Addressing Charles Weisman’s What About the Seedline Doctrine? Part 20: Witches, Warlocks and Weisman

Addressing Charles Weisman’s What About the Seedline Doctrine? Part 20: Witches, Warlocks and Weisman

Over the past 19 parts of this series addressing Charles Weisman’s book What About the Seedline Doctrine?, discussing his first four chapters of his book, we hope to have fully established the truths of our Seedline profession, and the fact that Charles Weisman misrepresented many things, and even made many outright lies, in order to attempt to refute those truths. Now we will continue to present the rest of Weisman’s book, as he wrongly believes that he has refuted our position and now he attempts to slander it, evidently hoping to forever discredit our doctrines. As we undertake this endeavor, we will try to avoid repeating much of the basis for our beliefs here, as we have already elaborated greatly on all of the basic reasons for believing in what is usually called Two-Seedline. But so that we can defend against his charges here, we may have to repeat some things we believe, and will try to do so without too much elaboration.

Here Weisman attempts to slander our Seedline doctrine by associating it with witchcraft, Gnosticism, Freemasonry, the Talmud, the rabbis of Judaism, and ultimately, the Kabbalah. But even this order of his own illustrations is deceptive, as we have demonstrated in our series on The Jews in Medieval Europe that Freemasonry was in large part founded on the Kabbalah, but the Kabbalah was not written until the 12th century, or perhaps the 13th, by a Jew in Spain. Of course, much of it was based on older systems, namely the Talmud and Medieval Neoplatonism, but the work has no authentic ancient authority. In turn, the Kabbalah is the link to witchcraft and alchemy in Medieval Europe, and in the time of John Dee the alchemists, who were all practitioners of Kabbalah, became Speculative Masons, and ultimately were admitted into the guilds of the Freemasons, whereafter Masonry became a tool in the hands of the Jewish Kabbalists by which to inculcate Christians into Jewish teachings and the accomplishment of Jewish objectives.

Weisman’s list is deceptive, because perhaps with the exception of witchcraft and demonology, depending upon how those terms are defined, all of these systems or philosophies with which he endeavors to link Seedline are rooted in early Judaism, with various influences from Greek philosophy and pagan concepts. Early Judaism also adopted elements of witchcraft and pagan demonology, but by saying “early Judaism” we do not mean to include the Hebrew Bible, which is certainly not a Jewish book.

The modern so-called “Orthodox” Jews who twirl chickens over their heads and imagine to have transferred their sins to the chickens are actually practicing a form of witchcraft.

So now we shall proceed with chapter 5 of Weisman’s book, titled Sources of Satanic Seedline Beliefs:

Page 42:

Sources of Satanic Seedline Beliefs

While the concept of a serpent or Satanic entity having sex with Eve and thereby producing Cain is not found within Scripture, it is found in other sources. The concepts of the Satanic Seedline doctrine are not some new beliefs, but are a rehash of old superstitious and pagan beliefs.

Now of course, we have shown from our own study of the language and idioms of Genesis chapter 3 that the concept certainly is found in Scripture. Furthermore, Christ Himself, speaking of men and describing them as serpents and the offspring of vipers, and describing them as descendants of Cain, was certainly not “rehash[ing] old superstitions”, however we have also seen that Weisman did not really believe Christ. In any event, Weisman’s entire thesis is predicated on the notion that he has already proven himself to be true, and we have refuted that to show that he is not true, so we are not compelled to accept his premise. He continues:

The idea of an evil supernatural entity having direct contact with man is found in most pagan religions. The serpent also was a common subject within many pagan religions and cultural beliefs. Throughout the ancient pagan world the serpent was the symbol of the Creative Principle, or the Germinal Life Principle. It thus possessed supernatural powers by which it could cause or bring life.

This is only partially true. First, the New Testament describes certain afflicted people as being demon-possessed, and demons as evil supernatural entities. But whatever we imagine that to have meant, just because today we see the same afflictions from a different perspective, under the guise of modern “science” which we are led to believe is more sophisticated, does not mean that Christ and the apostles and people who lived at that time were wrong.

Then, while the ancient Sumerians and Babylonians had in their mythology the myth that the serpent Tiamat created life out of Chaos, they did not necessarily believe that Tiamat was evil. But even this is an oversimplification of various legends found in inscriptions that do not necessarily agree with one another. The Akkadian god Marduk overcame and killed the serpent Tiamat, in much the same way that the Greek god Apollo slew the serpent Python and gained the power of divination, from which was spawned the famous oracle of Apollo at Delphi.

In the Sumerian and Akkadian legends, as well as in the Greek, there are fables of gods descending from heaven in order to have intercourse with and impregnate women, and these are found in the Epic of Gilgamesh as well as in the Classical Greek epics and other works of early literature. But neither were they seen as being evil. In fact, the gods of the Akkadian and Greek pantheons were much more often seen as being beneficent. There are many other parallels between early Greek and Akkadian epics, and also with the Hebrew Bible.

But only in the Bible are these gods seen as the evil “fallen angels”, and only in the Bible is the serpent who created a world from rebellion seen as an inherently evil entity. Paul of Tarsus elucidated the fact that the pagan religions were derived from the ostensibly fallen angels, in 1 Corinthians chapter 10 and in Colossians chapter 2. In the Old Testament, pagan idolatry was described as the worship of satyrs and demons.

