloaded 3285 times


Addressing Charles Weisman’s What About the Seedline Doctrine? Part 10, The Nature of Cain

Once again, there were many extemporaneous remarks in this program which did not make it into my notes. In one, I mentioned Melchizedek in conjunction with Paul. I did not mean to leave any impression that Melchizedek was contemporary with Paul, but only that Paul had described Melchizedek, referring to his explanation that Christ was a priest after the order of Melchizedek. Of course, the only other Melchizedek mentioned in Scripture was contemporary to Abraham.

In our last discussion of chapter 4 of Weisman’s book, we showed that on four occasions, and a fifth, Weisman had lied about the substance of the genealogies which are provided in the Bible. We also spoke at length on Genesis 4:1, and showed that it is a corrupt witness, that interpretations of it and even the actual substance of it were debated in ancient times, and that if it is corrupt and it is not corroborated by any other witness, then it is useless for the purpose of formulation of doctrine because it is unreliable. Since it is the only witness that Cain was a natural son of Adam, the supposition must be open to debate because it is an unreliable witness. To the contrary, there are many witnesses in Scripture and in early Christian apocryphal writings which insist that Cain was not the natural son of Adam. The words of our Redeemer and His apostles also serve to prove that Cain was not Adam’s natural son.

Now I will also add, that if only the genealogy of the chosen line was given, as Weisman also insisted, then why are any other genealogies supplied at all? We see the descendants of Cain are recorded for several generations in Genesis chapter 4, so Weisman is found to have lied about that as well as he himself had attested that Cain was not chosen in the sense of being Adam’s heir and successor. So once again, he is also found to be contradicting himself.

Later there are many references to a tribe of Kenites, so Genesis 4 provides us with enough information to know something about them and to be able to see that they existed in sufficient numbers to be so identified as a tribe later in Scripture, for example in Genesis chapter 15. An account of all of the descendants of Noah and the nations which they formed, which can indeed be identified historically as the White nations of early history, is also given, in Genesis chapter 10. In that chapter, the descendants of Canaan are also listed, and in later chapters of Genesis those of Ishmael and the sons of Abraham by Keturah. The Canaanites were accursed, and the others were sent off by Abraham because they were not chosen, but in spite of that they appear later in Scripture and they were included in the genealogies.

Ultimately it becomes apparent that these genealogies were given so that the children of Israel could determine who their own racial kindred are, and who the corrupt races are, so that they could act accordingly when they encountered them. The importance of being able to identify them is made evident by the law, which commanded the children of Israel to treat certain tribes in certain ways. This identification was necessary for future generations, who also had to understand the origin of their neighbors and the significance of reasons for which they were commanded to either accept or reject them. So where the accursed descendants of Canaan are identified in the area where Abraham was to dwell, which is described in Genesis chapter 15, we see tribes of the Kenites and Rephaim are also mentioned as being among them. There we also see references to other tribes which have no genealogy from Noah, in Genesis chapter 10, namely the Kenizzites, the Kadmonites, and the Perizzites.

There are other Scriptures which show us that these alien groups are distinct. For example, in Genesis chapter 13 we read “7 And there was a strife between the herdmen of Abram's cattle and the herdmen of Lot's cattle: and the Canaanite and the Perizzite dwelled then in the land.” Thereby we see that the Perizzites were indeed a group which was distinct from the Canaanites, and they have no origination with Adam or with Noah, as the descendants of Adam through Noah are listed in Genesis chapter 10.

So in Genesis chapter 15 we see that the land of Canaan was inhabited by Canaanites and by four other tribes which Genesis chapter 10 tells us are also families of the Canaanites. They are Hittites, Amorites, Girgashites, and Jebusites. But then among those five tribes there were the alien tribes of the Kenizzites, Kadmonites, and Perizzites, along with the Kenites and the Rephaim, which are the descendants of Cain and the giants, all who obviously survived the flood because the flood was not a global event, even if it caused a great cataclysm across a significant portion of the world.

But these are not the only groups of aliens in the world. In Genesis chapter 14 there is a description of other tribes which dwelt across the River Jordan, and we see references to Rephaims, as well as to “the Zuzims in Ham”, and the “Emims in Shaveh Kiriathaim”.

