Addressing Charles Weisman’s What About the Seedline Doctrine? Part 21: Weisman’s Smear Tactics

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
ChrSat20200704Weisman21.mp3 — Downloaded 3486 times


Addressing Charles Weisman’s What About the Seedline Doctrine? Part 21: Weisman’s Smear Tactics

Earlier in our review of his book, discussing his comments on page 23, we showed how statements by Weisman revealed that he himself did not believe that either Christ or His apostles had represented truth, as well as some of the later prophets, such as Zechariah. That was where he said that “The concept of a second god which caused evil in the world was primarily formed during the Exile (585-515 B.C.), being the result of Babylonian and Zoroastrian influence.” His statements in support of that claim ignored references to Satan, demons and devils which are found throughout the Old Testament, and then claimed that such passages in the New Testament are mistranslated or misinterpreted. Then further claiming that the serpent was “nullified by Christ”, he denied many statements of the apostles and of Christ Himself in His Revelation. So it became apparent that Weisman is not even a Christian.

Now here in this chapter, Weisman corroborated that conclusion once again, where he compared the labeling of certain people as serpents, devils and vipers in the New Testament to examples of the often unrighteous demonization of men throughout history, and said that “Since the Jews have long been the self-sworn enemy of Christendom, they have been portrayed by many Christians throughout history as being of a devilish origin. It is a small step, then, to make them out to be the literal descendants of the devil or satan.” Doing that, Weisman unabashedly demoted Yahshua Christ to the level of a common slanderer, rather than recognizing that God Incarnate was bringing the light of Truth to men. So once again, Weisman proved to us that he is no Christian.

Now, in this 5th chapter of his book What About the Seedline Doctrine?, which is titled Sources of Satanic Seedline Beliefs, Weisman continues to slander us, since he attempts to associate our doctrine with the various manifestations of mysticism which have been found throughout history. We hope to have already proven that it is Weisman himself who believes in such mysticism. We believe inheritance comes through the natural order which Yahweh God had created, and not through the twisted philosophical or gnostic concepts of men. So to us, seed is offspring, a father is an ancestor, and brethren are kindred of the same race. We are pragmatic, in that we believe in the reality of God’s creation and not in the philosophies of men which attempt to distort His creation. To Weisman, all of these terms have some other significance, which defies their original use in Scripture.

So now, as we proceed with his book on page 44, Weisman accuses us of following Gnostics:

Page 44:


Gnosticism is a system of belief combining ideas derived from Greek philosophy, Oriental mysticism, and heretical Christianity. It stresses salvation through gnosis – an intuitive knowledge in spiritual matters. Christian Gnosticism was an attempt to separate Christianity from its past by infusing some of its concepts with pagan wisdom.

This is true on the surface, however we would rather say Oriental Judaism rather than Oriental mysticism, although Jews have no organic part with Scripture, even if they have preserved a form of it and and have claimed its heritage for themselves, while they have also been the chief purveyors of so-called Oriental mysticism throughout modern history. Weisman continues:

In The Other Bible, which is a collection of ancient esoteric texts, we find under the section “Diverse Gnostic Texts,” writings from gnostic groups called Cainites, Sethians and Ophites. Some of their ancient pagan wisdom included beliefs about Cain’s demonic origin and devils mating with humans:

But this is dishonest, as Pagans would not know anything about Cain but for the fact that the information came from the Jews. Why would pagans have read or had any care for Scripture, to use paradigms from Scripture? So Gnosticism was not paganism, but rather, it was a form of Judaism.

Now Weisman offers a citation from this book, the so-called Other Bible:

There also broke out another heresy, called that of the Cainites. For they glorify Cain, as if conceived by some potent power which operated him. [The Other Bible, p. 652, quoting Tertullian, Adv. Omn. Haer, 2.]

So Weisman insinuates that we glorify Cain by speaking the truth about the events of Genesis chapters 3 and 4, but in truth, we only seek to prove how it is true where Yahshua Christ said to His adversaries that their father was a devil and also the first murderer. Describing Cain’s descendants in that manner, we seek to clarify what Christ Himself had said. But to Weisman, Christ was a mere slanderer rather than a bearer of truth, and did not really mean what He said. Now Weisman continues citing his source:

Page 45:

Ialdabaoth [a deity] created woman, Eve. Angels seduced her and generated sons from her.

