- Christogenea Internet Radio
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.
This makes perfect sense to us, as Weisman out of one side of his mouth denies Two-Seedline, and has actually fabricated many lies in this book in order to somehow disprove it. But out of the other side of his mouth he shows a thorough understanding of it, at least as it was taught in the past, while actually agreeing to or admitting to the truth of many aspects of it. For example, Weisman admitted that the serpent was an intelligent being, a “person” who had his own order in the world which was contrary to the order of God, but at the same time he neglected to consider the consequences of his admission, nor did he offer elaboration as to how such an individual could be present in the garden of God when Adam was created. In that and many other of his arguments, Weisman was clearly double-minded. We do not have to accept the mouth of one witness, which is our friend Michael. But Michael has only corroborated Weisman’s many testimonies against himself.
Now we shall continuing with Weisman’s book, endeavoring to address all of the important protests against Two-Seedline which he offers in this chapter, from where we last left off:
Jesus implied that these Jews did not have God as their father because they did not follow the ways of God, but followed lies and false doctrine. They instead had as their father or leader the devil, a term used for the antithesis of God. If they were followers of truth and righteousness and God’s laws, then it could be said that God Almighty was their father, for God is the founder of these things. God wanted His people to call Him “Father” because that meant they recognized God as their head, leader or founder.
This is also a lie, and a significant lie because it insinuates that anyone can become a child of the devil who sins, or anyone can become a child of God for not sinning. Anyone can be a devil by following wrong doctrine, or not be a devil by following good doctrine. So today you may be a child of the devil, because you saw a pretty girl and lusted after her, not knowing she was married. But tomorrow you might refrain from lust and control your desires, so once again you are a child of God. Today you may be a devil if you go to a Pentecostal church, but next weekend you might be an angel if you go to some church which Charles Weisman prefers… or, perhaps, to some synagogue.
So if this is true, why did the apostle John write, in chapter 2 of his first epistle, “1 My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous: 2 And he is the propitiation for our sins…”? If Christ is a propitiation for our sins, what sin makes us children of the devil, if our sin is already propitiated? And why were the children of Israel, who were never obedient to God, still considered children of God? Yahweh put the children of Israel off in divorce and punishment, so we read in Amos chapter 3: “1 Hear this word that the LORD hath spoken against you, O children of Israel, against the whole family which I brought up from the land of Egypt, saying, 2 You only have I known of all the families of the earth: therefore I will punish you for all your iniquities.”
Then Paul says in Hebrews chapter 12: “5 And ye have forgotten the exhortation which speaketh unto you as unto children, My son, despise not thou the chastening of the Lord, nor faint when thou art rebuked of him: 6 For whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom he receiveth. 7 If ye endure chastening, God dealeth with you as with sons; for what son is he whom the father chasteneth not? 8 But if ye be without chastisement, whereof all are partakers, then are ye bastards, and not sons.” Chastisement is punishment for wrongdoing, which results in correction. Yahweh chastised Cain by refusing his sacrifice, and told him that if he could not do well, “sin lieth at the door”, that it was because he was a bastard, and not a son! Cain proved what Yahweh had said, that sin “lieth at the door”, and in Paul’s words, that he was a bastard and not a son, when he immediately went and killed Abel, and that is a lesson we must all derive from the Scriptures, because it is one of the most critical lessons of the Scriptures. But Charles Weisman sought to hide it from men.
The children of Israel were put off in punishment, to be chastised for their sins, yet Yahweh promised in Isaiah chapter 43: “5 Fear not: for I am with thee: I will bring thy seed from the east, and gather thee from the west; 6 I will say to the north, Give up; and to the south, Keep not back: bring my sons from far, and my daughters from the ends of the earth; 7 Even every one that is called by my name: for I have created him for my glory, I have formed him; yea, I have made him. 8 Bring forth the blind people that have eyes, and the deaf that have ears.” They had the ability to see and hear but they had always refused to do so, for which they were punished. However regardless of how much they had sinned, they were not devils, instead they remained children of God.
Likewise we read in Isaiah chapter 45: “9 Woe unto him that striveth with his Maker! Let the potsherd strive with the potsherds of the earth. Shall the clay say to him that fashioneth it, What makest thou? or thy work, He hath no hands? 10 Woe unto him that saith unto his father, What begettest thou? or to the woman, What hast thou brought forth? 11 Thus saith the LORD, the Holy One of Israel, and his Maker, Ask me of things to come concerning my sons, and concerning the work of my hands command ye me.” So we see that the children of Israel were children of God even in their state of sin and apostasy. They were never called children of the devil regardless of how much they had sinned, and many of those sins were quite grievous.
