Addressing Charles Weisman’s What About the Seedline Doctrine? Part 17, The First Murderer

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

  • Christogenea Saturdays
ChrSat20200606Weisman17.mp3 — Downloaded 1592 times


Addressing Charles Weisman’s What About the Seedline Doctrine? Part 17, The First Murderer

We have tarried with Charles Weisman’s prolonged disputations revolving around John 8:44 and Matthew 23:34-35 for several of these presentations, and we are still not through all of Weisman’s arguments in relation to these passages. Some of those arguments revolve around the question of who killed the prophets in the Old Testament. In that passage from Matthew chapter 23, Yahshua Christ declared that the blood of all the prophets from Abel to Zacharias will come upon a particular race. We would assert that according to the laws of God, that race must be guilty for the crimes for which it is going to be punished, or if the charge is false, then according to the law the individual making the charge must suffer the penalty. We cannot imagine that Christ our God was making false charges or acting contrary to His law.

In the actions of men and nations, there is collective guilt, and there is individual guilt. When one nation wars against another, the men who actually do the shooting are compelled by their rulers, and generally not motivated to commit murder on their own volition. If the war were unjust, the rulers would be guilty individually, although the nation which did their bidding would share collective guilt. Therefore Peter, in Acts chapter 2 addressing men of Judaea in reference to Christ had said “23 Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain”. The wicked hands were not those of the Romans, but the Jews, those who stood in the Praetorium demanding of Pilate that He be crucified, leaving him no other alternative. But the nation as a whole shared a collective guilt for the deed as they had suffered (tolerated) wicked rulers.

In 1 Kings chapter 18 we read: “4 For it was so, when Jezebel cut off the prophets of the LORD, that Obadiah took an hundred prophets, and hid them by fifty in a cave, and fed them with bread and water.” So we see individual guilt for the murder of those prophets had been placed upon Jezebel. But then we read in a prayer of Elijah in 1 Kings chapter 19: “14… I have been very jealous for the LORD God of hosts: because the children of Israel have forsaken thy covenant, thrown down thine altars, and slain thy prophets with the sword; and I, even I only, am left; and they seek my life, to take it away.” There we have a profession of collective guilt on the children of Israel for what Jezebel was primarily guilty of as an individual.

Likewise, we pointed out that in 1 Samuel, where Saul sought to have the priests of Yahweh slain, the men of Israel would not comply. But Doeg the Edomite was happy to comply, and Doeg was also described as an informant against David, who himself was a prophet. But aside from these few instances there is little further information in regards to individual guilt in the death of the prophets, as the historical narratives are concise and do not provide the details. But where collective guilt is placed once again, in Jeremiah chapter 2, the sins of the people are related to Baal worship and race-mixing, which is evidently with the Canaanites among them, and that is corroborated in Ezekiel chapter 16. Later, in Jeremiah chapter 23, the prophets of that time are charged with having themselves been guilty of such things.

So where Christ spoke of blame for the deaths of the prophets, He placed the blame not on individual men of Judah or Israel, but on Jerusalem, where He said in Luke chapter 13: “33 Nevertheless I must walk to day, and to morrow, and the day following: for it cannot be that a prophet perish out [outside] of Jerusalem. 34 O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, which killest the prophets, and stonest them that are sent unto thee; how often would I have gathered thy children together, as a hen doth gather her brood under her wings, and ye would not!” The prophet Ezekiel explains the reasons for the sins of Jerusalem, in chapter 16: “1 Again the word of the LORD came unto me, saying, 2 Son of man, cause Jerusalem to know her abominations, 3 And say, Thus saith the Lord GOD unto Jerusalem; Thy birth and thy nativity is of the land of Canaan; thy father was an Amorite, and thy mother an Hittite.” This same cause is attributed in different terms in Jeremiah chapter 2.

So we would assert that in order to understand who was truly responsible for the deaths of the prophets, the phenomenon of race-mixing in ancient Jerusalem described prophetically in Jeremiah chapter 2 and Ezekiel chapter 16 must be understood, as well as the parable of the good and the bad figs in Jeremiah chapter 24. There were two baskets of figs set before the temple of Yahweh. These figs represented people. One had good figs which were likened to certain of the men of Judah whom Yahweh would reestablish and rebuild. But then there were bad figs which were not described as being of Judah, but a significant number of certain men of Judah would be delivered to them “to be a reproach and a proverb, a taunt and a curse” [Jeremiah 24:9]. This prophecy of Jeremiah concerns only those people of Judah who were left in Jerusalem in the days of Hezekiah, after the Assyrians had taken most of the tribe of Judah away with the captivity of Israel, as these were the remnant portion of Judah which was taken to Babylon.