The others [angels] came and admired her beauty and called her Eve; they desired her and from her generated sons who are called angels. Eve sinned when she committed adultery with angels. [The Other Bible, edited by Willis Barnstone, Harper & Row, San Francisco, 1984, pp. 659, 662.]

An early Church father, Irenaeus, in his treatise Against Heresies, also spoke of the gnostic doctrines of the Ophites and Sethians. He shows how they believed that angelic “powers” came to Eve “admiring her beauty, and falling in love with her, begat sons by her .” [The Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. I, p. 356, Eerdmans Publishing Co., Grand Rapids.]

First, I have also often made the assertion that Gnosticism was Jewish, and that Philo Judaeaus, who was a Judaean writer in Alexandria, was the first notable Gnostic. Even if he is not recognized as a Gnostic by modern academics, he was a Gnostic at least in the sense that while he was writing in Alexandria, the apparent birthplace of Gnosticism, his purpose was also an attempt to reconcile, or combine, the Hebrew Scriptures with Greek philosophy and non-Scriptural aspects of Judaism. So I often label Philo a “proto-Gnostic”.

Now we shall not do a full survey of Gnosticism to address Weisman’s charges, however the Gnostics bore many strange tales which they contrived in an effort to pervert the Word of God into Jewish sexual fantasies and corruption of all truth. Their overt purpose seems to have been a desire to subvert Christianity and direct it more towards Judaism and vain philosophy. They devised false gospels and false apocalypses to assist that cause. But the Gnostics did not even believe that the Supreme Being, or the Heavenly Father of the Christians, and the God of Creation were one and the same, and many esteemed the God of Creation to have been an evil entity contrary to the Supreme Being. This aspect of Gnosticsm evidently came through Platonism. They also frequently, but not always, rejected Christ as God, and even denied His death and resurrection. More significantly, many Gnostics believe Christ was a man who became god through gnosis, or knowledge, which is also the bases for humanism.

However it should be clear, that none of these fabulous embellishments of the Gnostics which Weisman has illustrated here have been repeated by traditional Two-Seedline Identity Christians. This is certainly not representative of anything we profess at Christogenea. Weisman is projecting the beliefs of these early Jews onto us, where it is clear that the early Jews had only corrupted the truth of Scripture which corruptions we do not profess. Now he continues by comparing us to Masons, but it is really only another variation of these Gnostic fables:

Page 45:


These same ideas of the Satanic Seedline doctrine are also found in Masonic teachings. In his notorious Masonic book, Morals & Dogma, Albert Pike writes the following:

[T]he image of Ialdabaoth, reflected upon matter, became the Serpent-Spirit, Satan, the Evil Intelligence. Eve, created by Ialdabaoth, had by his Sons children that were angels like themselves. [Albert Pike, Morals and Dogma, 1871, 1927 edition, p. 563.]

This Ialdabaoth was a Gnostic equivalent to the Demiurge of Plato, the evil creator of the physical world, as the Gnostics considered him. While Gnostic material was basically lost in the early centuries of the Christian era, much of it has been rediscovered by archaeologists at Nag Hammadi, where a trove of ancient Gnostic documents was found in 1945. However that would not have been known to Albert Pike. But Ialdabaoth and many of the Gnostic teachings were described and addressed by early Church writers. Ialdabaoth was mentioned often by Irenaeus in his treatise Against Heresies, by Tertullian in his Against All Heresies, by Origen in Against Celsus, and by Hippolytus in his book The Refutation of All Heresies.

However once again we see here something which is actually quite different than what we profess of Two-Seedline, of the Creation of God, or of Genesis chapter 3 and the nature of the nephilim, giants, serpents, demons and satyrs. None of these so-called teachings of the Gnostics resemble anything that we hold from our Scriptures. Now Weisman cites another Freemason, who lived much more recently:

It is obvious from these statements that certain Masons have picked up on Jewish and Gnostic teachings and beliefs concerning Eve and Satan. Another well known Mason, Manly P. Hall similarly states:

In Chapter 4:1 of Genesis, Eve says: “I have gotten a man from the LORD.” … This indicates that Cain was not the child of Adam, but of the archangel Samael, the old serpent. The rabbins … insist that Cain was the son of Samael, and Abel the son of Adam… two orders of human beings are therefore reported. [Manly P. Hall, Old Testament Wisdom, p. 120.]

