- Christogenea Saturdays
Addressing Charles Weisman’s What About the Seedline Doctrine? Part 3
Once again, there were many extemporaneous remarks and explanations in this presentation. The prepared notes are found below.
This will be part 3 of 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. We are still in chapter 2 of the book, which is titled “The Basis of the Satanic Seedline Doctrine”. Once again, we still haven’t located a copy of the book which contains the first chapter, but if we ever do, we might have to backtrack a bit to address that also. A friend wrote me this week and I think he may have a copy. Now, as I have said several times already, continuing to examine Weisman’s arguments and methods of analysis, I am certain we shall also continue to find that he failed to answer the question which he himself had posed in the title of his book.
Before we get back to where we left off in Weisman’s book, I would like to discuss this hare-brained idea that our interpretation of Genesis chapter 3 had originated in the Talmud. Perhaps this argument belongs at the end of our address of Weisman’s book, since he has chapters there which present it, but it is brought to the forefront by his supporters, so we shall address it in part now. Concerning our interpretation, I don’t really like to call it “Two-Seedline” but we are sort of stuck with the label because it has long been popular. The label is too narrow, and the real struggle is between two trees, the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, and the Tree of Life.
The Talmud did not exist in the first century. However the basis for it seems to have developed from what was called the “traditions of the elders”. There was a so-called “oral law” of the Jews, which Christ had condemned and which Moses also condemns, which was eventually written down and compiled into what had evolved and is now known as the Talmud. That does not, however, mean that the entire Talmud had already existed in unified oral traditions. The assorted characters to whom are attributed many of the non-Biblical writings in the Talmud did not live for at least two to six centuries after Christ, and some even beyond that.
So the Talmud contains the so-called “Oral Law”, the Mishnah and the Midrash which are exegetical commentaries and rabbinical disputations of the law, and the Gemara, which is a further rabbinical commentary on the Mishnah, and these also contain elaborations and expansions on Scripture which are apocryphal, or even pseudepigraphal, highly interpretative, and often perverse in nature. But all of these things were developed and put into writing long after the time of Christ. And that does not mean that the Jews did not have elements of truth mixed in with all of their lies and contentions. The Jerusalem Talmud did not exist until the late 3rd or 4th centuries. It was eventually marginalized by the more popular Babylonian Talmud, which did not exist until the 6th century and which continued to be edited even later than that.
But the Christian works such as the 4th book of Maccabees and the Protevangelion of James, and all of the other citations we use which describe the sexual seduction of Eve and the other sins of the fallen angels, such as the fragments of Enoch from the Dead Sea Scrolls, are far older than the earliest volumes of the Talmud. Even the Aramaic Targums, while they are far from ideal interpretations of Scripture, may have been preserved in the Talmud but they are not necessarily Talmudic in origin. So Charles Weisman used the claim that “two-seedline” has its origins in the Talmud as a slander, as a defamatory ad hominem argument which is certainly not true.
The Wisdom of Solomon, fragments of which were found among the Dead Sea Scrolls, is a book far older than the rabbinical writings in the Talmud. The work states at the end of its second chapter that “Nevertheless through envy of the devil came death into the world…” So that is how Solomon had interpreted Genesis chapter 3, that Eve had envied the devil. For that reason, as we find in Genesis, when Yahweh God corrected her He told her “and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.”
We have already cited the Protevangelium of James and 4 Maccabees in this same regard. The first work I do not accept as authentic Scripture, however it does give further insight into the fact that early Christians interpreted Genesis chapter 3 in the same manner which we do. Likewise, 4 Maccabees, which is a pious Christian work although it should not be deemed as canonical Scripture, also interpreted Genesis chapter 3 in the same manner in which we interpret the account. The Aramaic Targums also sought to amend Genesis 4:1, asserting that a fallen angel was the biological father of Cain. We can demonstrate that Genesis 4:1 had indeed been corrupted at an early time, for which even the earliest translators found the verse very difficult to translate. I would turn to the Hexapla of Origen, a work of the 3rd century, to help make that demonstration. Hopefully we shall discuss that passage at length later in these presentations, as Weisman holds it up as proof refuting our position.