We need to discuss all of this because Weisman insisted that the Bible provided only the genealogy of the chosen line, but he lied. The Bible also informs us of the enemies of God and the aliens whose origins are unknown, as well as those groups which were not chosen, ostensibly so that they may be traced and identified throughout the Scriptures.

The Emim, or Emims, were also giants, described as both Anakim and Rephaim in Deuteronomy chapter 2 where it speaks of the same region and it says: “10 The Emims dwelt therein in times past, a people great, and many, and tall, as the Anakims; 11 Which also were accounted giants, as the Anakims; but the Moabites call them Emims.” In Numbers chapter 13 we learn that certain Rephaim were called Anakim because they were sons of a certain one of the Nephilim who was named Anak, where we read “ 33 And there we saw the giants, the sons of Anak, which come of the giants: and we were in our own sight as grasshoppers, and so we were in their sight.” The word for giants in that passage is Nephilim, the fallen ones, the same word which is found in Genesis chapter 6.

But the Zuzims are even more interesting, since the name apparently means roving creatures. So the Scriptures describe certain people only as roving creatures and does not indicate their origin. This is one reason why we assert that non-Adamic races must be branches on the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, because Yahweh took no credit for them in His account of the Genesis creation. But while the Zuzims are not mentioned again, it is possible that they are the same as another group which was called by a slightly different name in Deuteronomy chapter 2, which also appears only once in Scripture. That is Zamzummims, where we read of the land of the Ammonites: “20 That also was accounted a land of giants: giants dwelt therein in old time; and the Ammonites call them Zamzummims; 21 A people great, and many, and tall, as the Anakims…” While the word zuzim is defined as roving creatures, zamzummim is defined as plotters, and both descriptions seem to fit the roving bands of robbers which were relegated to the ancient wilderness, the Mexican banditos of the ancient world. Perhaps another fitting description of them would be satyrs.

Weisman’s view of the Scriptures cannot explain the origin or the consequences of any of these circumstances, and neither can any mainstream denominational view. The mainstream churches cannot even countenance questions about Zuzim, Anakim, Rephaim or Kenite in relation to the Nephilim or in relation to the history and ultimate plan of God as it is outlined in Scriptures. The only view that can explain these things in harmony with all Scripture, as well as with history, is our Two-Seedline view.

In our last presentation we also discussed the meaning of the term Kenite, and how it came to be identified with the vocation of smith. But one point I forgot to mention in that discussion is quite important, so I will explain it here. That is the fact that there is a testimony of this connection in Genesis chapter 4. There we read of the wives of Lamech, a descendant of Cain in the 5th generation down the line: “19 And Lamech took unto him two wives: the name of the one was Adah, and the name of the other Zillah. 20 And Adah bare Jabal: he was the father of such as dwell in tents, and of such as have cattle. 21 And his brother's name was Jubal: he was the father of all such as handle the harp and organ. 22 And Zillah, she also bare Tubalcain, an instructer of every artificer in brass and iron: and the sister of Tubalcain was Naamah.” The word father as it appears in these verses signifies a patriarch who took up a particular occupation, and his progeny followed after him in that occupation, so it is literal and not figurative. Other men of other races may have also had such occupations, but here the context is limited to the descendants of Cain.

So apparently, among Cain’s descendants there were notable musicians as well as notable smiths, or metal-workers, and in order to create harps and organs one must also be adept at being a smith, so the family must have had smiths in the line even before the birth of Tubalcain. But it is apparent that Tubalcain had mastered the occupation to the point where he became an instructor of smiths. Therefore it is evident that the word Kenite in reference to the occupation of smith may certainly have come from the circumstance that the Kenites were not only notable smiths, but even teachers of those who would take up the vocation, and for that reason I believe it is evident that the words became synonymous.

Now we shall continue dismantling Charles Weisman’s lies, where we left off in his book, on

Page 29:

Let’s turn to the supposed satanic nature of Cain. If the serpent was a satanic entity, and if Cain was the offspring of this serpent, then Cain too would be satanic. He would have also inherited the curse of the serpent, being “cursed above all cattle” (Gen. 3:14). This leads us to ask, would God have accepted such a person as an heir to Adam? No sound reasoning could say that He would. Yet that was exactly God’s position towards Cain.