Here Weisman tells a half-truth. Not all of the Talmudic literature insists that Cain was the son of Sammael. That comes from one targum, pseudo-Jonathan, and some references throughout the Talmud. But other targums do not have that understanding, and did not interpolate it into their text.

Manly P. Hall was a Freemason, no doubt, and wrote many books on occult subjects, Freemasonry and other related topics, the most famous of them being The Secret Teaching of All Ages. However here Hall was not following an occult source. Rather, he is citing the Targum Jonathan, or pseudo-Jonathan, of which the date of authorship is arguable, but it is accepted to have originated in Palestine. However the targum, which is an interpretation of Hebrew Scripture in another language, did not originate in the Talmud or with the rabbis who wrote the Talmud.

So here where Weisman had cited Hall he omits the fact that Manly P. Hall was citing an Aramaic Targum, and not any Gnostic literature, and by that he creates a lie. Furthermore, it cannot be claimed that the writer of the Targum was a Gnostic, or was himself passing on things from Gnostic sources, since he did not include any of the significantly Gnostic teachings in his Targum. Instead, the angel Sammael was a subject of Enoch literature, and the Enoch literature is not Gnostic either, having been found among the Dead Sea Scrolls.

The Targum can only be understood to have been an early Medieval interpretation of Scripture which seems to agree with the Two-Seedline contention that Genesis 4:1 is corrupt, and that therefore this one medieval interpreter sought to correct it by adding understanding which was gained elsewhere. But we do not rely on this Targum to support our Two-Seedline doctrine, even if Clifton Emahiser had pointed it out in the past. Additionally, this Targum Jonathan, or pseudo-Jonathan as it is doubted by some scholars that this portion actually belonged to the writer of other Targums known by that name, also makes elaborations of Genesis chapter 3 which are evidently based, at least in part, on certain writings attributed to Enoch, and we do not make those same elaborations. Neither are they required to prove our doctrine.

Now where Weisman continues and cites Nesta Webster in order to connect our profession of Two-Seedline to the Rosicrucians, we will catch him in yet another lie:

Page 46:

Nesta Webster supports this in speaking of the Rosicrucians, an age-old Masonic group involved in secret teachings entrusted to a few:

In a book by the leader of this group we find it solemnly stated that according to Max Heindl, Eve cohabited with serpents in the garden of Eden, that Cain was the offspring of her union with “the Lucifer Samael,” and that from this “divine progenitor” the most virile portion of the human race descended, the rest being merely the “progeny of human parents .” [Nesta H. Webster, Secret Societies and Subversive Movements, p. 317.]

Here in Nesta Webster we see the Gnostic view of Cain combined with the mention of Samael as his father, which is found in the Targum Jonathan. The Gnostic view is clear where it speaks here of the “most virile portion of the human race” as having come from Cain, and where earlier in the chapter Weisman wrote of the Gnostics who “glorify Cain, as if conceived by some potent power which operated him.” Therefore it also becomes evident that Webster’s source seems to have been a Jew with access to the Targums and what was known of Gnosticism before the Nag Hammadi manuscripts were discovered. But Max Heindel, who was born Carl Louis von Grasshoff and who was evidently not a Jew, was a contemporary of Webster, he was a Christian so-called occultist and mystic, and he was a Rosicrucian initiate. In turn, the Rosicrucians were founded in the 17th century upon manifestos which “clearly combine references to Kabbalah, Hermeticism, alchemy, and Christian mysticism” [according to Pierre Martin in Lodges, Orders and the Rosicross: Rosicrucianism in Lodges, Orders and Initiating Societies since the early 16th century.]