So early Christians and pious writers from before the time of Christ had understood that Genesis chapter 3 was an account of Eve’s sexual seduction, and the subsequent sexual transgression which Adam and Eve had committed, and so did early Jews, who later referred to it in their Talmud. Just because something appears in the Talmud does not mean that it may not be true, even if the version of the account as the Talmud presents it may be twisted. The Jews understood that Genesis chapter 3 was an allegory describing a sexual act, they understood the Hebrew idioms, and early Christians as well as the author of the Wisdom of Solomon also believed that it was a sexual allegory. What we call “two-seedline” cannot be condemned on the basis that it is mentioned in the Talmud. Making the claim that “two-seedline” came from the Talmud is essentially no different than reading the Talmudic passages that refer to Christ and then claiming that Christianity came from the Talmud. The Torah itself is also found in the Talmud, so was that devised by wicked Jews?
In our last presentation addressing Weisman, we demonstrated his deceptive dishonesty in interpreting the statements of Paul of Tarsus concerning Eve, which are found in his epistles to the Corinthians and to Timothy. Weisman actually claimed an ability to read Paul’s mind while ignoring half of what Paul had said, which is the half which proves Weisman wrong about what he claimed Paul was thinking. Doing that, we also mocked him for his assertions denying the allegorical use of the word eat in reference to sex, which is easily refuted in the Proverbs. Weisman asserted that Eve committed some sort of thought crime, an idea which we also ridiculed since Eve was punished, and nowhere in the Law are mere thoughts punished. Since both Adam and Eve were punished, as we explained at length from the words of the apostles, then there had to be both a law and an act of transgression of that law.
After that, we further mocked Weisman for not properly distinguishing between trees planted into the ground, which were literal fruit trees, and the two trees which were “in the midst of the garden” which were actually allegories for people. But where Charles Weisman is deceptive beyond belief is in his claim that the “Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil” is the law, which we have also already discredited. If that tree were the law, there is no doubt that Yahweh would have wanted Adam and Eve to cling to it, to eat from it, which is a sentiment found throughout the entire Scripture. Rather, when they transgressed, they were not told to keep the law to be saved. They were not told to grasp the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil to be saved. Instead, they were told that they must reach out and grasp the Tree of Life in order to be saved.
As Paul of Tarsus explained, the Law was not given until Sinai. Adam and Eve were only given one law, which was not to touch of the tree. That was the only law given to them or to their descendants for many generations. Since there had to be a law for them to have been justly punished, as the apostles themselves explained, then it is the transgression of that particular law for which they were punished, and for which their descendants were punished as it is described in Genesis chapter 6. If the tree were the law, then Yahweh God is found to be contradicting Himself, giving them a law which commands them to stay away from the law! Weisman deserves ridicule for that because by his ridiculous assertion he is actually mocking God. Instead, it is Charles Weisman who should be mocked.
We had left off with Charles Weisman and his claim that Eve’s seed is “anyone who came from Eve’s womb”, and we disproved the assertion because children of mixed race clearly do not have seed which is identical to their mother, so the child would not be of the same seed. The same is true of any hybrid, either of plants or of animals. Therefore it is not true that a woman’s seed is anyone who comes from her womb.
The New Testament recognizes the origins of sin where the apostle John had written in chapter 3 of his first epistle that “9 Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.” The children of God will ultimately be blameless from sin, because sin was introduced into the world “for envy of the devil”, as the Wisdom of Solomon had attested. But for Cain, “sin lieth at the door” because he was born in sin. For that reason he could not do good.
Finally, we examined Weisman’s claim that Eve’s seed could not have been a collective seed, as no people or nation was named after her. But we have shown that Sarah and Rebekah had also been given promises concerning their collective seed, which Paul had even mentioned in his epistle to the Romans. With that we illustrated the fact that even though the seed is named after the line of the father, the nature and identity of the mother still matters, and Weisman’s argument is once again exposed as being dishonest and deceptive.
Now we shall continue from that point in Weisman’s book, which brings us to page 11. Here Weisman takes another dishonest turn where he tries to explain that by “seed of the woman” only Christ Himself is meant. So he says:
“What then does all of this mean? There really is no obscurity associated with Genesis 3:15. This verse has for centuries been understood as being a prophecy of Christ and His salvation of Adamic man. Prof. Davidson states the following about Genesis 3:15.
“Note the transition from the serpent’s ‘seed’ to the serpent himself, and also the fact that the ‘seed’ of the woman is in the singular. Only in Christ, ‘the seed of the woman,’ could this victory be accomplished, and from this it was to become true for mankind in Him (Rom. xvi. 20; 1 Cor. 4 xv. 57).
Then Weisman responds to this citation and says:
“Genesis 3:15 refers specifically to Jesus Christ, as He was the only one who was born of the seed of a woman (Gal. 4:4), and not of a man. The verse could refer to the Adamic race' or seedline only in an indirect or vicarious sense, as they were to prevail over the serpent through Christ.”