Now we are going to cut this paragraph one sentence short and answer that aspect of it later, as to whether God really would have accepted Cain. First, I want to address what we perceive by the use of the word satanic. As Weisman himself explained, satan only means adversary. But it is clear in Scripture that there are a class of men who are forever adversarial to God. It does not matter whether they recognize the one true God, as James told us that the devils know there is one God, and they tremble, and as Christ told us, many would believe Him and do works in His Name, yet He would say to them, “depart from Me, I never knew you”. It is also apparent in the Gospels that even demons, which we perceive as disembodied devils, recognized both God and Christ, but they were still demons and they were still His enemies. So what is satanic is what is opposed to God, and the Genesis record is clear, that there were entire tribes and races of people who fell into that category but who were spread throughout the ancient world.

Now to continue with Weisman’s paragraph he says:

When Cain had offered an inappropriate sacrifice, God said to him:

And the Lord said to Cain, Why are you wroth? and why is your countenance fallen? If you do well, shall you not be accepted? and if you do not well, sin lies at the door. [Citing Genesis 4:6-7.]

Here we do not see how this makes Cain the heir to Adam, but Weisman is insinuating that. He is reading into the text something which is not there, as he always reads his own ideas into the text. Then he says:

God could have rightly made this statement to Abel, Adam, or any Israelite. They would be “accepted” if they do what God desired. But was God willing to accept some cursed, half-breed, satanic mongrel? No! He was, however, prepared to accept Cain because he was Adamic, not satanic. God also places Cain on equal footing with Abel by calling Abel Cain’s “brother” (Gen. 4:9).

In truth, there is no Hebrew term for half-brother. Many half-brothers and sisters all throughout the Scriptures are referred to as brothers or sisters. For example, Absalom killed his half-brother Amnon, but Amnon was only referred to as his brother. The Greek word for brother, ἀδελφός, comes from the word δελφύς or womb, which is related to the word δέλτα, the name for the letter D which represented a door, which for men entering the world was the matrix, or vagina. Technically it referred to siblings of the same mother, since they came into the world through the same door. But later it was generally used to describe siblings with either one or both parents in common.

Weisman is making several suppositions here with which we do not agree. First he is supposing that Cain’s sacrifice itself was inappropriate, and he has no proof of that. Cain was a tiller of the ground, which is evident in Genesis 4:2, and he brought to sacrifice the first fruits of his own labors, which is not unusual. There are frequent arguments that these were sin offerings, and therefore blood was required for which reason Cain’s offering was rejected, but it is not true that these were sin offerings. In fact, Paul of Tarsus said in Romans chapter 5 that “For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law. 14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.” So we see that these offerings made by Cain and Abel in Genesis chapter 4 were not sin offerings, neither could they be, and therefore blood was not required.

The reason that Cain’s sacrifice was inappropriate is only found in the act of Abel making a sacrifice. It is evident in Scripture that until the Levitical priesthood, the eldest son was customarily the family priest. First we read in Exodus chapter 13 that all the firstborn of men are sanctified to God: “2 Sanctify unto me all the firstborn, whatsoever openeth the womb among the children of Israel, both of man and of beast: it is mine.” Then we see in Numbers chapter 3: “12 And I, behold, I have taken the Levites from among the children of Israel instead of all the firstborn that openeth the matrix among the children of Israel: therefore the Levites shall be mine; 13 Because all the firstborn are mine… 45 Take the Levites instead of all the firstborn among the children of Israel, and the cattle of the Levites instead of their cattle; and the Levites shall be mine: I am the LORD.”

In addition to this custom of the firstborn being sanctified to Yahweh, we see in the epistle of Jude that Enoch was counted seventh from Adam, and in chapter 2 of the 2nd epistle of Peter that Noah was called the “eighth preacher of righteousness”. If Enoch was seventh from Adam, how are we counting to arrive at that figure? If we count generations of firstborn men to Enoch from Adam we get: Seth, Enos, Cainan, Mahalaleel, Jared and Enoch. So in that manner, Enoch is only sixth from Adam. To make Enoch seventh, we must include Abel, for whom Seth was a replacement, and therefore Abel fits into the list of firstborn males, as the lives of Abel and Seth did not overlap, Seth not being born until after Abel was slain, he took the position previously occupied by Abel. If Cain were the firstborn male of Adam, he was still alive and did not need a replacement. If Cain were to be bypassed for any reason, then the office should have fallen to his son.

