Addressing Charles Weisman’s What About the Seedline Doctrine? Part 4


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


  • Christogenea Internet Radio
ChrSat20200307Weisman04.mp3 — Downloaded 1710 times

 

Addressing Charles Weisman’s What About the Seedline Doctrine? Part 4

As we said at the end of Part 3 of this series, in refuting Weisman’s lies, we have necessarily gotten ahead of him, so we will have to repeat ourselves later in our address of his book. For example, at the end of the book there is a section on Witchcraft, Gnostic and Masonic beliefs and the Talmud and Kabbalah. Weisman is thereby slandering our understanding of Scripture by associating it with all of those wicked writings, which is ad hominem rather than legitimate debate, and we addressed some of that in the beginning of the last presentation we made in this series.

Following that, we addressed Weisman’s contention that the “seed of the woman” in Genesis chapter 3 refers only to Christ Himself, which is not true, and we exposed the lies about Hebrew grammar which he created in his attempt to prove that it is true. We also addressed many of the citations he made from various denominational commentaries which make the same insistence, and we refuted them, but on the other hand, we pointed out how a few of them actually agreed with us, and not with Weisman – something which he evidently did not understand, or did not want to understand.

Then we demonstrated the folly of the statements made by Weisman and by some of the commentaries which he cited that claim that Satan was somehow eliminated at the Crucifixion, when it is quite clear in Scripture that Satan was still in the world 30 and 60 years after the Crucifixion, as it is professed in the epistles of the apostles and in the Revelation of Jesus Christ, and the apostles themselves described for us what Satan is, as Satan is still with us today. Apparently we shall discuss Satan much further on when we address part 3 of Weisman’s book, which is subtitled “The Serpent”.

With this, we covered the first 14 pages of Weisman’s book, except for the missing first chapter. Now a friend in California, a long-time listener and an Identity Christian for much longer than there has been a Christogenea website, has sent us a copy of Weisman’s book, and another friend in Ohio, also a long-time Identity Christian, had also offered to send us the material we were wanting, so we are thankful to them both. I scanned the missing pages as I wrote them and will include them here with this presentation. [Click HERE for a PDF copy. - WRF, March 10th, 2020, Sorry this is late!] Clifton’s copy, which I know he has, continues to elude me but I stopped looking for it.

In that first chapter of his book, Weisman professes that the concept of seedline is of utmost importance in Scripture, even to the point of admitting that “Christianity could not legitimately exist without the concept of seedline.” But then he makes a mistake in saying “But since there are many different seedlines spoken of in the Bible, it is erroneous and misleading to speak of a single ‘seedline doctrine.’” With this I must disagree. There are indeed only two seedlines spoken of in Scripture, and all other seedlines, or families, are from one of the two, or a mixture of both. We will discuss this further when we address Part 3 of Weisman’s book.

Overall, Weisman’s first chapter is a fair representation of what traditional so-called Two-Seedline Identity pastors had taught. At Christogenea, primarily referring to myself and to Clifton Emahiser, we have departed from those traditional Two-Seedline beliefs to something which we have always believed is founded upon a much firmer foundation. However we cannot possibly explain it all in a single podcast introduction, so I will have to leave it here for now. I have already explained it in great detail in the 28-part Pragmatic Genesis, or in the 11-part Bible Basics, or, if there is only time to read or listen to one presentation, in the more recent podcast Identifying the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil.

Weisman concluded his short first chapter by saying that “On the surface the doctrine seems to make sense, or at least seems plausible, especially in light of the nature of the Jews.” So he indirectly admits that Jews have a sinister inherent nature. But then he continues and says “But this doctrine suffers from some bad interpretations of Scripture, and is based upon some nonbiblical notions.” But of course, there is no assertion of Two-Seedline doctrine found anywhere at Christogenea which is founded on anything “nonbiblical”, and we will have detailed discussions of that later in this series. Finally, he said “We will take a look at why the main aspects of the doctrine are not biblically valid, and why the confusion surrounding the doctrine exists.”

We have already refuted many of Weisman’s contentions, and we will ultimately refute them all. The only reason why there is “confusion surrounding the doctrine” is that men such as Weisman, Weiland, Peters, and a long line of other clowns who have purposely caused such confusion. Once the Bible is properly understood, and all of the parables and Revelations of Christ considered, there is no possible confusion except in the minds of those who hate the truth.

