Addressing Charles Weisman’s What About the Seedline Doctrine? Part 2

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
ChrSat20200222Weisman02.mp3 — Downloaded 3786 times


Addressing Charles Weisman’s What About the Seedline Doctrine? Part 2

There were extemporaneous sections of this podcast which are not included in the notes below, but what is found here is what I was able to prepare in advance in preparation for this presentation.

Here we shall continue our discussion addressing aspects of the book: What About the Seedline Doctrine? A Biblical Examination and Explanation of the Cain-Satanic Seedline Doctrine by Charles A. Weisman. Last week we began in chapter 2, “The Basis of the Satanic Seedline Doctrine”, and we still have not located a copy of the book containing the first chapter, so we shall pick up where we left off. As I also already said, once we see some of Weisman’s arguments and methods of analysis, I am certain we shall find that he failed to answer the question in the title of his book.

But first, before we began addressing Weisman’s book, in our last segment of this presentation we had a basic discussion which I hoped would answer many of the questions which TruthVids often receives from people who are new to Christian Identity. So perhaps we may need to follow up on that and make any further clarifications before we return to addressing Weisman.

Last week we explained how Weisman lied where he had asserted that the partaking of fruit was never used in Scripture to describe the act of sexual intercourse, and we showed evidence to the contrary from the Song of Solomon, and also from the Epic of Gilgamesh which was contemporary to the time of Abraham and Moses.

We also mocked Weisman for his ridiculous contentions over the use of the Hebrew word which means touch. After that, a member of the Christogenea Forum brought up the example of the words of Abimelech recorded in Genesis chapter 26, where in the context of sexual relations he had said “He that toucheth this man or his wife shall surely be put to death.” So Weisman’s contention that the word can only apply to the touching of a man in that manner certainly has no merit whatsoever, and he should be shamed for making such an assertion.

What is more ridiculous, is where he described the parable of the trees found in Ezekiel chapter 31 and made the contention that “Because the cedar tree of Ezekiel 31 was described as having great beauty, it is next said that this tree was able to sexually seduce Eve.” While Weisman admitted that trees could be used as allegories for people and nations, he himself insisted that the cedar representing the Assyrians was the tree of Genesis chapter 3, and that insistence is ridiculous because Assyrians did not exist until Genesis chapter 10. So he was either being purposely dishonest, or he was too stupid to figure out what we actually say: that the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil was also an allegory, but for a different race of people.

This brings us to the top of Page 7 in Weisman’s book, where he proceeds to misrepresent incomplete citations of Paul’s words from his epistles.

Page 7

Here Weisman quotes 2 Corinthians 11:3 and 1 Timothy 2:14, focusing on the word beguiled, which may also mean seduced, and he says “By Paul’s interpretation of Genesis 3:13, the beguiling was a mental deception which corrupted Eve’s thinking, not a sexual seduction which corrupted her body.” Essentially, by saying this Weisman is taking his own interpretation of Genesis 3:13 and insisting that it also belonged to Paul, which is not true, and we will prove that it is not true.

So first we will read 1 Timothy 2:14: “14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.”

So now I must ask, if Eve was only deceived mentally, what was her transgression? And if Adam was not deceived mentally, what was his transgression? The only real deception going on here is Weisman deceiving his readers. In truth, there are wicked thoughts, but there are no laws punishing thoughts in Scripture. All the laws punish are wicked actions, so Eve certainly could not have committed a thought crime. Thought crimes are for Jews.

As we have already explained, Adam and Eve were punished. They were punished for sin. The word for transgression is παράβασις. Paul used the same word in Romans chapter 4 where he said “15 Because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, there is no transgression.” The apostle John, in chapter 3 of his first epistle, also explained that “4 Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.” Then again, Paul wrote in Romans chapter 5, “13 For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.” However sin was imputed to Adam and Eve, and to all of their descendants who were destroyed in the flood because they had sinned.

So where is the law for which their sins were imputed? At one time, Weisman wrote a Handbook of Biblical Law, so he has no excuse for not knowing this. Identity Christians do recognize the law of Kind after Kind as it is stated frequently in the Genesis creation account, but Moses did not write that account until long after Adam. The only law given directly to Adam was “17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.” So Adam died, and his descendants in Genesis chapter 6 died, and this is the only law they had. By that we know what it means to touch the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, which we see in Revelation chapter 12 is the race of the fallen angels. That was the sin of Genesis 6, so it must also have been a violation of that same law, since there is no other law by which they may have been punished.