Not all of Weisman’s response is wrong, since we certainly agree that the race can only succeed through Christ, but that does not mean that Christ alone is the “seed of the woman”. Paul of Tarsus in his epistle to the Romans cited Genesis 21:12 and wrote “In Isaac shall thy seed be called.” Then he attested that “the children of the promise are counted for the seed.” So Christ is not the seed, the collective children of Israel are the seed, and Christ is the firstborn among many brethren, as Paul also attested in that epistle.
But I must ask, that if Christ is not of the “seed of a man” because He was born of a woman, then how is He is the “seed of David”? Was David not a man? The same Paul who wrote Galatians 4:4 also wrote Romans 1:3 and 2 Timothy 2:8 which describe Christ as being of the seed of David, and so did the apostle John in chapter 7 of his gospel. Therefore Paul’s profession in Galatians 4:4 does not establish that Weisman’s assertion concerning Genesis 3:15 is true. Christ was born of a woman, but he was also of the seed of a man, King David who was but one of His male ancestors. We will get back to this subject, but first we will discuss a few other things.
As a digression, making this argument, Weisman is absolutely dishonest where he says, speaking of Genesis 3:15, that “In regard to the woman’s seed, scripture does not say they, but ‘it’ (or more correctly ‘he’) shall bruise the head of the serpent. The ‘he’ (or ‘it’) and the corresponding ‘his’ are singular.” If Weisman really ever studied any of the Hebrew of the Bible, he would have known that he was making a lie here. But perhaps he did know it.
Where the Hebrew language employs a word as a collective noun, it always uses singular nouns and pronouns. For example, in Genesis chapter 22 we read “17 That in blessing I will bless thee, and in multiplying I will multiply thy seed [singular] as the stars of the heaven, and as the sand which is upon the sea shore; and thy seed [singular] shall possess the gate of his [singular] enemies…” But sometimes this creates a conflict in English, so a singular Hebrew pronoun is translated into an English plural. For example, in Genesis 24:60 where it says “and let thy seed possess the gate of those which hate them”, the word for seed is singular, and the word translated as them is actually also singular. For another example, where it says in Genesis 28:14 that “thy seed shall be as the dust of the earth, and thou shalt spread abroad”, the word for seed is singular, and the verb which is rendered as “thou shalt spread abroad”, which refers to the seed, is a singular verb. But the verb is a second person singular, which refers to Jacob as being representative of his descendants. This also exposes another flaw in Weisman’s argument. In that same place, Weisman had also said of Genesis 3:15 that “The reference is to the serpent himself, which is singular, and thus not its seedline.” But if Yahweh can say “thou” to Jacob when he is clearly speaking in relation to Jacob’s descendants, then the same interpretation of the language in Genesis 3:15 is also valid, that Yahweh addressed the serpent in relation to the serpent’s descendants. This sort of language appears throughout the Scripture, notably in the blessings which Jacob gave to his sons in Genesis chapters 48 and 49.
So there is another aspect to how Charles Weisman had lied about the manner in which the Hebrew was actually used. A singular collective noun, even though it is collective, was used with singular pronouns, even though the meaning refers to many individuals within the singular collective unit. Where God said to Abraham in Genesis chapter 26 “I will make thy seed to multiply as the stars of heaven”, the word for seed is singular, but the word for stars is plural. Where Yahweh spoke of Israel collectively in Isaiah 43:5 and said “I will bring thy seed from the east, and gather thee from the west”, all of the Hebrew nouns and pronouns are singular. There are so many examples of this in Scripture that Weisman could not have possibly been ignorant of them, and therefore he must have consciously lied. Again and again, he resorts to sophistry. If Weisman really knew that two-seedline is not true, why did he have to manufacture so many lies in order to dispute it?
From this point Weisman begins to cite many Judaized commentaries in a prolonged attempt to prove that Christ alone is the “seed of the woman”. Not everything he says, or everything that the commentaries say, is wrong. But the premise which Weisman is attempting to establish by quoting them is wrong, so here I will only address some of the things which are wrong.
