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

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
ChrSat20200523Weisman15.mp3 — Downloaded 2301 times


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.

Along the way we have shown that Charles Weisman is guilty of many other lies and shortcomings, but these three, in my opinion, are the most important because making these mistakes, there is nothing else which is relevant to this dispute which he is going to properly understand. If all of the adversaries of Christ in the New Testament narratives are genetic Israelites, as Weisman insisted, then Paul is a liar, Christ Himself is a liar, Flavius Josephus and Strabo of Cappadocia were liars, and many others as well. But we would prefer to believe that out of all these, while no man is perfect, only Charles Weisman is the liar, at least purposely. The New Testament alone proves Weisman to be a liar, but the historical background provided by Josephus, Strabo and others proves that our interpretation of the plain and literal words of Christ and His apostles is true.

If the words of Christ and His apostles are plainly and literally true, then there is no compulsion to contrive a metaphorical interpretation in order to force a conclusion which may be more palatable or acceptable to certain people or groups. If the plain interpretation consistently concurs with the words of both Christ and His apostles and the Old Testament prophets, and if the historical context corroborates the circumstances by which they are interpreted, then we know that we stand in the truth, and metaphorical interpretations which lead to some contrary conclusion must be rejected.

Nevertheless, as we had said when we began our commentary on chapter 3 of Weisman’s book, we will continue to discuss Weisman’s arguments point-by-point, lest there be any room for those who uphold his lies to accuse us of not being able to answer any of his claims. So now we shall continue where we left off at the end of our last presentation in this series, and Weisman continues with his insistence that Christ was merely using metaphors where He addressed His adversaries in Matthew chapters 12 and 23 as the generation, or properly offspring of vipers. Weisman did not realize that Christ was actually calling their ancestors vipers, and not themselves, which proves that His words are literal, and not metaphorical, that Christ considered His adversaries to be of the very seed of the serpent, and not of Israel. As we have also elucidated, nowhere in Scripture are the children of Israel ever called serpents or vipers. In spite of their multitudinous sins, they were always the children of God.

Page 35:

Christ used metaphors often. He spoke of “bread which comes down from heaven” that if a man eat thereof shall “live forever” and “not die” (John 6:50-51). The words bread, life and death are not meant physically or spiritually, but metaphorically. They stand for something else. Also, when Jesus spoke of the temple He would rebuild, He was using temple as a metaphor for Himself (John 2:19).

Here Weisman, saying that “live forever” and “not die” are only metaphors, reveals that he does not even believe in the concepts of death and eternal life as they are taught in Scripture.

Every one of these metaphors and many others which refer to Christ or to the children of Israel make sense in a Biblical context only because they correlate with things which are similar in the experience or history of the Old Testament Israelites, or in types and prophecies of the Messiah, which had also fulfilled in one way or another the words of Yahweh which are found in the books of the prophets. If these metaphors did not have their precursors in the Old Testament, then they would have been foreign to their listeners and Christ the Messiah would not have been speaking in terms by which the people could have then identified Him as their Messiah. The meaning is only made clear by the fact that they do represent or relate to important Old Testament concepts and expressions.

Likewise, what Christ said concerning His adversaries also relates to metaphors describing certain entities or phenomena in the Old Testament, or they would not have made any sense to his listeners or within the context of Biblical prophecy. The only obstacle to understanding this is that people like Charles Weisman refuse to believe that these words such as “serpent” or “generation of vipers” or “children of the devil” represent tangible people and races in spite of the fact that they can be clearly traced through Scripture and history and right into the very positions which they occupied where Christ confronted them.

Continuing with Weisman on that same page:

Bible interpretation is not so simplistic as taking things to be either literal or spiritual. Words may be spoken figuratively, symbolically, allegorically, poetically, typically, or anti-typically. They may be used as an euphemism, idiom, slang, or sarcasm. To understand Scripture interpretation is everything. By proper interpretation no one in the Bible was literally called a serpent, or the seed of the serpent, or a child of satan.

Here Weisman is once again on to something that he then ignores, or mentions and fails to address, as he has many times in the past, where he mentioned the antitypical interpretation of terms. While the word has other meanings in a secular sense, in New Testament interpretation an antitype, according to, is “something that is foreshadowed by a type or symbol, as a New Testament event prefigured in the Old Testament.” But once again, Weisman also fails to recognize what I can only call the historic method of interpretation, that to understand words in the Scriptures we must understand the historic context in which they were spoken.