With this, we will commence from where we had left off in Weisman’s book.

Page 15:

On page 15, under the subtitle “The Enmity”, Weisman continues to attempt to limit the prophecy in Genesis 3:15 to Christ Himself. Doing so, he ignores large portions of Scripture, only cherry-picking what is expedient to his assertion. He opens the section by stating that “The proponents of the Cain-Satanic Seedline doctrine make much of the supposed ‘enmity’ between the serpent’s seed and the seed of the woman. They say this enmity exists now between the serpent’s descendants through Cain, which they say are the ‘Jews,’ and the woman’s seed, which is said to be the true Israelites or the White Christian people.”

First, the seed of the woman was the entire Adamic race from the time of Seth, and the enmity has always existed, even over five thousand years before Christ. The slaughter of Abel was the first expression of that enmity, for which Seth was a replacement for Abel, and the race-mixing of Genesis chapter 6 is also an expression of that enmity, out of which only Noah and his family were preserved. The enmity is evident in pagan literature, such as the ancient Sumerian creation myths, in which a giant serpent, Tiamat, is said to have created the world out of chaos. In Genesis, it is Yahweh who had created both the world and a garden for the man which He also created, and His creation was in an orderly fashion. The garden distinguished what He created from the land of Nod, a word which means wandering, which is also an allegory for sin. So in the Bible and in ancient pagan literature we see the diametrical perspectives of two opposing sides.

Furthermore, Paul in Colossians attributed the pagan religions to the “worship of angels”, and much of the Sumerian, Assyrian, Babylonian and Greek pagan literature which survives to us coincides with that revelation, although what Paul called angels, the pagan literature considered to be gods or goddesses. But except for the children of Israel, the entire Adamic world went off into paganism, the worship of the fallen angels, and nearly every other Adamic nation was consumed by it, ultimately race-mixing itself into obscurity. Before the call of Abraham, even Abraham’s own fathers were pagans, which is revealed in Joshua chapter 24, by which we may see what it was that Abraham was called out of, and why it is that his seed was to be preserved and to inherit the earth. So in the Revelation, the children of Israel are the remnant of the woman’s seed. Although that woman is properly the collective people of Israel, the correlation with the seed of the woman in Genesis chapter 3 is nonetheless valid.

Secondly, as we have explained here and elsewhere, the “seed of the serpent” would include more than the descendants of Cain only. If the serpent is a fallen angel, then it may include all of the fallen angels, and whatever abominations came from them, since the corruption of the Creation of God – the chaos of Tiamat – is the cause of their fall, something which is evident in the Enoch literature but which is now missing from our Bibles.

The serpent is identified as one of the fallen angels in Revelation chapter 12, so since he was already in the garden, the fall of the angels had to happen before the Creation of Adam and the events described in Genesis chapter 3. So in Genesis chapter 6, the word for giants – giants which were already in the earth, is nephiylim, and in that plural form it can mean fallen ones. There is no other logical explanation which is consistent with all Scripture for their appearance and actions here in Genesis chapter 6, except that these are the fallen angels of Revelation chapter 12, the angels which left their first estate in Jude, who became bound in chains of darkness. We interpret that as being genetic chains of darkness, since it is said that they corrupted their own seed. They were not bound in chains in darkness, but in chains of darkness, and there is a significant difference. So wherever they or their offspring appear later in Scripture, under various other names, they are always accursed and designated for destruction. For example, the Anakim are described as descendants of the nephiylim in Numbers chapter 13, where they are also called nephiylim, but in other places they are described as giants and mighty men, just as we see in Genesis chapter 6. Other groups descended from the nephiylim were the Emim and the Rephaim. Along with the Kenites and other groups, none of these were destroyed in the flood, although it is certain that neither were any of them on the ark of Noah.

Continuing, Weisman makes an argument which is based on his false conclusion that Christ alone is the “seed of the woman”. As we explained, if this is true, we do not understand how, after the Christ child was caught up into heaven, the dragon was wroth and went off to make war with the remnant of the woman’s seed. But as we said, Weisman is cherry-picking Scripture in order to support his own wrong conclusions.