Charles Weisman fails to see the “big picture”. The parable of the good and bad figs was a prophecy of what was to ultimately happen to the princes and people of Judah who were taken into Babylonian captivity, and the subsequent history of Judaea reveals the fulfillment of the prophecy. Many of the people who returned remained pure and did not mix themselves with the Canaanites and Edomites. As Christ had said, “My sheep hear my voice”. Those people became Christians, and if they did not, eventually they intermixed with the Edomites who, like them, continued to be identified as Judaeans. Many others did indeed intermarry with Canaanites and Edomites over the two centuries leading up to the ministry of Christ. As we explained at great length throughout this address of Weisman’s book, this race-mixing of Judah in Judaea was prophesied by Malachi, the historic circumstances which led to it were prophesied by Ezekiel, and it is described in the pages of Flavius Josephus and Strabo of Cappadocia, as well as in the epistles of Paul of Tarsus and in the words of Christ Himself. As Christ told them, “you believe not because you are not My sheep”.

One other thing which Weisman asserted concerns the words of Christ where He spoke to His adversaries concerning the blood of the prophets and He said “Verily I say unto you, All these things shall come upon this generation [or race].” In a portion of his argument in respect to those words Weisman said: “No mongrel or non-Israelite could ever have this judgment upon them.” This is another emotional argument which he once again had made without any supporting Scripture. The Word of God does indeed promise to judge and condemn non-Israelites and mongrels. In the Parable of the Sheep and the Goats, the goats are nations which are destined for the “everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels.” The goats are not judged and condemned for how they treat other goats, but for how they treat the sheep. Bastards being the result of fornication, or race-mixing, in Revelation chapter 2 Christ Himself says of Jezebel and of those who commit fornication with her “and I will kill her children with death”, so we clearly see that bastards are indeed judged and condemned. All of the Edomites are promised judgment in the prophesies of Obadiah and Malachi, and Paul in Hebrews chapter 12 does indeed attribute Esau’s rejection to his having committed fornication. But Charles Weisman would have one believe that a bastard is free from the judgment of God, so in his view it must be a wonderful thing, to be a bastard.

At the end of our last presentation addressing Charles Weisman’s book, where we are still in Chapter 4, we left of with the statement by Weisman on page 38 where he said “ The argument that Jesus was tracing these people back to Cain is a failure to see the big picture.” There we had asserted that it was Weisman who refused to see the “big picture”, as he himself continues denying the big picture. Doing so, he has failed to read many verses properly, and then he bases his claims denying seedline on his obviously errant reading of those verses. We also cannot forget, that Weisman had also claimed earlier in his book that Hebrew theology changed with the time of Nehemiah and Ezra, and that Christ and His apostles followed along with that change. Of course, we had also proved that to be a lie. So Weisman not only denies the “big picture” but he also denies the veracity of the later and New Testament Scriptures, just as a Jew should be expected to do.

So now, as Weisman proceeds, he continues to elaborate on at least one of the verses which he has misread, where he actually tries to defend his purposeful misreading of John 8:44. Doing that, he continues to lie about Scripture, making further claims based on unfounded premises because he offers no Scripture in order to support them. This has been a rather consistent pattern throughout his arguments against Two-Seedline. So now, after he has denied the fact that Christ had placed the liability for the blood of the prophets on the descendants of Cain, we shall proceed with Charles Weisman from where we had last left off, and Weisman shall return to John 8:44:

Page 38:

Along this same line Satanic Seedline advocates mention John 8:44. After Jesus says the scribes and Pharisees are of their father the devil, He says:

He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him.

It is said that Jesus traced the Jews back to Cain – who was supposedly a murderer from the beginning. But this verse does not mention Cain. The subject is the devil, and it is this devil or serpent which was a murderer from the beginning. The serpent is “the devil” because of its opposition to God’s order. But how was this devil or serpent the first murderer? It was this entity which brought about death to the Adamic race:

He was a murderer from the beginning. It was through him (the devil) that Adam transgressed; in consequence of which death entered into the world, and slew him and all his posterity.[Citing Adam Clarke, A Commentary on the Holy Bible, volume 3 p. 581.]