But although we have answered all of this to demonstrate the folly of Weisman’s argument, we must also remember that his argument was wrong before he presented it, because in the first place Christ was not telling these men that their father was the devil, the serpent of Genesis chapter 3, as Weisman insinuated. Rather, Christ was telling them that their father was Cain, who was a devil, as Cain is the only one who could be referred to as a “murderer from the beginning”. So Weisman should have explained how these men were not the children of Cain, or followers of Cain, and he offered a straw-man argument instead.
Continuing with Weisman:
Jesus also said that these Jews in John 8 were not “Abraham’s children” (v. 39). Here again Jesus employs a metaphor in the use of “children.” They were not the children of Abraham because they didn’t follow the ways of Abraham. As Jesus explains:
If you were Abraham’s children, you would do the works of Abraham.
But now you seek to kill me, a man that has told you the truth, which I have heard of God: this did not Abraham (John 8:39-40).
Here Weisman is essentially oversimplifying the situation and the meaning of the words of Christ, who as he himself admits had already justly claimed Abraham for a father. Weisman insists that the use of the word children here is a metaphor, but he omits the part where Christ had acknowledged that they descended from Abraham where He said “I know that ye are Abraham's seed…” In Romans chapter 4, Paul of Tarsus, speaking of Abraham, said “to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed”. Bringing the Gospel of God to the “lost sheep of the house of Israel” was Paul’s entire purpose, and even James wrote his single surviving epistle to the “twelve tribes scattered abroad”. They were all considered children of God by Isaiah, as we have shown, and also by the apostle John where he wrote in chapter 11 of his gospel that Christ had died “52… not for that nation only, but that also he should gather together in one the children of God that were scattered abroad.” That is the very gathering which is prophesied in Isaiah.
But all of those twelve tribes which were scattered abroad were pagan, and they were living in sin. So once again it is proven that Weisman lied, where he said “If they were followers of truth and righteousness and God’s laws, then it could be said that God Almighty was their father”, because in the Scriptures the Word of Yahweh always considered Him to be the Father of the children of Israel whether or not they kept His laws or followed after His truth. If they were obedient children, they would never have been punished in the first place. In their punishment, they would learn to be obedient children. But they were never the children of devils, and the children of devils have no invitation to return to God, as they were never God’s children in the first place.
Christ Himself proves that salvation is not about mere belief, where He says in Matthew chapter 7 that “22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? 23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.” One of His Own apostles, Judas Iscariot, was called a devil, even though Judas had been with Him for a long time, at least two years, and no sin could be attributed to him before that time when he was called a devil. So the entire Bible proves Charles Weisman to be a liar.
The literal truth, as we have explained, is that the Jews were the seed of Abraham, as Christ had acknowledged, but they did not conduct themselves as children of Abraham because they were not true children of Abraham in the sense that they were bastards, being descended from Esau and not from Jacob. For that reason Paul had contrasted Jacob and Esau in reference to the people of Judaea in Romans chapter 9, and Christ warned of “them which say they are Judaeans, and are not, but are the synagogue of Satan”, in chapters 2 and 3 of the Revelation. So in John chapter 8, if the literal meaning of the words of Christ are upheld not only by the context, but also by the records of Scripture and History, then the literal meaning must be what Christ had intended. The metaphorical meaning suggested by Weisman cannot be upheld at all. Where did even the Israelites ever do what Abraham had done? Where were they ever students of Abraham? As Paul also said, “all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God”, so why did Christ not say to His apostles, I have chosen you twelve and twelve of you are devils? If all men sin, how did Christ, as it is recorded in John chapter 1, speak about Nathanael and exclaim “Behold an Israelite indeed, in whom is no guile!”
Now Weisman makes an assertion which is clearly refuted by history, saying:
The Jews (or more correctly, Judeans) 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. Jesus clearly identifies the biological descent of these people when He said:
I know that you are Abraham’s seed (John 8:37).
Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day (John 8: 56).
Did not Moses give you [Judeans] the law? (John 7:19).