He quotes Adam Clarke who states concerning Christ that “He [is] the seed of the woman. The person is to come by the woman, and by her alone, without the concurrence of man.” While Clarke is not completely wrong, that there is some legitimate symbolism in this, that does not mean that the seed of the woman in Genesis 3:15 is not collective. As we shall see, Adam Clarke certainly was wrong when he said in that same place that “this, and this alone, is what is implied in the promise of the seed of the woman bruising the head of the serpent.” For now, we shall only state that if Adam Clarke was right, then Paul of Tarsus was wrong where he told the Romans that Yahweh would bruise Satan under their feet, over 30 years after the Crucifixion. I would rather believe Paul of Tarsus.
Immediately thereafter, Weisman cites the Wycliffe Bible Commentary, and he ignores the fact that Wycliffe actually supports our argument, evidently because Weisman was not focused on that portion of the citation. This actually helps to prove that Weisman is stupid. He says:
“Genesis 3:15 has become so thoroughly identified as a prophetic promise of Christ that is called the Protevangelium. This term means the beginning of the Gospel message. The Wycliffe Bible Commentary states the following on this verse: ‘We have in this famous passage, called the protevangelium, ‘first gospel,’ the announcement of a prolonged struggle, perpetual antagonism, wounds on both sides, and eventual victory for the seed of the woman. God’s promise that the head of the serpent was to be crushed pointed forward to the coming of Messiah and guaranteed victory. This assurance fell upon the ears of God’s earliest creatures as a blessed hope of redemption.’”
The ministry of Christ lasted only three-and-a-half years, and while Christ told the scribes and Pharisees what He had thought about them, He certainly did not cause them any physical harm. Where the Wycliffe Bible Commentary explains that the verse indicates that there would be a “prolonged struggle, perpetual antagonism” and “wounds on both sides”, it is evident that they had in mind two discernible groups of people who would be at odds with one another over a long period of time, fighting with and causing harm to one another over the entire period of time. Here we shall show that the Wycliffe commentators are correct, and Weisman is indeed stupid.
Other commentaries cited by Weisman on pages 12 through 14 of his book make remarks in reference to things such as the “complete destruction of Satan and his works”, “fatal shall be the stroke which Satan shall receive from Christ”, and they make these references in respect to the death of Christ. They are saying that the death of Chirst accomplished these things. Then Weisman cites Bullinger as saying that “zer’a (seed) is here to be taken in singular” and concerning other words in Genesis 3:15, that “They denote the temporary sufferings of the Seed [meaning Christ], and the complete destruction of Satan and his works (Heb. 2:14, 1 John 3:8).” Then he cites Matthew Henry as saying that Christ on the cross had gained “His victory over Satan thereby (by his death).”
We must contest all of these, in part by asking: Did Christ win victory in His death? Or did He really win victory in His Resurrection? Was His victory immediate at the time of His Resurrection, or was His ultimate victory, which would not culminate until some point in the future, merely assured at the time of His Resurrection? If His victory were immediate, then we may conclude that His Revelation is not true. Furthermore, if His victory were immediate, we should not expect to see any evil in the world since the time of His Resurrection. Yet His Revelation has proven itself to be true, although it was written 60 years after the Resurrection, and it describes a victory which would not occur until some undetermined time in the future, while we still have evil in the world.
Strangely, where he cited a comment from the Geneva Bible which said “Satan shall sting Christ and his members, but not overcome them”, Weisman failed to make any statement concerning the phrase “and his members”, or imagine them to be from of the seed of the woman as He is. Then, citing other commentaries, among Weisman’s other conclusions he stated that “The evil power of Satan is eliminated by Christ, thus the victory is also over evil”, and that “The serpent thus met his ‘doom’ with Christ’s advent, passion, death and resurrection.”
But is this true? Is Satan really dead and gone? Was Satan eliminated? Do we still have evil in the world? If any of this is true, why do we read, in Revelation chapter 12, that after the dragon tried to slay the man-child born of the woman, and after the man child is caught up into heaven, that: “13… when the dragon saw that he was cast unto the earth, he persecuted the woman which brought forth the man child. 14 And to the woman were given two wings of a great eagle, that she might fly into the wilderness, into her place, where she is nourished for a time, and times, and half a time, from the face of the serpent. 15 And the serpent cast out of his mouth water as a flood after the woman, that he might cause her to be carried away of the flood. 16 And the earth helped the woman, and the earth opened her mouth, and swallowed up the flood which the dragon cast out of his mouth. 17 And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.”
Weisman is stupid. The Wycliffe Bible which he quoted said of Genesis 3:15 that “We have in this famous passage, called the protevangelium, ‘first gospel,’ the announcement of a prolonged struggle, perpetual antagonism, wounds on both sides, and eventual victory for the seed of the woman.” But Revelation chapter 12 proves that this struggle is still ongoing after the man-child is caught up into heaven. The man-child which the serpent tried to kill is Yahshua Christ, who was caught up to heaven in Acts chapter 1, at the ascension which followed His resurrection.