So where Christ had called His adversaries serpents, children of the devil, offspring of vipers, the antitype is the serpent of Genesis chapter 3. The serpent was not a literal serpent. The serpent was a person described as a serpent. Earlier in this book, Weisman himself had basically admitted that, where he said that the serpent was a person in rebellion from God who had his own order in the world, which was opposed to the order of God. Through the historic interpretation of the context in which those terms were used, our interpretation is proven because it can be established through Scripture and history that the adversaries of Christ were indeed connected genetically to that same serpent of Genesis chapter 3. The children of Canaan and Esau actually did intermarry with the Kenites, Rephaim and other related groups, and it is some of their descendants who stood to oppose Christ in Judaea in the time of His ministry. The were not children of a spiritual Satan. They were the children of an early entity, a physical person who were in rebellion and stood opposed to God. So in the sense that satan means adversary, they were children of Satan.

Another type for this situation, aside from those we have already mentioned in earlier presentations in this series, such as in Malachi chapters 1 and 2 and Ezekiel chapter 35 , is found in Zechariah chapter 3: “1 And he shewed me Joshua the high priest standing before the angel of the LORD, and Satan standing at his right hand to resist him. 2 And the LORD said unto Satan, The LORD rebuke thee, O Satan; even the LORD that hath chosen Jerusalem rebuke thee: is not this a brand plucked out of the fire? ” So the opposition which Zerubbabel and Joshua the high priest faced rebuilding the temple circa 520 BC was a type for the opposition which Christ would face regathering His people, building the true temple of God, in His ministry, its purpose being to reconcile Himself to them.

Continuing with Weisman:

Christ’s use of metaphors, and the wrong interpretation applied to them by the scribes, Pharisees and religious leaders, was part of the reason for their bringing about His death and crucifixion. Those who blindly apply a strict literal interpretation to the Bible in all instances are following the same error of the Jews and Pharisees.

As it we believe that their parents were literal snakes… not even the Pharisees believed that. Here Weisman attributes the crucifixion to the mere misunderstanding of the “Jews and Pharisees”. But that is not how Christ had attributed it. Christ knew that they would kill Him, He planned it that way from the foundation of the world, and He knew that they would do it because they were not His sheep in the first place. So we read in John chapter 10: “25 Jesus answered them, I told you, and ye believed not: the works that I do in my Father's name, they bear witness of me. 26 But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you. 27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: 28 And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.”

There Christ clearly told His adversaries that they did not understand Him because they were not His people in the first place, and He also said that His people would understand Him, and ultimately they did. One aspect of first century history which the Jews have always sought to obscure is the number of Christians in Judaea in the first century. They love to portray Christianity as a small sect of upstarts that was more successful when they brought their religion to the so-called Gentiles, but that is not true.

As we read in Acts chapter 2, of an event which occurred at the first Christian Pentecost only 7 weeks after the crucifixion, “41 Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls.” Then later, in Acts chapter 4: “4 Howbeit many of them which heard the word believed; and the number of the men was about five thousand.” Then over 25 years later, in Acts chapter 21 where we see a division between the teachings of James and Paul, “18 And the day following Paul went in with us unto James; and all the elders were present. 19 And when he had saluted them, he declared particularly what things God had wrought among the Gentiles by his ministry. 20 And when they heard it, they glorified the Lord, and said unto him, Thou seest, brother, how many thousands [μυριάς is literally ten thousands, ‘how many tens of thousands’] of Jews there are which believe; and they are all zealous of the law: 21 And they are informed of thee, that thou teachest all the Jews which are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, saying that they ought not to circumcise their children, neither to walk after the customs.”

So even 25 years after the crucifixion and resurrection of Christ, there were tens of thousands of Christians in Jerusalem alone, and many more thousands, or tens of thousands, in the surrounding regions. But, as we can tell from the writings of Justin Martyr and the doctrines which are ascribed to the later Ebionite Christians of Judaea, they were Judaized Christians. James had accepted the same heresies for which Paul had criticized Peter, as he had recorded in Galatians chapter 2. Nevertheless, James was able to remain the leader of the Christians in Jerusalem until he was killed by the Edomite Sadducees in 62 AD.