So Weisman states that “It is also said that this enmity continues to the present. But if the seed of the woman primarily means Christ, then the enmity is with Him, and is in fact at an end since Christ had victory over the serpent. Let us look at some New Testament verses that are cross-referenced to Genesis 3:15.”

First, just because verses are cross-referenced in one Bible or another does not by itself make the references valid. I have seen scores of nonsensical cross-references over the years, made to support just about any doctrine that some church could imagine. Weisman’s false premise also necessitates another wrong conclusion, that “Christ had victory over the serpent”. So evidently in Weisman’s mind perhaps it does not matter that Satan would gather all nations against the Camp of the Saints at least a thousand years after the Christ-child was caught up into heaven, during which time the dragon was making war with the remnant of the Woman’s seed.

So to support his lies, he cites Colossians 2:15 which says “And having spoiled principalities and powers, he (Christ) made a spectacle of them, triumphing over them in it.” Yet that does not mean that Satan was eliminated. A few verses later, Paul mentioned the worshipping of angels, warning the Colossians not to participate in the pagan religions which had their origins with the fallen angels. Then Paul warned them away from sin and said “6 For which things' sake the wrath of God cometh on the children of disobedience: 7 In the which ye also walked some time, when ye lived in them.” A little further on he told them to “5 Walk in wisdom toward them that are without, redeeming the time.” There were “children of disobedience” who are “without”, or literally, outside, meaning outside of the Body of Christ. Paul never expected the Colossians, or any other Christians, to try to convert them.

In his epistle to the Ephesians which was written only a short time before the epistle to the Colossians, the same Paul of Tarsus warned them to prepare themselves spiritually “wherewith ye shall be able to quench all the fiery darts of the wicked.” Saying that, he also warned them “12 For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.” So while Christ may have spoiled those in authority, He had not yet eliminated them, and Christians – those who are properly Christians, which are those who are descended from the Seed of the Woman, were left to deal with them.

Paul wrote his epistles to the Ephesians and Colossians while he was a prisoner in Rome, in 61 or 62 AD. That is 30 years after the Crucifixion and Resurrection of Christ. So Weisman cites Paul’s reference to Christ’s having “spoiled principalities and powers, [by which] he made a spectacle of them, triumphing over them in it” as evidence supporting his statement that the enmity of Genesis 3:15 “is in fact at an end since Christ had victory over the serpent.” However the same Paul had written in Ephesians a short time earlier that “…. we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.” Both Christ and Paul had referred to His adversaries as the “Princes of this world”. So who is correct, Weisman, or Paul? If Paul is correct, and if the Revelation is correct, then Weisman is a liar, plain and simple. We agree with Paul, and we also believe that Weisman is a liar.

Continuing to seek support for his wrong conclusions from cross-references, Weisman then cites 1 John chapter 3 where it states: “8 He who sins is of the devil, for the devil has sinned from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that He might destroy the works of the devil.” So he suggests that if any of us sin, meaning White Christian Israel, we are “of the devil”. But that is a lie. No man is without sin, as Paul had professed in his epistle to the Romans while citing David in the Psalms, but Christ had told His apostles “Have I not chosen you twelve, and one of you is a devil?” Yet that statement cannot be associated with any sin that any of them may have committed, or that any of them may commit at some time in the future. John also professed, in chapter 1 of his first epistle, that “10 If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.” Which of the apostles were without sin, being mere men themselves? Paul had also admitted that he had sinned. Of all men, only Christ Himself was without sin, so Paul had written in Hebrews chapter 4 that He “was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.”

The same John who wrote that passage which Weisman cited also wrote in the very next verse 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.” Now, the Bible makes manifest the fact that the children of Israel, and all true descendants of Adam, are “born of God”. John does not say that whoever does not sin is born of God, since all men sin. He cannot be saying that because he wrote in chapter 2 of that same epistle that “if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous: 2 And he is the propitiation for our sins:” So 1 John 3:8 cannot be interpreted in a manner which is inconsistent with 1 John 2:1-2 and 1 John 3:9. Since John cannot be interpreted in a manner whereby he is forced to contradict himself, once again, Weisman is caught in the act of creating a lie.