This is evident where Noah is called by Peter the “eighth preacher of righteousness”. Even though all of the major translations render 2 Peter 2:5 very inaccurately, in the original Greek of the manuscripts Peter is clearly calling Noah the eighth preacher of righteousness. So let us count from Adam to Noah, and we get Adam, Seth, Enos, Cainan, Mahalaleel, Jared, Enoch, Methuselah, Lamech and Noah. That is a total of ten, and not eight. But once it is realized that two of these men did not remain on earth longer than their fathers, which are Enoch and Lamech, then we realize that there were only eight eldest living patriarchs from Adam to Noah, in spite of the fact that there were ten generations of firstborn, counting Adam. In this list we cannot include Abel, since he did not outlive his father and therefore could not be counted among the oldest living first-born.

So understanding all of these statements together, we realize that Cain was making a sacrifice as family priest, asserting to be the eldest son of Adam, but Abel also made a sacrifice and thereby challenged Cain’s assertion or presumption of the position. Yahweh rejected Cain’s sacrifice, while he accepted Abel’s, and by that we see who is the legitimate heir of Adam.

Furthermore, Weisman makes the assumption that Yahweh was accepting Cain on the basis that he could do well, although there is no explicit reason given for why he did not do well up to that point. Nobody can say that there was anything wrong with the sacrifice itself, because that would also be an unfounded conjecture.

But is Yahweh really accepting Cain? It is clear through Scriptures that God often challenged His enemies to do well even when He knew they could not do well. So Christ said to the Pharisees “If ye were Abraham's children, ye would do the works of Abraham” (John 8:39) John the Baptist said to them “O generation [or race] of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come? 8 Bring forth therefore fruits worthy of repentance, and begin not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father: for I say unto you, That God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham” (Luke 3:7-8). Both John and Christ knew that they were not the legitimate children of Abraham, but on each occasion they were challenged to do good, and ultimately they could not do good.

Yahweh was challenging Cain to do good, and then he told Cain that if he failed, it was because “sin lieth at the door”. The door, the matrix, the womb is the entry into the world for all men. If Cain did not do well it was due to the circumstances of his birth, that he could not do well. So as soon as he received that challenge to do good from God Himself, he went and killed his brother Abel. Later, the apostle John would write in his first epistle that “… Cain was of that wicked one, and slew his brother. And wherefore slew he him? Because his own works were evil, and his brother's righteous.” How was Cain “of the wicked one”? How, before he slew Abel, were his works evil? Did he attend the devil’s church? Was he a student of the devil? Did Cain sit at the feet of the devil and learn philosophy as Paul had sat at the feet of Gamaliel? Weisman infers these things later, but none of them can be said to be true. Cain was the son of the devil, the seed of the serpent, and that can be established in the language of the apostles. The phrase which John used, ἐκ τοῦ πονηρου, is a preposition, ἐκ, describing source or origin with a Substantive, The Evil One, a term describing the Devil, one of the fallen angels who was also the Serpent of Genesis chapter 3.

So where Yahweh told Cain that if he does not do well, it is because “sin lieth at the door”, Weisman said “God could have rightly made this statement to Abel, Adam, or any Israelite.” But that is not true, since Cain was a bastard and that is the only reason why for him “sin lieth at the door”, yet that or any similar statement was never made to any other man or any mere sinner. Nowhere in Scripture do we see that explanation again, except where Christ attributed the sins of the Pharisees to the fact that their father was a devil.

A subject of our extemporaneous conversation was a quote from Euripides, Hippolytus, lines 962-963:

“...the bastard is always an enemy to the true-born”. Compare that to the words of Paul in Hebrews 12:8: “But if ye be without chastisement, whereof all are partakers, then are ye bastards, and not sons” and Galatians 4:29: “But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now.”

Now Weisman wrongly concludes:

The Bible is clear that Cain was the son of Adam. To say that he was the son of the serpent or Satan requires some rather twisted reasoning and bad interpretation.