Paul is explaining that Eve was deceived into transgressing, but Adam was not deceived: he made a conscious decision to accept his wife after she sinned, and to follow her in her sin. As Paul described at the end of Romans chapter 1, not only are those who transgress the capital offenses mentioned in the law worthy of death, but also those who approve of them.

Then where Weisman cited 2 Corinthians 11:3, he was also being deceptive, as he failed to mention 2 Corinthians 11:2. Here we will read them from the King James Version, where Paul is warning the Christian assembly at Corinth against becoming corrupted: “2 For I am jealous over you with godly jealousy: for I have espoused you to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ. 3 But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.”

So, if the episode in the garden did not result in a loss of virginity, why would Paul describe it as a loss of virginity? Why would he use as an allegory what had happened to Eve and describe it as a loss of virginity, if it was not a loss of virginity? Eve was defiled in a sexual act, losing her virginity. Paul did not want the assembly at Corinth, a part of the Bride of Christ, to become corrupted in that same way not literally, but metaphorically, which is the purpose of such allegories. What happened to Eve he meant literally, and used it as an allegory of the church if it were to become corrupted in that same manner, by being deceived. If Eve had not lost her virginity as a result of her own deception, Paul would not have mentioned virginity. He would have spoken of fidelity, or faithfulness, or something else.

Paul is not the only writer in Scripture to make this allegory. It is found in the Protevangelion of James, an early Christian work. It is also found in 4 Maccabees, which is an early Christian story of a brave woman and her sons from the period of the Seleucids, who withstood persecution. There, in chapter 18 of the translation in Brenton’s Septuagint, we read “7 And the righteous mother of the seven children spake also as follows to her offspring: I was a pure virgin, and went not beyond my father's house; but I took care of the built-up rib. 8 No destroyer of the desert, or ravisher of the plain, injured me; nor did the destructive, deceitful snake, make spoil of my chaste virginity; and I remained with my husband during the period of my prime.” This is how early Christians understood the allegory in Genesis chapter 3, that it represented the fact that Eve lost her virginity when she ate of the tree.

At the end of page 7 Weisman insists that “The term ‘eat’ means to consume and has no sexual connotation.” However we read in Proverbs chapter 9 that “17 Stolen waters are sweet, and bread eaten in secret is pleasant”, where it is speaking of a foolish woman sitting at the door of her house looking for men to lead astray. Likewise, we read later, in Proverbs chapter 30, “20 Such is the way of an adulterous woman; she eateth, and wipeth her mouth, and saith, I have done no wickedness.” But adultery is not the literal act of eating. There, the word eat is a metaphor, a euphemism for what an adulterous actually does, which is to engage in unlawful sexual relations, and it is not to be understood literally. So once again, Weisman, the self-professed Bible Law expert, is found to be a liar.

Page 8

Weisman says “If to eat from a tree meant to have sex, why would God tell Adam and Eve that they may freely eat (i.e., have sex) with every tree (i.e., every person) in the garden (Gen. 2:16; 3:2)? Such a proposition is totally untenable. It should be clear that the beguiling and eating have nothing to do with sex; and the trees, while used in a figurative or symbolic way, do not represent people.”

Here Weisman is also being dishonest. He makes a ridiculous claim in order to ridicule us, as if we somehow missed the portion of Scripture he is citing. God planted all of the other trees in the ground, and they were good for food. But two trees were not planted in the ground, although they were “in the midst of the garden”. Therefore these two trees are distinguished from food trees. They are the “Tree of Life” and the “Tree of the knowledge of Good and Evil”.

It should be obvious that no tree can grant life, although they may serve for food, and in that manner they help to sustain life. However the Tree of Life was not planted in the ground, like all the other trees except one. So in reference to that one other tree, what tree can have any intrinsic knowledge of good and evil? And what tree do we eat from that causes death? If we eat from a poisonous tree and die, how does that give us knowledge of good and evil?