When Webster wrote this citing Heindel, she was discussing Rosicrucians. However Weisman neglected to include an important statement which immediately followed this one, which we will supply, as Webster proceeded and said:

Readers of the present work will recognize this as not the legend of Masonry but of the Jewish Cabala which has been already quoted in this context. Whether this also forms part of Steiner's teaching it is impossible to say, since his real doctrines are known only to his inner circle; even some of his admirers amongst the Steiner Matutina [a Spanish word which means morning, perhaps Webster meant his earliest admirers], whilst consulting him as an oracle, are not admitted to the secrets of his grades of initiation and have been unable to succeed in obtaining from him a charter. Meanwhile they themselves do not disclose to the neophytes whom they seek to win over that they are members of any secret association. This is quite in accordance with the methods of Weishaupt's “Insinuating Brothers.”

So Webster believed and asserted that the Rosicrucian teachings come from the Kabbalah, and in our own survey of The Jews in Medieval Europe we made the conclusion that the teachings of Freemasonry also come from the Kabbalah. We did not really have to mention Rosicrucians, since the links between Freemasons and Rosicrucians are well known. The Steiner which she mentions here is Rudolf Steiner, another supposedly Christian mystic and founder of a Masonic lodge with Rosicrucian influences.

So Weisman created a lie where he did not publish the entire statement of Webster’s, as it is all relative to his claims, and where he comes to a contrary conclusion as that which Webster had made in the portion which he omitted, where he said:

It is clear that the Masons and Rosicrucians obtained their teaching of Satanic Seedling [sic] from Gnostic teachings, since we find the same words and concepts employed in Gnostic beliefs.

Here wherever Weisman attributes this belief to these secret societies, he skips over the Kabbalah, as if to absolve Jews and blame ancient “Gnostics” instead. He does however mention Kabbalah later. These groups did not receive this information from Gnostics, but rather, from Jewish Kabbalah which was an intermediary from the Jewish Gnostics. So he could have skipped all of these other intermediary witnesses, as they are only a continuum between Gnostics and the Kabbalah, but the entire continuum was carried by Jews, in spite of the many Christians who adopted it as their own.

Now as Weisman proceeds, he repeats another false claim:

In fact, some say the origins of Masonry are derived from Gnosticism:

The seven founders of Freemasonry were all Gnostics… Gnosticism, as the mother of Freemasonry, has imposed its mark in the very centre of the chief symbol of this association… It is Gnosticism which is the real meaning of the G in the flamboyant star. [Lady Queenborough, Occult Theocracy, p. 34.]

This Lady Queenborough, or Edith Starr Miller, came from a prominent Yankee family and married a British nobleman. She also became active in British fascist organizations until her early death, in 1933 at the age of 45. She was evidently an associate of L. (Leslie) Fry, who wrote under the name of Paquita Deshishmaref and is best known for her anti-Antichrist book, Waters Flowing Eastward. This book, Occult Theocracy, was written with Fry, but was not published until after Lady Queenborough had died.

But as we exhibited in our presentation on The Jews in Medieval Europe, Freemasons did not begin as stonemasons but as Speculative Masons, who began to appear in England after John Dee introduced the Kabbalah into the court of Queen Elizabeth I and popularized it among British alchemists and other mystics. The alchemists of Europe had also already adopted the Jewish mysticism of the Kabbalah, from where John Dee had obtained it. Freemasonry was the result, and it was not much different than Rosicrucianism on the Continent. Properly, there were no Gnostics after Rome accepted Christianity, as they were denounced as heretics. But there were Jews and Neoplatonists, and they were the creators of both Gnosticism and the Kabbalah, as well as the link between them. They used the Kabbalah for the seeds which planted their ideas and agendas among Christians, which resulted in both Rosicrucianism and Freemasonry. So to blame medieval Gnostics for Freemasonry is to conceal the fact that Jewish influence on European scientific inquiry through promotion of the Kabbalah had been the real start of Freemasonry.

Now Weisman brings up another Freemason and charlatan:

Albert Pike in his book Morals and Dogma, often compares Gnostic mysteries, theories, ideas, and view [views] of God, with Masonic teaching. [See the index digest of Morals and Dogma, p. 65.]