Actually, the truth is precisely the opposite. One corrupted verse asserts that Cain was the son of Adam, but all other Scriptures and all of the surrounding events and circumstances refute that assertion. We do not have to accept that Cain was the natural son of Adam if the text of Genesis 4:1 is questionable, and there are no other witnesses. Now Weisman continues under a new subtitle, Of Your Father the Devil.

Page 30:

In support of the Satanic Seedline doctrine recourse is made to several verses in the New Testament. The most common and controversial verses are in John chapter 8. Here Jesus is arguing with some of the “Jews” about their religious beliefs and says:

41 You do the deeds of your father. Then they [the Jews] said to him. We be not born of fornication; we have one Father, even God.

Right away Weisman mischaracterizes this, as it is not about “religious beliefs”, but about behavior. Weisman continues:

42 Jesus said to them, If God were your Father, you would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me.

43 Why do you not understand my speech? even because you cannot hear my word.

44 You are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father you will do.

Now responding to that exchange, Weisman says:

Satanic Seedline followers claim these verses clearly show that these “Jews” Jesus spoke to were the literal descendants of the devil or the serpent. They say that the use of “father” is to be taken literally. Opponents of this doctrine say that it is to be taken spiritually. Here is another example where both sides of the debate are in error. The word “father” is not to be interpreted literally or spiritually, but metaphorically.

First, I would state that since a metaphor is “a figure of speech in which a word or phrase is applied to an object or action to which it is not literally applicable”, then to interpret a plain word “spiritually” is the same as claiming that it is a metaphor, so that portion of Weisman’s refutation is pointless. Trying to sound as if he is rational, in truth he is being irrational, spouting nonsense.

Weisman insists that the word father in these verses of John chapter 8 should be interpreted metaphorically, but the Jews knew exactly what Christ had meant when they answered “we be not born of fornication”. They knew that if they were not children of God, the only alternative was that they were born of fornication. But the only way in which they were correct in that protest was according to the interpretations of the law upheld by the Pharisees, which were by that time already corrupt. The Pharisees believed one could become circumcised and washed and somehow become an Israelite. However Christ is indeed telling them that God was not their father, and he meant it literally, because in John chapter 10, in a conversation which took place later that very same day, He told them “26 But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you.” If they were truly Israelites, Christ would not have been able to say that to them.

Actually the events of the day which John describes in chapters 7 through 10 ends at John 10:22, and John 10:23 begins an account of a different day which is several months later, so I made an error here in my notes which this note corrects.

In the Gospel, in Luke chapter 3, Adam is called the son of God, and throughout the Old Testament, God calls all of the children of Israel His children, even long after they were put off in punishment for their sins. So if these men were children of Adam or of Israel, they certainly could claim to have God as a Father, but here Yahshua denies the validity of that claim.

As a digression, Malachi chapter 2 contains a prophecy explaining that the Levites would forsake their covenant, allowing strangers into the priesthood, and that for that reason their seed would be corrupted, meaning that their descendants would be bastards. This portion of Malachi is a dialogue, which is hard to follow in most Bible versions. So because the Levites caused the people to “stumble at the law”, we read a dialogue where the people are described as having stated: “10 Have we not all one father? hath not one God created us? why do we deal treacherously every man against his brother, by profaning the covenant of our fathers?” Next, the prophet explains the answer to those questions: “11 Judah hath dealt treacherously, and an abomination is committed in Israel and in Jerusalem; for Judah hath profaned the holiness of the LORD which he loved, and hath married the daughter of a strange god.”

The fulfillment of the prophecy in Malachi is elucidated in this very conversation which Christ had with the Pharisees in John chapter 8. In ancient times the patriarch Judah had a Canaanite wife, from which came the descendants of Shelah, and that was used as a type for the fate of Judaea from the time of Malachi, who was prophesying what would happen as a result of the Judaean acceptance and conversion of the Edomites which began around 125 BC. As a result, the rulers, the chief priests and many of the notable men of the temple and of the government of Judaea in the time of Christ were Edomites, and not Israelites. The veracity of our interpretation is proven in the epistles of Paul, explicitly in Romans chapter 9, and also in the parables and Revelation of Christ Himself.