Later we learn that Christ is the Tree of Life, and that His people are the branches. The Tree of the knowledge of Good and Evil must also represent a race, and the serpent being representative of that tree, being the same serpent of Revelation chapter 12, that tree must be the devil and the fallen angels. Jude calls them “the angels which kept not their first estate” and “trees whose fruit withereth, without fruit, twice dead, plucked up by the roots ”, where we see that they are indeed the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil as well as the fallen angels. Then they are described in Revelation chapter 12, where they are associated with “that old serpent”. These are also the so-called “sons of god”, as the King James Version has it, or the angels of Genesis chapter 6.

Touching this tree was the same as having sexual relations with the “giants” which were already in the earth, where we read in Genesis chapter 6 that “4 There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.” Some manuscripts of the Septuagint have angels instead of sons of God, and some of the Dead Sea Scrolls have sons of heaven, which I believe is the original reading, since Adam is the son of God. I argued in favor of that opinion in my 2007 paper The Problem With Genesis 6:1-4.

Further on on page 8 Weisman makes a declaration under the subtitle “Adam & Eve's Sin” and he states: “It is important to identify the actual sin of Adam and Eve, because that sin is what caused their ‘death,’ their condemnation from God, and their expulsion from Eden. The proponents of the Satanic Seedline either assert or imply that their sin was due to their having sex with Satan in the form of the serpent. We have seen that Eve’s sin involved her interaction with the tree of knowledge, not with the serpent.”

We have already answered this in relation to Weisman’s statements concerning 2 Corinthians 11:3, but here we shall repeat portions of that answer.

As the apostle John informed us, in chapter 3 of his first epistle, sin is transgression of the law. Paul of Tarsus tells us the same thing in Romans chapter 4 where he said that “where no law is, there is no transgression.” Then in Romans chapter 5, Paul said “For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.” Now here Weisman admits that Adam and Eve committed some sin. So what law did they transgress, so that sin could have been imputed to them? Sin was, as Weisman admits here, imputed to Adam and Eve, so what law did they break? There was only one law given to them directly, and that was in Genesis chapter 2 where it says “16 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: 17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.”

Now Weisman can pontificate on this all he wants, but there is a precise way to know what it means, even if one refuses to understand the idioms of Genesis chapter 3. That way is in Genesis chapter 6. Except for Noah, who was “perfect in his generations”, a word which means descent, and his family with him, all of the descendants of Adam and Eve were also held accountable for sin in an episode where they were clearly committing fornication, or race-mixing, with the fallen angels. So they were all destroyed for their sin.

But how could it have been imputed to them if there was no law? Well, there was still only one law, and that is the law of Genesis chapter 2 where Yahweh told Adam “17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.” They race-mixed with the fallen angels, and they all died, because they must have transgressed that same law, which was still the only law given to men up to that time. If the law which they transgressed was not the law given to Adam, then the law is not recorded, and Yahweh punished them without having given them a law, which makes liars of both John and Paul. But John and Paul are not liars, and the only liar here is Weisman.

Instead of considering these things, Weisman makes another ridiculous strawman argument and says “It should to be noted that eating from the same tree caused the sin of both Adam and Eve. Whatever Eve did with the tree, Adam did also. So if eating from it means Eve had sex with the serpent or Satan, one must also say Adam had sex with the serpent. If this serpent was a male, then Adam must have engaged in sodomy; and to say Adam engaged in sex with another woman is 100% speculation.”

But all of this is based on Weisman’s own speculation. All Adam had to do to have the same guilt as Eve was to accept Eve after she sinned, as we learn at the end of Romans chapter 1 where Paul stated of the sinful society of his own time that they “32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.”

But if Adam also ate from the tree of knowledge, it is less speculation to say that he had slept with some strange woman than it is to say that he slept with the serpent. That is because Eve ate of the tree, not of the serpent. Eve desired the tree, not the serpent. The serpent merely deceived her into the act. So if she “gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat” must be interpreted to mean that Adam had to eat of the tree also, then Adam may have partaken in sexual intercourse with any member of the race which the tree represents. Or he may have merely had sex with Eve in her defiled state, thereby accepting her sin and being just as guilty of committing it. Weisman insisting that Adam must have committed Sodomy betrays his own perverted mind, and once again he is exposed as a liar.