But Pike was not much different than these other so-called Christian mystics, as he also was only a follower of the Jews and their Kabbalah. Pike himself had said in Morals and Dogma that “Kabbalah is the key of the occult sciences.” But none of what Weisman says here has any bearing on Two-Seedline as we elucidate it. Now he continues with more relevant, but nevertheless incorrect claims:

Page 46:


The Talmud is a collection of Jewish tradition on matters of civil and religious law and religious doctrine. It sprung from two schools of thought, one from Babylon and the other in Palestine. The oral traditions of the Talmud were written down by 500 A.D. Among these traditions we find the basic concept of the Satanic Seedline doctrine, as stated in the book Yebamoth:

Rabbi Johanan stated: When the serpent copulated with Eve, he infused her with lust. [The Babylonian Talmud, Yebamoth 103b, Translated by Rev. Dr. Israel W. Slotki, The Soncino Press, London, 1936, p. 711.]

Of course, the Genesis account says that first, Eve had desired the “tree”. The Talmud is also a corruption of the Truth, but that does not change what is truth. According to Weisman’s theory here, if anything interpreted from the Bible is found in any of these heretical philosophies or writings which he cites, then the interpretation of Scripture is invalid. That is a faulty methodology because it assumes that everything found in these heretical philosophies is wrong, but it can also be used to discredit many otherwise valid Biblical teachings. Continuing with citations from the Talmud, we advance to:

Page 47:

A similar statement is also made in the Talmudic book Shabbath 146a.

So why did Weisman not cite this “similar statement”? We will cite a larger portion of it, from Tractate Shabbath, Folio 146a: “… the serpent came upon Eve he injected a lust into her: [as for] the Israelites who stood at Mount Sinai, their lustfulness departed; the idolaters, who did not stand at Mount Sinai, their lustfulness did not depart.”

So we see a ridiculous analogy is being made by a Talmudic rabbi which does not resemble anything taught by any Two-Seedline Identity Christian, or by Scripture itself. Of course, historically the ancient Israelites continued to have problems with lust long after Sinai, so the rabbi is just another jewish fool. But while Weisman is a continual liar, every liar tells the truth at least in part, so Weisman is correct where he says:

The Talmud, of course, is well known for its topics of sexual perversion and debauchery, and how it condones acts of sodomy, bestiality, adultery, pedophilia, and rape.

But of course, this still does not discredit our interpretation of Genesis chapter 3. Oddly, Weisman understands that the authors of the Talmud were wicked, and also understands that they were Jews. But he insisted earlier, in chapter 4, that the Jews who opposed Christ were all pure Israelites. Yet throughout the Old Testament it is Canaanites who condoned and engaged in “acts of sodomy, bestiality, adultery, pedophilia, and rape.” Why does Weisman deny that the Jews were actually Canaanites, through Esau? Nevertheless, we will continue with Weisman:

Talmudic concepts come from the Jewish sages or rabbis, and from their rabbinical writings. In this body of writings we find the origins of the Satanic Seedline doctrine. For instance, in the Jewish Encyclopedia, under the subheading, “Eve – In Rabbinical Literature,” it states:

Cain’s real father was not Adam, but one of the demons. Seth was Eve’s first child by Adam. [The Jewish Encyclopedia, vol. 5, Funk & Wagnalls Co., N.Y., 1904, 1916, p. 275.]

Speaking on the subject of “Satan” as taught in Rabbinical teachings, the Jewish Encyclopedia states:

Satan… was the father of Cain. [The Jewish Encyclopedia, vol. 11, 1905, 1916, p. 70.]

Again, Weisman insists that Jews are always wrong. But the Talmud was not written, by all historical accounts, until at least the 3rd century AD, and much of it not until the 6th century AD. So was it the origin of these concepts?

The apocryphal Protoevangelium of James is esteemed by scholars to have been written in the middle of the 2nd century, long before most of the Talmud. In that work, Joseph of Nazareth, finding Mary already pregnant by the Holy Spirit when he had not yet consummated his marriage to her, is depicted as having exclaimed “Is the history of Adam repeated in me?” That shows that the author of the work believed that Eve’s first child was from someone other than Adam.

Furthermore, the apocryphal 4th Book of Maccabees is esteemed to have been written in the first two centuries of the Christian era, and before 130 AD. It was known to Eusebius and Jerome. So it clearly preceded the Talmud. In that work, we find a righteous woman described as having exclaimed that “I was a pure virgin, and went not beyond my father's house; but I took care of the built-up rib. 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.” So making such an allegory the author of 4 Maccabees clearly understood the Genesis chapter 3 seduction of Eve to be a sexual seduction, just as Paul of Tarsus understood it, which we also explained at length earlier in this series of presentations.