First, Christ made a general statement in John 7:19 which was not in the same context as His remarks in John chapter 8, so it is not proper to lump them together. But while the Judaeans did collectively receive the law from Moses, even that does not mean that the Judaeans whom Christ had addressed in John chapter 8 were not “hybrids”, as Weisman calls them. Whether or not all of them were bastards, many of them certainly were bastards.
Paul of Tarsus said in Romans chapter 9 that not all of those in Israel were of Israel. Then he went on to compare Jacob and Esau, praying for those who were actually his kinsmen “according to the flesh”. Why would Paul even mention Jacob and Esau together in that context, if at least some of these people had not been Edomites? Then he called the Israelites vessels of mercy and the Edomites vessels of destruction. Christ Himself, in the Revelation, had twice warned against those who claimed to be Judaeans but were not. Flavius Josephus provides in great detail accounts of the forced conversions of the Edomites in Palestine into Judaism by the Maccabees over a period of about 40 years from the time of John Hyrcanus through the rule of Alexander Jannaeus. All of these things help to prove the truth of the prophecy of Ezekiel chapter 35, where Esau is chastised “10 Because thou hast said, These two nations and these two countries shall be mine, and we will possess it; whereas the LORD was there.” In the period after the deportations the Edomites moved into Israel and Judah, and later, in the period of regrowth under the Maccabees they forcibly converted all of those Edomites to Judaism, and by the time of Christ the Edomites had taken over control of the Kingdom under the Herods, who were in collusion with Rome as it conquered Judaea.
From the time of Herod, there was a significant Edomite presence among the priests as well as the people, and Malachi chapters 1 and 2 are a prophecy of what would happen, resulting in a prophecy of the discourse between Christ and those priests in John chapter 8. All of this and more clearly proves that many of the priests, and the high priests, of the time of Christ certainly were Edomites. They were, in part, descendants of Abraham, so they could claim his for a father, but they were not his true children because they were also bastards. It is easy for Weisman to deny this, because it is not proven with a single citation or sentence, but it certainly is proven, and once again Weisman is found to be a liar.
Now Weisman will insist that seed is literal in John 8:37, and that father is literal in John 8:56, while claiming that similar words in related verses in the same context are allegorical, proving that he is a double-minded liar:
There is nothing metaphorical or spiritual in these verses [the three he had cited above - WRF]. They are spoken quite literally, meaning these people were the literal descendants of Abraham. No one would ever have been called “Abraham’s seed” who was of a mixed lineage, particularly by Jesus (Matt. 15:24-26).
Here, to support that statement Weisman cited Matthew 15:24-26, which is a portion of the account of the encounter of Christ with the Canaanite woman. But she never claimed to be the seed of Abraham, so the citation is invalid, it is nonsensical. She could not have claimed to be the seed of Abraham, being a Canaanite, so she did not make any such claim.
So where in John 8:44 Christ told His adversaries that Cain was their father, although Weisman misread that verse, he claims it is allegorical. But where Christ told His adversaries that Abraham was their father, it is literal. Weisman wants it both ways in one passage of Scripture! But Weisman thought Christ said in verse 44 that the devil was their father, when Christ was actually referring to Cain, so perhaps it is also true that he cannot read.
The fact is that the Edomite Jews at the time of Christ could and did claim to be the seed of Abraham, and Christ could not deny that, because it was literally true. However being descendants of Esau, as Esau had taken wives of the Canaanites who were in turn mixed with the Kenites and other races, it is also literally true that they were descendants of Cain. For this same reason, that the converted Edomites thought they could enter the covenants of God, Paul wrote in Galatians chapter 3: “15 Brethren, (I speak as befits a man,) even a validated covenant of man no one sets aside, or makes additions to for himself. 16 Now to Abraham the promises have been spoken, and to his offspring. It does not say “and to offsprings”, as of many [Esau or Ishmael or the sons of Keturah]; but as of one: “and to your offspring,” which are anointed [Jacob-Israel].” Continuing with Weisman:
Another verse wrongly used or interpreted in support of Cain being born of Satan is that of I John 3:12, in which John says that we should be:
Not as Cain, who was of that wicked one, and slew his brother.
It is claimed this verse means Cain was the literal descendant of satan, the “wicked one.” Here again the words are used metaphorically.