Weisman continues: “God never commanded Adam and Eve not to touch the serpent, nor to abstain from sex with the serpent, nor stay away from the serpent. God only said not to eat of a certain tree.”

Here Weisman creates another strawman argument. Genesis 3:6 says “6 And when the woman 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.” We do not insist that it was the serpent with which Eve had a sexual relation.

But if the serpent is both a serpent, allegorically, and also a member of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, then all conditions are met and all statements are true, and the serpent can have “seed” resulting from the transgression. Weisman is trying to formulate arguments that he can effectively argue against, but these arguments that he formulates do not properly represent what we believe about Genesis.

Furthermore, Genesis 3:15 says “15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed”, and if the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil represents a race of people, then the entire race has seed in common, and the entire race is of the “seed of the serpent”, so that must not be interpreted as narrowly as Weisman insists.

Weisman concluded the section on Adam & Eve’s sin by saying “The sin of Adam and Eve had to do with transgressing the law, which is what the Tree of Knowledge represented. Sinning against God’s law brings death, not sex.” But here it is Weisman alone who is conjecturing, where he claims that the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil represents the law. He never proves it, and there is no particular verse which supports that statement.

So here is another example of Weisman’s blatant dishonesty. He complains that the act of sex is not again described in Scripture as enjoying fruit, so it cannot mean that. But we have shown that such an allegory is made elsewhere, in the Song of Solomon and in the Epic of Gilgamesh. Then Weisman asserts that the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil is the law, however that is not described anywhere, so his twisted opinion is condemned by his own standards.

We can wonder why in Revelation chapter 21, at the other end of the Bible, there is a Tree of Life, and it bears twelve fruits, which evidently represent the twelve tribes of Israel. But there is no longer a Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, and if Christ wants us to keep His commandments we should expect to see one if the tree represented the law. Thus David had written in the 119th Psalm: “100 I understand more than the ancients, because I keep thy precepts. 101 I have refrained my feet from every evil way, that I might keep thy word. 102 I have not departed from thy judgments: for thou hast taught me. 103 How sweet are thy words unto my taste! yea, sweeter than honey to my mouth!” If the law were the tree of knowledge, then like David, men should have been eating from it, and would not have been commanded to keep away from it.

In Revelation 22:14 it says “14 Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.” So if the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil were really the law, as Weisman claims, and if Yahweh in the garden did indeed give Adam a law, as He did, then we would have expected Yahweh to want Adam to embrace that tree and eat from it constantly! But it was not so. The Tree of Life is an allegory for people, and therefore the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil is an allegory for people. But it is NOT the law, so Adam was told to stay away from it, because it was a race of evil people.

In Romans chapter 7 Paul said “I had not known sin, but by the law ”. But Paul did NOT say “I had not known the law, but by sin”, which is essentially how Weisman has twisted his understanding of Genesis. Paul went on in that chapter to admit that he sinned in spite of knowing the law. Therefore, to know sin is to have experienced it by having committed it. The truth of this conclusion is ascertained in 2 Corinthians 5:21 where Paul said of God in relation to Christ “21 For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.” Of course Christ did know the law, and of course He did know what sin is, but He “knew no sin” because He had not committed any sin. So to commit sin is to know it, and to know evil.

Once more I shall repeat this: In truth, if the children of Adam had transgressed the law, and the only law given at the time was not to touch the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, then we know that the tree is an allegory for the fallen angels, as that was the sin of Genesis chapter 6 for which they were punished, and according to the apostles of Christ they could not have been punished unless there was a law. There was only one law given at that time, which is the commandment to Adam not to touch the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. By that we know for sure which law they broke, and how they broke it. The account in Genesis chapter 6 establishes our interpretation of Genesis chapter 3 to be true. In turn, our interpretation of Genesis chapters 3 and 6 is upheld consistently throughout the New Testament, where there are bad trees and good trees, and bad trees cannot produce good fruit, while good trees cannot produce wicked fruit – yet all of this describes people, and not wooden trees.