So the words of Christ are true, that His sheep heard His voice, but His adversaries were never meant to understand Him because, as he said, they were not His sheep, and that is why they killed Him. The gospel of John makes that clear in many other ways besides the discourse of Christ recorded in John chapters 8 and 10. Therefore Weisman, contriving a reason for the disbelief of the adversaries of Christ other than the reason that Christ Himself had given, once again invents a lie, as he has invented lies all throughout this book. Continuing with Weisman:

Page 36

Immediately after Jesus called the Scribes and Pharisees serpents and vipers, He brings, a charge and judgment against them involving the shedding of innocent blood.

We must interject briefly before Weisman’s next example, to remind ourselves that Christ did not call the Scribes and Pharisees “serpents and vipers” in any example Weisman has so far provided. Rather, Christ called them serpents, in Matthew 23:33, but He called their parents vipers, where He told His adversaries that they were the “offspring of vipers”. That fact alone proves that He was speaking of their race, of their origin, and not merely their belief, as Weisman so wrongly insists.

Furthermore, in Weisman’s words, Christ brings a charge against them for crimes of murder. But if the charge is false, if these people cannot be justly deemed guilty of the blood of Abel, then Christ Himself is liable of the penalty, as it is prescribed in the law. So this is a serious matter.

From Deuteronomy 19: “16 If a false witness rise up against any man to testify against him that which is wrong; 17 Then both the men, between whom the controversy is, shall stand before the LORD, before the priests and the judges, which shall be in those days; 18 And the judges shall make diligent inquisition: and, behold, if the witness be a false witness, and hath testified falsely against his brother; 19 Then shall ye do unto him, as he had thought to have done unto his brother: so shalt thou put the evil away from among you.”

Now, speaking of Christ, Weisman continues:

In Matthew 23 He states:

33 You serpents; you generation of vipers, how can you escape the damnation of hell?

34 Wherefore, behold, I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes: and some of them you shall kill and crucify; and some of them shall you scourge in your synagogues, and persecute them from city to city:

35 That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom you slew between the temple and the altar.

36 Verily I say unto you. All these things shall upon come this generation.

Where Christ says that these things will come “upon you”, it is expressing the same concept where the Jews who insisted that Christ be executed proclaimed “Let His blood be upon us and our children”, who are therefore all guilty of shedding the blood of Christ.

Before we proceed with addressing Weisman, we shall note several other things about these three verses. First, the words “son of Barachias” are apparently a later interpolation, and if the Apocryphal literature is correct, the verse is actually identifying this Zacharias as the father of John the Baptist. The words “son of Barachias” do not appear in the Codex Sinaiticus here, or in any manuscript where Luke records these same words of Christ in an account of a separate incident in chapter 11 of his gospel. If they do refer to the father of John the Baptist, then where Christ said “whom you slew”, He is speaking a literal truth.

Where Christ called His adversaries serpents, He was speaking of them directly. But once again, where He called them a “generation of vipers” the Greek word γέννημα means offspring, and He is speaking in reference to their parents, calling their parents vipers. Finally, in the last clause here, where He says “All these things shall come upon this generation” the word is γενεά, which means race.

Weisman now attempts to explain our position:

Those who adhere to the Satanic Seedline concept quote verse 35 and say that this proves that these people Jesus spoke to were Cainites (descendants of Cain). They claim that here Jesus traces His enemies, the children of the serpent (the serpent race), down through the centuries to those who murdered the righteous, the prophets, back down the line to Cain, who killed Abel.

Weisman denies this, but it is absolutely true. By speaking of crimes both near and remote, by referring to the parents of these men as vipers, if those, the word γέννημα meaning offspring, then the word γενεά must be translated as race, as that is certainly the context of the statements which precede, to which it refers.

Now continuing with Weisman:

The problem with this is that Jesus never said that these people or their ancestors killed Abel. He said that the blood of Abel and others was going to come upon them. This is one of several instances in which Jesus foretold of a coming judgment upon the Israel nation. In fact, it was a judgment upon Adamic man, of which Israel was the recognized heir and responsible party.