In Romans chapter 9 Paul had prayed for those in Israel who were his kinsmen “according to the flesh”, not “spiritual” kinsmen but real, genetically related kinsmen. Then he said that not all in Israel were of Israel, and he went on to compare Jacob and Esau and explain how the promises, covenants, and law were for the true Israelites. After doing that, he called the Israelites “vessels of mercy” and the Edomites “vessels of destruction”. Paul’s statements in Romans chapter 9 therefore inform us that by saying father, Christ actually meant the term literally in John chapter 8, and His words in John chapter 10 and elsewhere prove that same thing.

As we have already cited, John the Baptist is recorded as having said to the Pharisees in Luke chapter 3: “O generation [or race] of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come? 8 Bring forth therefore fruits worthy of repentance, and begin not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father: for I say unto you, That God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham.” Of course, God can raise children of Abraham from stones, but that would not make them children of the promises. Likewise, these Pharisees which John had called a “race of vipers” would fit the description if they were Edomites, and not of Israel. Esau had taken wives of the Canaanites, who in turn were mixed with the Kenites, the descendants of Cain, who in turn was the child of the serpent.

There are many more New Testament examples and proofs which we can use to refute Weisman here, but he himself mentions some of them later, so we will save them for that time. But to deny Two-Seedline, Weisman is reduced to asserting that words do not really mean what they actually mean. So continuing his answer, he is exposed as having the same Gnostic beliefs that the early Church had also adopted, because they rejected Covenant Theology, and accepted Replacement Theology. But Covenant Theology is the foundation for true Christianity, and it is the foundation, and the necessity, for Christian Identity. So Weisman says,

Page 31:

The terms “father” and “children” are often used as metaphors. The word father can be used to mean one who is a leader, originator, or founder of some concept, system or institution.

Actually Christ rejected this use of the term father among Christians, where, speaking to Israelites, He said in Matthew chapter 23 “9 And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven. 10 Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, even Christ.” So if Christ rejected the philosophical use of the term father, as He clearly did in Matthew chapter 23, then here Weisman is accusing Christ of doing something which Christ Himself had rejected! So Weisman is accusing Christ of being a hypocrite, but it is Weisman who is the hypocrite. So he continues:

The word children can be used of those who are followers of the concepts laid down by the father or founder. Thus we say that Karl Marx is the father of communism, and those who are adherents to communism are his followers, disciples or children. The words father and children used by Christ in John 8 do not mean biological descent or ancestry. In like manner we speak of George Washington, Patrick Henry, James Madison, etc., as being our “Founding Fathers,” even though we have no physical descent from these men. We call God our Father, or say we are “sons of God” or “children of God,” but no one could rightly say we are biological descendants of God.

Here Weisman denied the Scripture, that Adam was the son of God, as Luke wrote in chapter 3 of his gospel. Then Paul wrote in 1st Corinthians that Christ is the second, or last Adam, being the second man born directly from God, the first born among many brethren, although the rest of us, if we are descendants of Adam, are only copies of the original.

It may be true in modern times, that these words are used in this manner, but it was not always so. On occasion the words father or mother are used metaphorically in Scripture, but that is the exception, and not the rule, and it is perfectly evident when the terms are used in that manner that they should be interpreted metaphorically. But if the Jews themselves thought Christ was using the term father metaphorically, they would not have responded with a reference to fornication, so even they took His words to be literal.

As another digression, originally the American “founding fathers” were not merely the notable men who were the most visible leaders of the Revolution. The term was applied to all of the men of the nation in that generation who had a role in the creation of the Republic, and who left a Constitution declaring that Republic to be for themselves and their posterity, which is their descendants. That concept was later also corrupted, but the corruption was not original to the intent of the the so-called “founding fathers”. Weisman is judging both Christ and them according to the corrupt use of terms. But this is a not our topic…

In the New Testament, if father does not literally mean father, and if children does not literally mean children, then we all may as well be universalist Roman Catholics because otherwise, the Word of God has no meaning whatsoever. If we interpret father and children here according to our own whims, then we can justify doing that anywhere in Scripture, to the point of nullifying the meaning of the entire Word of God.