Actually, there is a distinction in Greek which Weisman, and most translators of the New Testament, conveniently miss. John actually used distinct words in reference to sin in this epistle which have different meanings. There is a particular word describing the act of transgressing, which is ἁμαρτάνω, and that is a verb which means to: “… miss the mark, especially of a spear thrown ... 2. generally, fail of one’s purpose, go wrong ... II. ... do wrong, err, [or] sin ...” Then there is a related noun, ἁμαρτία, which means: “... a failure, fault ... error of judgment ... 2. ... guilt, [or] sin ...” So where John urged his readers that they should not sin, he naturally used the verb ἁμαρτάνω, at the beginning of chapter 2 of his epistle, and he told them that “if any man sin,” using the verb ἁμαρτάνω, “we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous: 2 And he is the propitiation for our sins…”, using the noun ἁμαρτία.

But in chapter 3 where he said “He who sins is of the devil” John did not use ἁμαρτάνω. Rather, he used another verb, ποιέω, which is primarily “Used in two general senses, make and do. A. make, produce ... 2. create, bring into existence ... invent ... II. bring about, cause ... B. do, much like πράσσω ... practise ... to be doing, act ... operate ...” This verb John had used with the noun ἁμαρτία as its object. But if he were referring merely to the act of sinning he could have used one word, the verb ἁμαρτάνω, Instead, John was referring to something else, which is to the authorship of sin, the creation of sin, or perhaps, the ongoing practice of sin.

The phrase ὁ ποιῶν τὴν ἁμαρτίαν should have been properly translated as “Each who is practicing, or creating, sin”, and John maintained the distinction throughout his epistle where it is evident that he is speaking of a peculiar class of people, who are among those who have no propitiation in Christ. Before John said these things which Weisman only half-cited in chapter 3, John said in chapter 2 that many antichrists had already been born into the world, speaking of Jews, and that “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”, where he was also speaking of Jews. This is the distinction of the Wheat and Tares, and the gospel of Christ is intended to separate them one from another.

As for the descriptions of the act of sin in John, at Christogenea there is a lengthy article on this subject which addresses the details and is found under the title Sin and the First Epistle of John. According to Clifton’s records, I wrote it in February or early March of 2007.

Last in this list of citations beginning his two-and-a-half page discussion of “The Enmity”, Weisman quotes Hebrews 2:14-15, where it is also speaking of Christ and says, “That through death he (Jesus) might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil; And delivered them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage.”

To this, Weisman then responds and says: “Christ destroyed the serpent of Genesis 3:15, and set Adamic man free of the bondage of sin and death imposed upon them by the works (acts of deception) of the serpent. If Christ was destined to destroy this serpent and his works, it is logical that there would be enmity between Him and the serpent, and no one else.”

Now this is true, insofar as that it is the purpose of Christ, but it is not in the context which Weisman places it, because as we have shown from Scripture, the devil is still with us, he still has power over us, and he still makes war with the seed of the woman unto this very day. If the flooding of the Christian nations with beasts from all of the non-Adamic nations is not the flood from the mouth of the serpent, if it is not the gathering of the nations against the Camp of the Saints by Satan, then we are hopeless to interpret the Word of our God, because it is these things which are also prophesied in the Old Testament in diverse ways.

But Weisman, citing this passage, did not cite the entire passage. Here is the complete King James translation: “14 Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil; 15 And deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage.” Paul had explained that the children were partakers of flesh and blood first, and then, because of that, Christ himself took part of the same – Christ is God incarnate as man – so that He might destroy the works of the devil.

Why is Weisman once again pretending to be citing an entire passage, but only citing half of it? Because he is purposely only telling half of the story. The three verses of that chapter which follow fill out the picture Paul is drawing: “16 For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham. 17 Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people. 18 For in that he himself hath suffered being tempted, he is able to succour them that are tempted.”

Men still sin, and men are still tempted, because the culmination of these things has not yet transpired, as after Christ ascended to heaven, as we read in Revelation chapter 12, “17… 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.” Having the Gospel of Christ, which was not brought to them until after the man-child of that same chapter, which is Christ, was caught up into heaven, we see that the dragon, or Satan, certainly does still have power in the world, and Weisman is exposed as a liar. The children who are the partakers of flesh and blood, in Hebrews chapter 2, are the seed of the woman with whom the dragon makes war in Revelation chapter 17, and therefore the enmity is not yet ended.

 

 

 

ChrSat20200307Weisman04.odt — Downloaded 46 times
Weisman_Seedline_Chapter_1.pdf — Downloaded 41 times