Pages 9 & 10

On page 9 of his book, where Weisman begins to address the “seed of the woman” he proceeds by misrepresenting a few traditional “two-seedline” positions by oversimplifying them. There, among other things, he states:

“The ‘seed’ of the serpent mentioned in this verse is said to be Cain and his descendants. Since the ‘woman’ referred to is Eve, it is said-that the ‘seed of the woman’ are Adam’s descendants through Seth. But if Cain was the product of the serpent and Eve, then Cain is also a seed of the woman. That is, if Cain and Seth came from the same woman (Eve), both are her seed. The verse does not speak of Adam’s seed, only the woman’s, meaning anyone who came from Eve’s womb. Therefore there is no reason why Cain and his descendants cannot claim to be of Eve’s seed even if Cain was fathered by the serpent. But Genesis 3:15 speaks of two very different seeds.”

Now first, as I have also already said, I would think that the “seed of the serpent” is more than just Cain. It is the entire race of the fallen angels and all of their earthly corruptions, after the manner which we have explained in many other presentations at Christogenea. But that is a little beyond the scope of the argument here, so we will not elaborate further.

Weisman only conjectures the idea that Eve’s seed is “anyone who came from Eve’s womb”. The grounds for proper marriage are established in Genesis chapter 2, where we read “23 And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.” So in Genesis chapter 3, God did not have to mention the seed of Adam, because Eve was created wholly from Adam, and therefore her seed is Adam’s seed. Abel and Seth are therefore also Adam’s seed, and they are the woman’s seed, because their seed is all one and the same. So once again, Weisman’s argument is disingenuous, as it is based on a false premise.

Anyone who understands genetics should understand this. If Eve gave birth to a bastard, that would not be her seed, because the child has half of its 46 chromosomes from an alien father, from a race different than her own. So the seed of the child would be different than the seed of the woman by 50%. The only way the woman could have a child of her own seed is to have a husband of her own race to produce that child. So if Cain was a bastard, then his seed was really of the serpent, and it is not of Adam or the woman. Christ, where he asserted that their father was a devil, Cain who was also the first murderer, proves for us that Cain certainly was a bastard. So do his adversaries, as they knew what He meant where they said “we were not born of fornication”, but Christ answered and told them that God was not their father. They knew what He meant, but they certainly were born of fornication.

Weisman then dishonestly exploits the fact that Adamic society is patriarchal where he says “Seedlines or lineages are not called the ‘house of Sarah,’ the ‘children of Rachel,’ the ‘seed of Bathsheba’ or the ‘seed of Eve.’” First, God never said that Eve’s seed would be called after her name, although He made reference to her seed. Likewise, Yahweh God had promised Abraham in reference to his wife Sarah saying “16 And I will bless her, and give thee a son also of her: yea, I will bless her, and she shall be a mother of nations; kings of people shall be of her.” A very similar situation is found in Rebekah, in Genesis chapter 25 where we read: “23 And the LORD said unto her, Two nations are in thy womb, and two manner of people shall be separated from thy bowels; and the one people shall be stronger than the other people; and the elder shall serve the younger.”

[I missed the above reference to Sarah in the podcast, which I had wanted to include, and was wanting, so I have added it to the above paragraph.]

While in our patriarchal society the offspring are named after the men, it nevertheless matters who the mothers are. Abraham prayed for Ishmael because Yahweh rejected him, on that same basis, as we read in Genesis chapter 17: “18 And Abraham said unto God, O that Ishmael might live before thee! 19 And God said, Sarah thy wife shall bear thee a son indeed; and thou shalt call his name Isaac: and I will establish my covenant with him for an everlasting covenant, and with his seed after him.” Esau was rejected because of the the race of his wives, as we read in Genesis chapter 27 where Rebekah exclaimed “I am weary of my life because of the daughters of Heth”. In the very next verse, Isaac expresses the fact that the blessings of Abraham would be passed on to Jacob as long as he married a wife of his own people. So Paul, in Romans chapter 9, explained that the promises were transmitted through women as well as through the men, where he wrote: “8 That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed. 9 For this is the word of promise, At this time will I come, and Sara shall have a son. 10 And not only this; but when Rebecca also had conceived by one, even by our father Isaac…” So Charles Weisman was a clown, and whether he knew it or not, he was a dishonest clown.

ChrSat20200222Weisman02.odt — Downloaded 331 times