In John chapter 8, in verses 41 through 44 which Weisman cited, the terms father and children are used in the same context in which they were used in verses 37 through 39, which Weisman did not cite. There we read: “37 I know that ye are Abraham's seed; but ye seek to kill me, because my word hath no place in you. 38 I speak that which I have seen with my Father: and ye do that which ye have seen with your father. 39 They answered and said unto him, Abraham is our father. Jesus saith unto them, If ye were Abraham's children, ye would do the works of Abraham.” If Abraham were their father, they would also be children of God. Christ told them “I know that ye are Abraham’s seed”, meaning that they did in fact descend from Abraham. But if they were descendants of Esau, they were bastards who were rejected by God, so they were not true children of Abraham even if they could claim to be his descendants. If they were bastards, they were disclaimed by God even as Cain was rejected by God.

Finally, Weisman cited John 8:44 where Yahshua had told His adversaries, in part, “ 44 Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him.” Citing this, Weisman assumed that Two-Seedline teachers claim that this proves that the adversaries of Yahshua were therefore “the literal descendants of the devil or the serpent.” But we would not make that claim as Weisman worded it.

Rather, John 8:44 proves that the adversaries of Christ were descendants of Cain, because only Cain was “a murderer from the beginning”! Now it is also evident that Cain was called a devil, and it is obvious to us that he was a devil because the devil was his father, but that is besides the point. Yahshua is not telling His adversaries that they were children of the devil. Rather, He is telling them that they are children of Cain, the “murderer from the beginning” who happened to be a devil! Once the verse is read correctly, it is discovered that Weisman cannot answer it, so he never bothered to read it correctly. He did that same thing in his comments on Genesis 6:4, which also proved him to be a fool.

Once again we left off the last sentence of his paragraph, so he next states:

In Matthew 12, Christ healed a man and the Pharisees said Christ did this by the power of Beelzebub. Christ responded:

And if I by Beelzebub cast out devils, by whom do your children cast them out? (Matt. 12:27).

Any good Bible commentary will point out that the word “children” used in this verse is a metaphor to mean the disciples or followers of the Pharisees. Christ was not referring to their biological children.

Here Weisman is once again operating on a false presumption. Christ never made a reference to mere followers of Beelzebub or of the Pharisees. Rather, He asked the Pharisees “by whom do your children cast them out?” Many of the chief priests and Pharisees had children in the priesthood, and the Edomite Jews were caught up in all of the mysticism and sorcery of the times. The high priests of this time were Annas and Caiaphas. Annas was actually a former high priest, and Caiaphas was his son-in-law. After Caiaphas was removed from office of high priest in 41 AD, by Herod Agrippa I, five of Annas’ sons, the brother-in-laws of Caiaphas, had held the office of high priest at one time or another between 41 AD and 70 AD when the temple was destroyed. So we certainly do see that these chief priest had sons, their own children, who were in the priesthood at this time. Therefore when Christ said “by whom do your sons cast them out” He was referring to the actual children of the high priests who were practicing priests at this time.

The children of Israel were commanded not to engage in necromancy, but the Edomite Jews could not desist. So we read in Acts chapter 19: “13 Then certain of the vagabond Jews, exorcists, took upon them to call over them which had evil spirits the name of the Lord Jesus, saying, We adjure you by Jesus whom Paul preacheth. 14 And there were seven sons of one Sceva, a Jew, and chief of the priests, which did so. 15 And the evil spirit answered and said, Jesus I know, and Paul I know; but who are ye? 16 And the man in whom the evil spirit was leaped on them, and overcame them, and prevailed against them, so that they fled out of that house naked and wounded.”

Weisman tried to make his readers think that Christ used the term children metaphorically in Matthew chapter 12 when he was actually speaking of the literal children of the Pharisees, who were indeed engaged in this sort of sorcery. His own false presumption created a lie by which he could then somehow prove his other lie, that father and children in John chapter 8 were also metaphorical. If any of Weisman’s arguments were true, he would never have had to create any lies, and so many lies, in order to establish that they were true.

Without a doubt, Charles Weisman is the Christian Identity Pinocchio.

ChrSat20200418Weisman10.odt — Downloaded 249 times