No, here the Greek preposition ἐκ, which denotes source or origin, and with the Genitive Case it refers to ancestry when it speaks of people in repsect to other people. Here it is used along with a Substantive clause that functions as a noun, so τοῦ πονηρου being the Gentive form is “of the Wicked One”, signifying a particular individual. Perhaps it could be claimed that it refers to Adam, but then the words would have also been true of Abel, or of Seth and his descendants, and the context here does not admit the claim. So how was Cain “of the Wicked One”? Furthermore, Adam is described as the “son of God” in the genealogy of Christ in Luke chapter 3. But where do we see any other sinner described in that manner, as a son of the Devil, simply because they sinned? David killed a man, but Christ, the Son of David, was never described as being “of the Wicked One”. For Weisman’s assertions to hold true, they must be evident throughout Scripture, but they are not. So he is lying where he next says:
Nothing physical or literal is meant as is clearly indicated in the preceding verses:
8 He that commits sin is of the devil: for the devil sinned from the beginning…
9 Whosoever is born of God does not commit sin; for his seed remains in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.
10 In this the children of God are manifest, and the children of the devil: whosoever does not righteousness is not of God, neither he that loves not his brother.
In regard to 1 John 3:8, John had already said that all men sin, but here John was not talking about mere sinners. As we explained earlier in this series, in that epistle John distinguished between mere sinners and those who create or author sin, and all mainstream translations ignore that distinction. 1 John 3:8 actually says “8 He who is creating sin is from of the devil, since the devil sins from the beginning.” John is indeed speaking of the inherent nature of men, and verse 9 proves it, although Weisman conveniently forgot to explain the appearance of the word seed in that passage.
Where John wrote in verse 9, as the King James Version has it, “9 Whosoever is born of God does not commit sin; for his seed remains in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God”, he is indeed explaining that all of the Adamic race will be pardoned for their sins in the end. In Romans chapter 5 Paul of Tarsus describes that same thing. It is not that we do not sin. We all sin. The same apostle wrote in chapter 1 of this same epistle “10 If we say that we have not sinned, we make him [God] a liar, and his word is not in us.” The same apostle wrote in chapter 2 of this epistle, “1 My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous.” We cannot interpret John’s words in a way which forces John to contradict himself in his own epistle! If we try, then we are the ones who are in contradiction, and must admit that our interpretation is wrong.
So here John cannot be saying that people who sin are of the devil, and people who do not sin are of God, because John already said that we all sin, but that the children of God are forgiven! Here John is saying that because of one’s inherent nature, that “his seed remains in him”, and being born of God his sin will not be imputed to him in the end, because as John has already said, he has been forgiven! Yahweh God does not forgive bastards. So if verse 9 describes inherent nature, verse 8 is also describing inherent nature, yet Weisman refuses to believe it so he ignored the phrase in verse 9 where it says “his seed remains in him” as the reason why sin will not be imputed to him. John did not say that if one does not sin, his seed will be in him, meaning the seed of God. Where it says “his seed remains in him”, that is absolutely physical and literal, just as literal as Christ telling His adversaries that they were Abraham’s seed in John 8:37, which Weisman himself insisted without realizing that descendants of Esau were also Abraham’s seed and that is the reason why Christ made that concession.
So now Weisman hypothesizes:
When one is “born of God” he is imbued with a spirit of righteousness from God, and thus is led to do the will of God. By doing the will of God one is a “child of God,” or is “of God.” But those involved in habitual sinning are the “children of the devil,” or are said to be “of the devil” or “of the wicked one.”
Pre-eminently sinful, unrighteous men, and also those imbued with the spirit of lying and murder, are figuratively called children of the devil (John viii:44; 1 John iii: 8, 10). [Citing John D. Davis, A Dictionary of the Bible, The Westminster Press, Philadelphia, 1934, “Devil,” p. 177.]
Of course, all of this is a lie, because as we have said, there are countless sinful Israelites who were never called devils, or children of the devil. However the sinful Israelites did continue to be called children of God throughout the Old Testament no matter how much they had sinned. But these terms describing children of the devil or being of the wicked one were only used in contexts which could be connected to Cain or Esau. So why is that? It can only be because Weisman is being deceitful, and Two-Seedline is true.
The recording which TruthVids and I had discussed at the end of the program, and to which I still have not had opportunity to listen, is found here: Clifton Emahiser rebuts Charles Weisman While I was not certain of when I had posted this recording during this presentation, evidently I never yet posted it on Clifton’s site, but had posted it at Christogenea as I played it for a Saturday evening program as I was returning from Ohio after Clifton’s funeral.