The people Jesus spoke to were followers of this devil or serpent because they too had a murderous desire within them. They exhibited this in their desire to kill Christ. Thus the devil was their father in this sense.

Weisman cannot fathom the fact that Cain may have been called a devil because he was indeed the seed of the serpent, as Judas was also called a devil by Christ even before he acted treacherously or was accused of any sin [John 6:70]. So we must determine whether Christ was making statements in fact, or whether He was just name-calling, making ad hominem accusations rather than speaking plain truth.

Here Weisman asks “But how was this devil or serpent the first murderer?” Then rather than giving us citations in Scripture to support his assertion, he instead gives us a passage from the commentary of Adam Clarke, a 19th century Methodist. But Adam Clarke had no Scripture to support it either! Checking our own copy of Adam Clarke’s commentary, which we have from Clifton Emahiser’s library, in the wider context of Clarke’s statement, he offered no substantiation for the assertion but to cite Hugo Grotius, the 17th century Dutch Calvinist. So to whom should we turn for authority? To Adam Clarke, and in turn to Hugo Grotius? Or to Scripture?

If the devil, meaning the serpent of Genesis chapter 3, was the first murderer because he caused Adam to sin, then we should find Scripture explaining how he caused Adam to sin, and both Clarke and Weisman may have done so before us. They did not, because there is no such Scripture, so someone merely made a contrivance of their own. Yet Paul of Tarsus tells us the contrary, where he wrote in 1 Timothy chapter 2: “13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve. 14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.” If the devil was a murderer for somehow causing Adam to sin, then why is the guilt for Adam’s sin placed upon Adam?

Again, in the Wisdom of Solomon we read “through envy of the devil came death into the world”. That envy is described in Genesis chapter 3, where Eve “saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.” While Eve had been deceived to commit this indiscretion, Adam was not deceived. Where it says “and he did eat”, he made a conscious decision under his own volition to partake in his wife’s sin, rather than punish her for it, and therefore only Adam can be held accountable for Adam’s sin, and not the devil.

Then, in Genesis chapter 3 where the Adam is called to account for his sin, he tried to place the blame for his sin on his wife, but not on the serpent. So where the punishment of Adam is pronounced, the Word of Yahweh said that “Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree…” so hearkening to his wife was the reason for his being punished. Yahweh did not state that Adam was being punished because he followed the serpent, or that the serpent had caused Adam to sin.

Paul upholds this again in Romans chapter 5 where he says: “12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned… 14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression…” Adam is the one man through whom sin entered into the world, as he made that conscious decision to join in transgression of his deceived wife. Once this is understood, it must be admitted that the devil was not the “murderer from the beginning” referred to by Christ in John 8:44.

Paul explained once again that Adam was responsible for his own sin, in 1 Corinthians chapter 15 where he said “ 22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.” Note that Paul did not say “For as in the devil all die...”, which is what Weisman is claiming, and what Adam Clarke had claimed, but neither man could support the claim with even one citation from Scripture. Cain was the first murderer recorded in Scripture, Cain was the first murderer connected to Adam, Eve, and the Genesis account, which is an account of the beginning, and therefore only Cain could possibly be the “murderer from the beginning” described by Christ in John 8:44. Once again, Charles Weisman is found to be lying.

Page 39

Satanic Seedline proponents often use the term “Cainites” to refer to those who are descendants of Cain. The term does have scriptural merit, since Cain did have a lineage and descendants, as are mentioned in Genesis 4, to the sixth generation.

A problem with the use of the term Cainite is that it is often misconstrued with the term Canaanites, a name which is derived from Canaan, not Cain. There is no evidence that Cain’s descendants intermixed with the Canaanites.

It thus is not sound to use the terms interchangeably. The term “Cainites” is also used to refer to the Jews, both of Christ’s time and today. The use of that term in reference to the Jews of Christ’s time is completely inaccurate since those “Jews” were actually Israelites. The term “Jew” is just a mistranslation for “Judean.”