Saying that the blood of Abel is upon them, Christ does indeed indicate that it was their ancestor who killed Abel, or they could not be held liable for his death. Again, this is the same concept as where we see the Jews, proclaim that the blood of Christ would be on them and their children when they demanded His execution. So the blood of Abel was on Cain and his children. The Adamic race was ultimately descended from Seth, who was not yet even born when Abel was killed, so the descendants of Seth can not be justly held liable for the death of Abel, by any means. The descendants of Seth do suffer on account of the sins of their father, Adam, but neither can Adam nor Seth held liable for the death of Abel.

Only Cain, and according to the Old Testament custom, the descendants of Cain, can justly be held liable for the death of Abel, as Yahweh held Cain alone responsible for that death, as we read in Genesis chapter 4, where it first refers to Yahweh God: “10 And he said, What hast thou done? the voice of thy brother's blood crieth unto me from the ground. 11 And now art thou cursed from the earth, which hath opened her mouth to receive thy brother's blood from thy hand; 12 When thou tillest the ground, it shall not henceforth yield unto thee her strength; a fugitive and a vagabond shalt thou be in the earth. 13 And Cain said unto the LORD, My punishment is greater than I can bear.” How does this transfer to Seth any culpability for the murder of Abel, Seth not yet having been born? Yet that is what Weisman insists, denying that there is a race of Cain who alone would bear the punishment.

Continuing with Weisman for another sentence:

However, most Israelites were now divorced from God and no longer under the Old Covenant and thus could not be judged as a responsible heir.

Here Weisman not only contradicted what he said in the previous sentences, but he is turning the Scriptures upside-down. This is not true. Until Christ was slain on the cross, all of the Israelites of the captivities remained bound by the law, as Paul had explained in Romans chapter 7, and in Galatians chapter 4. So when Christ spoke these words, He was not yet crucified, so they were still under the judgments of the law. Once again, Weisman lies. Now he continues to lie:

But the Israelites in Judea were still under the old order, they were the last Israelites still answerable under the terms of the Old Covenant.

These Israelites were also under the judgments of the law, but they were not keeping the Old Covenant, and they could no longer make atonement for their sins, which we shall explain. First, Yahweh Himself had announced that the Old Covenant was broken, in Zechariah chapter 11: “10 And I took my staff, even Beauty, and cut it asunder, that I might break my covenant which I had made with all the people. 11 And it was broken in that day: and so the poor of the flock that waited upon me knew that it was the word of the LORD.”

Furthermore, propitiation for sin required a sprinkling of the blood of the sacrifice on the mercy seat, according to the law in Leviticus chapter 16, and as Paul had also explained throughout Hebrews chapters 9, 10 and 11. The mercy seat was affixed to the top of the Ark of the Covenant. But none of this existed, at least in Jerusalem, after the Babylonians and especially the Edomites had looted and burned the temple in 585 BC. So during the entire second temple period, there was no remission for sin, and the Judaeans were not answering to God according to the Old Covenant, as it had already been broken. Next, Weisman lies a third time:

With the end of the old order and covenant and the establishment of the New Covenant, judgment needed to be rendered upon the Adamic race for that which it done under the old order.

Here Weisman, in a single sentence, denied the entire purpose of Christianity. This concept sounds like it was developed from reading the Talmud.

Paul of Tarsus, in Romans chapter 5, had explained that “12 For this reason, just as by one man [Adam] sin entered into the Society, and by that sin death, and in that manner death has passed to all men, on account that all have done wrong: 13 (for until the law sin was in the Society; but sin was not accounted, there not being law; 14 but death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who had not sinned resembling the transgression of Adam, who is an image of the future. 15 But should not, as was the transgression, in that manner also be the favor? Indeed if in the transgression of one many die, much greater is the favor of Yahweh, and the gift in favor, which is of the one man Yahshua Christ, in which many have great advantage. 16 And not then by one having sinned is the gift? Indeed the fact is that judgment of a single one [Christ] is for condemnation, but the favor is from many transgressions into a judgment of acquittal. 17 For if in the transgression of one, death has taken reign through that one, much more is the advantage of the favor, and the gift of justice they are receiving, in life they will reign through the one, Yahshua Christ.) 18 So then, as that one transgression [of Adam] is for all men for a sentence of condemnation, in this manner then through one decision of judgment [of Christ] for all men is for a judgment of life.”