So if these two writings profess a sexual seduction of Eve, each of which are older than the Talmud, then Charles Weisman is clearly lying about the origin of Two-Seedline, or “Serpent Seedline” doctrine. In truth, the Bible itself is the origin of the doctrine, and the ancient Jews, who understood Hebrew idioms better than Weisman, had also understood it.

Weisman continues with his citations from the Talmud:

In the Midrash, which is a rabbinical exposition of the Pentateuch, we find the following statement:

The Mother of all living means, the mother of all life. For Rabbi Simon said: ‘Throughout the entire one hundred and thirty years during which Adam held aloof from Eve the male demons were made ardent by her and she bore, while the female demons were inflamed by Adam and they bore. [Midrash Rabbah, vol. 1 (Bereshith, XX, 11), Translated by Rabbi Dr. H. Freedman and Maurice Simon, Soncino Press, London, 1939 p. 170.]

Now this is another ridiculous Jewish perversion of truth, but once again, it is not anything similar to what we believe. The Jews had to understand what Genesis 3 was really saying, as early Christians understood it, yet they evidently only sought to corrupt and confound it.

Page 48:

The principle behind the Midrash is to find a new meaning in Scripture, one not intended by the writers of Scripture. It thus asserts a new meaning for Eve being “the mother of all living” (Gen. 3:20). That meaning is that she had sexual encounters with demons during the 130 years before Seth was born (Gen. 5:3).

Of course it is not true that Adam and Eve had sexual relations with o demons for 130 years, as Eve was told as a condition to her punishment that her desire would be for her husband, and that she would be subject to him. We believe that Eve is the “mother of all living” only because she is the mother of all those who were in the image of Adam, the first man with the spirit of God. Here Weisman admits that the Jews merely perverted truth, but in reference to Eve’s seduction he asserts that they were devising something entirely original, which is not true. They were also merely corrupting the truth in relation to that.

Now Weisman ends almost where he should have started, as many of these other philosophies he mentioned were only belaboring what is found in the Kabbalah:


The Cabala (also spelled Kabbalah) is the esoteric mystic lore of Judaism based upon an occult interpretation of the Bible. It has been handed down as secret doctrine to the initiated. Its origin, however, is obscure. [An Encyclopedia of Religion, edited by Vergilius Ferm, Philosophical Library, N.Y., 1945, p. 412.]

The birthplace of the Cabala was Palestine, but it was in Babylonia, during the Middle Ages (550-1000 A.D.), that it experienced its first substantial systematic development. Its occult religious philosophy was developed by certain Jewish rabbis over the centuries.

While we do not doubt a Jewish origin of the Kabbalah, it seems to have actually originated in Spain in the 12th century, and the Zohar, a significant part of the Kabbalah, was first published in the 13th. I have not yet seen anything authoritative which proves it to be older, although it certainly does incorporate many facets of older systems, Neoplatonism, Jewish Gnosticism, and older philosophies and mysticism. It claims for itself a more ancient origin, and Jews typically claim for it a more ancient origin, but those claims cannot be established. Interestingly, Weisman accepts the Jewish claims that Kabbalah very ancient and is an “interpretation of the Bible”, but that is certainly not true. Now he introduces another citation from Nesta Webster:

Since the Cabala is based on a mystical and pagan interpretation of the Scriptures, it provides rabbis the means to convey their perverted viewpoints contrary to the original intent of Scripture. That the Cabalists taught the underlining concepts of Satanic Seedline doctrine is revealed by Nesta Webster:

[I]n the Jewish Cabala… Eve is… accused of cohabiting with the Serpent. [Nesta Webster, Secret Societies and Subversive Movements, p. 34.]

Here Weisman did another disservice by only providing a small part of a longer statement. Notice that he has two ellipses here around the phrase “Eve is”, and that alone should be a red flag.