Here Weisman makes some valid points, as Kenite, where the term is used in reference to a tribe, is sometimes spelled Cainite, and that in turn is often confused with the term Canaanite by novices in Christian Identity circles. However we go to great pains to explain the differences between these terms, and our endeavor is not to confuse them.

However where Weisman claims “There is no evidence that Cain’s descendants intermixed with the Canaanites” that is simply not true, although the evidence in the Old Testament is circumstantial. First, we believe that in Genesis chapter 6 the phrase “sons of God” as it appears in the Masoretic Text should probably read “sons of heaven”, as it does in the Enoch literature found among the Dead Sea Scrolls. In that same place certain scopies of the Codex Alexandrinus have angels. We have already discussed this at length earlier in this series of presentations where Weisman had addressed Genesis 6, and shall not repeat it all here. There is a paper at Christogenea titled The Problem With Genesis 6:1-4 which discusses it at length. If the imagined angels of Genesis chapter 6 are fallen angels, which we believe they must have been, then we see evidence of their proclivity to mix with other races, including the Adamic race.

Later, the Canaanites, who were cursed for another reason, shared that same proclivity. This is evident in many places in the Old Testament, and first in Genesis chapter 34, where we see the words of Hamor of Shechem, who was a Canaanite, to the men of Israel concerning their sister, Dinah: “8 And Hamor communed with them, saying, The soul of my son Shechem longeth for your daughter: I pray you give her him to wife. 9 And make ye marriages with us, and give your daughters unto us, and take our daughters unto you. 10 And ye shall dwell with us: and the land shall be before you; dwell and trade ye therein, and get you possessions therein.”

So we see that intermarriage, which was often race-mixing, was how peace was maintained between the different tribes dwelling in the same land, and in Exodus chapter 34 we see that it must have been a common phenomenon because the children of Israel were warned against it, so it must have been a custom of the Canaanites: “14 For thou shalt worship no other god: for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God: 15 Lest thou make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land, and they go a whoring after their gods, and do sacrifice unto their gods, and one call thee, and thou eat of his sacrifice; 16 And thou take of their daughters unto thy sons, and their daughters go a whoring after their gods, and make thy sons go a whoring after their gods.” Never do we read that the Canaanites resisted race-mixing, as the Israelites had been commanded to do.

This phenomenon of race-mixing as an element of Canaanite paganism is evident once again, in retrospect, in Hosea chapter 5. There Ephraim, which stands for the northern kingdom of Israel, is chastised for whoredoms in following after idolatry and we read “7 They have dealt treacherously against the LORD: for they have begotten strange children: now shall a month devour them with their portions.” The pagan Baal rituals were fertility rituals in which sexual acts of fornication were routine. These were the customs of the Canaanites.

So in Genesis chapter 15 we see a description of the people of Canaan, and the following tribes were mentioned: “19 The Kenites, and the Kenizzites, and the Kadmonites, 20 And the Hittites, and the Perizzites, and the Rephaims, 21 And the Amorites, and the Canaanites, and the Girgashites, and the Jebusites.” Some of these are divisions of the Canaanites, and others may be identified with the fallen angels, namely the Kenites and the Rephaim. But others have no earlier mention in Scripture, and are likely to have been of some unidentified race or origin. Supporting that is another passage referring to people across the Jordan east of Canaan, found in Genesis chapter 14. There we see mentioned “the Rephaims in Ashteroth Karnaim, and the Zuzims in Ham, and the Emims in Shaveh Kiriathaim”. This Ham is a reference to a portion of what is now called Arabia, and may have included part of Mesopotamia, which was occupied by Canaanite and other Hamitic tribes, notably Cush. The empire of Nimrod, a grandson of Ham and son of Cush, began in lower Mesopotamia and grew into Arabia to border Egypt. The Canaanites are also descendants of Ham, in spite of their having been cursed. The Rephaim and Emim in that passage are both connected to the Nephilim, the fallen angels, and both are reckoned among the so-called giants. But zuzim means roving creatures, so unless they are also called Zamzummims, a group of the giants which are later mentioned in Deuteronomy chapter 2, then they are also of some unidentifiable race and they apparently did not even have a proper name, so they were called roving creatures.