So we see here, as well as in Romans chapter 7 and Galatians chapter 4, that Christ died to free the children of Israel, and by extension the entire race of Adam, from judgment for the sins committed in the age of the Old Testament, and the New, as the promise of mercy continues.

Essentially, Weisman is lying once again by telling us that Christ died so that we could all be held accountable for what our fathers did in the Old Testament period! That is precisely the opposite of the promise of salvation and mercy which are in Christ! Weisman’s lie betrays his own mind, that he thought just like a Jew.

Before commenting further we will read one more lie from Weisman, or even two more lies:

These Judaean Israelites were to bear the judgment for all the unlawful acts of murder committed, whether or not their direct ancestors had done them. This includes the murder of Abel by Cain because Cain was an Adamite.

So by Weisman’s logic, an entire race is wholly responsible for the crimes committed by every other member of the race. Earlier he had said that the entire Adamic race was going to face judgment for the murder of Abel. At the least, that attitude seeks to portray Yahweh God as a Marxist, and saying it Weisman surely does sound like a Jew. How were Adam or Seth responsible for the killing of Abel by Cain? Weisman is a Theological Marxist.

The truth is that the language of Christ here in Matthew chapter 23 once again proves that these men were the descendants of Cain, just like His words in John 8:44 identifies them as descendants of Cain, but Weisman purposely misread that passage so that he could obscure the truth. Christ is really saying that the entire race of Cain is going to face that judgment.

Yahweh God promised to cleanse the sins of all Israel, regardless of what they had done. For example, we read in a Messianic prophecy in Jeremiah chapter 33: “7 And I will cause the captivity of Judah and the captivity of Israel to return, and will build them, as at the first. 8 And I will cleanse them from all their iniquity, whereby they have sinned against me; and I will pardon all their iniquities, whereby they have sinned, and whereby they have transgressed against me.” And again, in another Messianic prophecy in Isaiah chapter 43: “25 I, even I, am he that blotteth out thy transgressions for mine own sake, and will not remember thy sins.” All of the apostles of Christ taught the forgiveness of the sins of the children of Israel in Him, once again, as Paul explained at length in Romans chapters 5, 6 and 7.

So Christ told His apostles that He had cleansed their sins, where we read of His having ceremonially washed their feet at the so-called Last Supper, responding to Peter in John chapter 13: “10 Jesus saith to him, He that is washed needeth not save to wash his feet, but is clean every whit: and ye are clean, but not all. 11 For he knew who should betray him; therefore said he, Ye are not all clean.” Yahweh God had promised to cleanse the sins of the children of Israel, and for the rest of the Adamic race, as Paul explained in Romans chapter 5, sin would not be imputed since they were never given the law.

But Judas was called a devil by Christ, and in John chapter 13 Christ was speaking of Judas once again where He said “Ye are not all clean.” In John chapter 15 we learn the truth of what He told Peter in John chapter 13, as He said “3 Now ye are clean through the word which I have spoken unto you.” In John chapter 17 we learn once again that the cleansing of which He spoke is through accepting the truth of Christ: “17 Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth…. 19 And for their sakes I sanctify myself, that they also might be sanctified through the truth.”

However the adversaries were never promised to be cleansed of any sin, and in fact, they could not be cleansed because they are bastards. As we read discussing the identity of those who killed the prophets in our last presentation in this series, the sins of the people of Jerusalem were attributed to the fact that while Yahweh had planted a pleasant plant, it produced strange slips, the people had committed an iniquity which could not be washed off no matter how much soap they used. There were “evil figs” in Jerusalem which were so evil they could not be eaten, and these were the Canaanite Edomites and other bastards, which were also present in Jerusalem in the time of Christ.

It is these people who shall be held responsible for the blood of Abel, because they are the literal seed of the serpent and descendants of the devil Cain, the son of the serpent who did kill Abel. This is true, and no number of lies contrived by Weisman will obscure this truth.

This leaves us near the top of page 37 of Weisman’s book, and perhaps we shall complete this chapter one day soon…