The serpent was represented in that aspect by Herod, the Edomite Jew who descended in part from Cain himself. Then where it says that “the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed” we see the continuation of the enmity of Genesis 3:15, the continuation of Wycliffe’s “prolonged struggle”, and the Revelation describes that continuation all the way up to the time when the resurrected Christ would return again. Just before His ascension to heaven, in Acts chapter 1, the apostles asked Christ if He would deliver the kingdom to Israel at that time, and He told them only that it was not for them to know the times and seasons, when that would happen. We have been in that time ever since the ascension of Christ. The dragon, the collective seed of the serpent, continues to make war with the seed of the woman unto this very day.
Weisman is trying to deceive us into thinking that Satan is dead, eliminated, that we have no enemy, that satan is no longer with us and that the only problem is our own sin. I would agree that the principle problem is our own sin, but we have an obligation to identify our enemies, and that is the struggle which we still face today, and especially today since we are indeed in the days when Satan has the camp of the saints surrounded by all the nations, which are collective peoples, from the four corners of the earth. Weisman is blinding men to that struggle by preventing them from identifying the devil.
One cannot win a war unless one properly identifies the enemy.
If, in the Revelation of Christ, after a thousand years Satan would gather all nations from the four corners of the earth against the Camp of the Saints, how could Satan have been eliminated on the cross of Christ, and what is going on right now, as all Christendom is overrun with aliens? And why, in effect, is Weisman attempting to convince us that it is not Satan who is behind our being overrun with aliens? His deception must be purposeful, because what is happening today is an obvious fulfillment of Revelation chapter 20, and Ezekiel chapters 38 and 39.
The apostle Peter wrote “8 Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour.” It can be established that he wrote that at least thirty years after the Crucifixion and Resurrection of Christ, so we see that the devil was still walking around tormenting people. Likewise, James wrote in chapter 4 of his epistle “7 Submit yourselves therefore to God. Resist the devil, and he will flee from you.” If the devil were merely the flesh, how could one’s flesh flee from him? Then sixty years after the Resurrection, John wrote in more than one epistle, explaining that there were many antichrists in the world and telling his readers how to identify them. There he also explained that they were spirits – embodied spirits – which are not from God.
Likewise Paul of Tarsus had written in chapter 2 of his epistle to the Thessalonians that Satan was seated in the temple of God, pretending to be God. That was around 51 AD and Paul was speaking of the Edomite Jews who sat as high priests. So Satan was sitting in the temple of God 19 years after the Crucifixion, and all of Weisman’s commentators are wrong because the power of Satan was obviously not destroyed. Then in his epistle to the Romans, written around 58 AD, Paul told them that “the God of peace shall bruise Satan under your feet shortly.” Approximately 12 years later the Romans destroyed Jerusalem, where Satan was seated pretending to be God. But even that had not eliminated the devil entirely. Over thirty years after Peter wrote his epistle, John wrote the Revelation, and we see that Satan’s seat had moved to Pergamos. Now today it has franchises in every single town and city in the world, and if Weisman would deny that reality then it proves that he too is just another one of his agents.
If the Revelation of Jesus Christ says that Satan’s seat is in Pergamos, and says that there is a “synagogue of Satan” on several occasions, and that Satan would be loosed from the pit at some point in the future, and Peter tells us the devil is walking around, and John tells us there are many antichrists who were already born, along with all of this other evidence we have offered, how can Weisman not be lying where he says that Satan was “eliminated” at the cross? Maybe he is a shill. Maybe those who choose to follow Weisman today while rejecting our message are also shills.
Later in his book, Weisman discusses many of the same passages which we have used to refute his stupidity here. In the near future, we hope to refute his lies in those discussions as well, and we are confident that we shall refute them. For now, the point that the devil, or satan, continues to operate in the world after the Resurrection of Christ is proven, and its continued struggle with the seed of the woman is proven, so we are well on our way to establishing the fact that Charles Weisman is a fraud and a shill for the same devil who persecutes us.
Here we had an extemporaneous discussion where I cited Matthew 7:21-23 and Jude 4. Perhaps I will put the arguments in writing later in this series.
Refuting Weisman’s lies, we have necessarily gotten ahead of him. We will resume our discussion on page 15 of Weisman’s book when, Yahweh willing, we continue this series.