In this passage, Webster was discussing Manichaeism, which, if it is possible, is much more wicked in its teachings on Genesis than even the Cabala. Manichaeism is a 3rd century Persian heresy which sought to combine elements of Christianity, Jewish Gnosticism and paganism with the concept of Dualism found in older Persian religion, Zoroastrianism. This passage is also referenced later in her book, in the passage from Webster that Weisman cited earlier in this chapter. While we will not repeat her descriptions of Manichaeism, we will provide the entire statement she made in that passage on the Cabala itself:

Much the same idea may be found in the Jewish Cabala, where it is said that Adam, after other abominable practices, cohabited with female devils whilst Eve consoled herself with male devils, so that whole races of demons were born into the world. Eve is also accused of cohabiting with the Serpent. In the Yalkut Shimoni it is also related that during the 130 years that Adam lived apart from Eve, ‘he begat a generation of devils, spirits, and hobgoblins.’

So in reality, while the statements in the Cabala are nothing close to what we believe at Christogenea, or what traditional Two-Seedline Identity Christians have ever believed, Weisman purposely tried to make it look that way, so he only took a very small portion of Webster’s statement and omitted the rest. That is one more lie in a long list of lies created by Charles Weisman throughout this book.

Continuing with a citation from the Cabala:

Page 49:

One Cabalistic work is the Zohar, which dates from the 2nd century A.D. It states the following in regards to Genesis 4:1.

Now Adam clave to that unclean spirit, and his wife clung to it at first and received defilement from it. Hence when Adam begat a son, that son was the son of the impure spirit. Thus there were two sons – one from the unclean spirit, and one after Adam had repented. Thus one was from the pure side and one from the impure. Rabbi Eleazar said:

‘When the serpent injected his impurity into Eve, she absorbed it, and so when Adam had intercourse with her she bore two sons – one from the impure side and one from the side of Adam… It was natural, too, that Cain, coming from the side of the angel of death, should kill his brother. [The Zohar, vol. I, Bereshith 54a, Translated by Harry Sperling and Maurice Simon, The Soncino Press, London, 1931, pp. 171-172.]

The “unclean spirit” is an esoteric reference to the nature of “the evil serpent who is himself unclean and defiled the world.” It is said that “all the unclean spirits” are “akin to the evil serpent.”

But there is no proof that the Zohar is from the 2nd century, the Aramaic in which it was written is not classical Aramaic, but it is an obscure dialect, and medieval Spanish and Portuguese words are found in the text. Wherever Weisman got his claim for the antiquity of the book, it is a lie.

Furthermore, once again we see in this passage in the Zohar that there is a corruption of truth, in the form of many embellishments upon what is actually found in the idioms of Genesis 3, which his far different than any of our Two-Seedline doctrine.

Now Weisman concludes his chapter:

It is interesting that in this statement is found a premise for one of the teachings of the Satanic Seedline doctrine. That is that Eve was impregnated by the serpent and then by Adam, thus giving birth to Cain and Abel as twins. That two males can impregnate the same woman and produce twins is extremely rare, and by itself casts grave doubts on its validity. The concept of a dual impregnation was not actually necessary to support the Satanic Seedline doctrine, as there is support for Cain and Abel not being twins (Jubilees IV, 1). Having the serpent produce Cain, and Adam producing Abel in separate conceptions and births would have met the requirements of the doctrine. So why assert something that is bizarre and improbable when it is not necessary? It seems that there was definite Cabalistic influence in the construction of this doctrine.

So Weisman discredits Two-Seedline by claiming that the superfecundation (twins in the same womb produced by two biological fathers, technically heteropaternal superfecundation, which is more common than Weisman imagines) is found in the Kabbalah, but then admits that Genesis 4:1 does not necessarily describe superfecundation.

In an ancient Greek poem, The Shield of Heracles, commonly attributed to the poet Hesiod who is dated to as early as the 8th century BC, there is a story of the birth of Heracles, the son of Zeus, and a twin half-brother named Iphicles, who was born from the same mother at the same time of a mortal man. So superfecundation was also known in the ancient world, and there are occasional and well-documented reports of it today.

However we do not claim that Cain and Abel were twins, and it does not matter to us if they were or not. So in any event, Weisman’s assertions and criticisms fail him completely. We have never insisted upon “something that is bizarre and improbable when it is not necessary” even though at diverse times others may have made such an insistence.


ChrSat20200704Weisman21.odt — Downloaded 252 times