All of these presumed people were dwelling in the same land of Canaan, all of them trading and interacting over many centuries, and in light of the Canaanite customs of intermarrying with their neighbors which is evident in Genesis and elsewhere, there is sufficient circumstantial evidence in support of our assertion that the Canaanites certainly did mingle themselves with the Kenites and the Rephaim. In fact, many Canaanite cities even had Rephaim for their kings, which is fully evident in the Biblical accounts of the Amorites and kings such as Og of Bashan. Various tribes of giants are mentioned along with the Canaanites throughout Numbers, Deuteronomy and Joshua, describing the conquest of Canaan, and the Kenites were present as well.

But over the four hundred and thirty year period from the call of Abraham to the giving of the law at Sinai, and the additional decades down to the crossing of Joshua into Canaan, the list of tribes in the land had somewhat changed. So in the accounts of the conquest of Canaan some of the tribes listed in Genesis 15 are no longer mentioned explicitly. Others are not always listed, but they remain present and are mention in other contexts. By the time of David, many of the Rephaim had been killed, but some remained as mercenaries among the Philistines, and Goliath was an example. All throughout that time it is evident that they also were mixing their seed with the seed of Canaan. Giants were also mentioned in the literature of Mesopotamia such as the Sumerian Epic of Gilgamesh, and were not confined to Palestine and the biblical narrative, so we cannot imagine that they were ever all exterminated. In that literature we also find them mixing themselves with the women of other tribes.

In any event, an honest investigation of Scripture refutes Charles Weisman where he had claimed that “There is no evidence that Cain’s descendants intermixed with the Canaanites.” But Weisman made a further claim and said “The use of that term in reference to the Jews of Christ’s time is completely inaccurate since those ‘Jews’ were actually Israelites. The term ‘Jew’ is just a mistranslation for ‘Judean.’”

We would agree that the word Jew comes from Judaean, in spite of the fact that Jews want us to believe that the term comes from Judah. The term Judaea did come from Judah, but Judah designates a particular tribe, while in the first century Judaea was a name for a geographical entity which included people of many tribes, and became a Roman province. We have established beyond doubt from Josephus, Strabo, Ezekiel, Malachi and Paul of Tarsus that among the inhabitants of Judaea were Edomites, Canaanites and others who were all under compulsion to convert to Judaism from the time of John Hyrcanus, from 129 BC, and that policy continued down to the time of Herod, the Edomite who became king of Judaea.

Once again we will repeat the fact that in the Gospel of John, Yahshua Christ had told His adversaries that “ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you”, as it is recorded in John chapter 10. He did not say “ye are not of my sheep, because ye believe not.” Rather, He said “ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep”. The only place it is recorded that he explained any such thing at an earlier time, “as I said unto you”, is in John chapter 8. That alone proves our interpretation of John chapter 8 is the correct one, and it is supported by all of the documentation we have referred to here, which we have already fully elucidated earlier in this series. Weisman’s claim that “those ‘Jews’ were actually Israelites” is also refuted in many other Scriptures. As we have also often explained, Paul of Tarsus, in Romans 9, had prayed for his “kinsmen according to the flesh” because “they are not all Israel, which are of Israel” and Christ warned in Revelation chapter 2 that “I know the blasphemy of them which say they are Jews [properly Judaeans], and are not, but are the synagogue of Satan.” So if there are people in Judaea who are not Israelites, and if the priests and rulers are not the sheep, where His very purpose was for the “lost sheep of the House of Israel”, then how can Weisman insist they were all Israelites? Especially when it is so clear in history and Scripture that they were all not of Israel.

Christ did not call His people “sheep” because they were following Him. The “lost sheep” for whom He had come were not following Him, but they were still His sheep. They had been in a state of apostasy for many centuries, and they were still His sheep. The “other sheep I have, which are not of this fold” whom he mentioned in John chapter 10 had not yet heard Him, but they were still His sheep. Yet these men were not His sheep in the first place, so they could not have been of Israel.

Speaking of antichrists, the apostle John said in chapter two of his first epistle “19 They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us.” Paul, in Romans 9, explained that same thing, where he compared Jacob and Esau and called the Edomites “vessels of destruction” as opposed to the Israelite “vessels of mercy”. Charles Weisman is clearly a vessel of destruction, endeavoring to obscure forever these basic truths of Scripture.

This leaves us near the bottom of Page 39 of Weisman’s book.


ChrSat20200606Weisman17.odt — Downloaded 24 times