Realizing that there was an entire “Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil” which the serpent had represented, and that was also the reason why Cain had built a city, and it also accounts for how there were “giants in the earth in those days”, speaking of people in the earth in the days before the race-mixing began which is described in Genesis chapter 6, then we can understand that these things were actually what was described in the Revelation as the fall of a race of angels. These are the so-called “sons of God”, or as it is in the Enoch literature, the “sons of heaven”, which race-mixed with the daughters of men in Genesis chapter 6. The “Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil” was already present in the garden when Adam was created in Genesis chapter 2, and the only law which Yahweh had given to Adam was not to eat of that tree. That law was the only law given up to that point in the Bible, and it by that it is evident that the same law which was broken in Genesis chapter 3, was broken again in Genesis chapter 6, and how it was broken each time.

Once all of this is realized, it becomes evident that the Bible is actually a refutation of paganism, and an explanation that the world created out of chaos came out of and act of rebellion against Yahweh, the true and only God. This true God had called Abraham out of an evil world embroiled in pagan idolatry and immorality, and promised that his descendants would inherit, overcome and ultimately supplant that evil world which was established by the rebellion of the serpent. That is the entire Bible story, and the process is still ongoing today. So it is no mistake, that Moses in Genesis and Christ in Revelation chapter 12 and in Matthew chapter 13 had each used language which described the primordial world, the world before Adam, as having been associated with a serpent or dragon, which was also the Devil and Satan.

So Weisman resorts to paganism in an attempt to refute the truth of God, and now he begins to slander the Seedline doctrine with other accusations of malicious association, under the subtitle:

WITCHCRAFT AND DEMONOLOGY

The subject of demonology encompasses various stories, legends, rumors and myths involving the devil or demons who assumed the form of a man or animal so as to have sex with women. In the book, The Encyclopedia of Witchcraft and Demonology, the author devotes some eight pages to the subject of “Sexual Relations with Devils.” The source and history of this subject are related by the author as follows:

Theologians and demonologists were puzzled as to how demons, who were spirits, could have relations with humans. The fact itself was accepted, for it had the authority of the Bible and Church behind it. Augustine [420 A.D.], in his De Civitate Dei, expounded Genesis vi. 4: “The sons of God came unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them.” He was the first to consider fully “whether the angels, since they are spirits, are able bodily to have intercourse with women.” Augustine inclined to the affirmative, although he denied that the angels of God so sinned… Pope Innocent VIII and Bonaventure also agreed that intercourse between devils and humans was possible. Augustine, and in particular Thomas Aquinas, affirmed that demons as evil spirits either entered into corpses or else made new bodies out of the elements. [Rossell H. Robbins, The Encyclopedia of Witchcraft and Demonology, Bonanza Books, N.Y., 1959, 1981, pp. 461-468.]

First, Identity Christians should not cared about Augustine, who was raised a Catholic, spent 10 years in adulthood as a Manichaean, and then turned from that to Neoplatonism. Having Simplician, the then-future bishop of Milan, for a personal friend, it was Neoplatonism and Simplician who had persuaded him back to Catholicism. But Augustine was never a true Christian, and after befriending another famous theologian of the time, Ambrose of Milan, Augustine wrote in his own account of his conversion “And I began to love him, of course, not at the first as a teacher of the truth, for I had entirely despaired of finding that in thy Church – but as a friendly man.” Like many esteemed so-called “Church Fathers”, in his later writings Augustine never shed his pagan philosophies.

That being said, simply because early Catholics, Gnostics and Jews thought that the serpent in Genesis chapter 3 or the so-called “sons of God” in Genesis chapter 6 represented spirit-demons, does not mean that we believe that. We certainly do not think fallen angels, nephilim, or the sons of God were angels or spirit demons. The nephilim of Numbers chapter 13 are clearly people, although much larger in stature than the Israelites. So projecting these beliefs onto us is unfair. But to be fair to Weisman, this is what was taught by many early Two-Seedline pastors and teachers, including Bertrand Comparet, Wesley Swift, and even, in the earlier years of his ministry, Clifton Emahiser.

In my own writing, I do not know if I explicitly connected the fallen angels as the ancestors of the non-Adamic races until I wrote Broken Cisterns, which was published by Clifton in 2004, and then to the “Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil” when I wrote The Problem With Genesis 6:1-4, which was published by Clifton in 2007. I do not remember if I explained the possibility that the “fallen angels” were only a race of men here on earth who fell from the grace of God until I began the Pragmatic Genesis series in 2013. I could not have put that together until I had read the appropriate Sumerian inscriptions which led me to better understand how the terms heaven and earth were often used as idioms, which was probably in 2006 or 2007.

Nevertheless, Swift and Comparet, and later Clifton, had all believed that Genesis chapters 3 and 6 described sexual relations between heavenly beings and Adamic people, and that the so-called “fallen angels” of antiquity were heavenly beings. But that does not mean that the “fallen angels” were not men, and angels who are not fallen appear as men throughout Scripture. Evidently, Medieval Christians also believed the Scriptures, and attempted to explain them in terms they could understand. But Weisman did not believe the Scriptures, while he criticizes those who did.

If the Bible says that angels had sexual relations with the daughters of Adam, as the phrase “sons of God” had been interpreted, and if men believe that, as they should believe the Scriptures, then they honestly tried to rationalize what may have been meant by that, and this is the best they could do at the time, as they were also poisoned by the poor interpretations offered them by the Jews, who were wrongly seen as the stewards of the Old Testament. So even if they were wrong in their interpretation, they nevertheless believed the Bible, and Weisman does not believe the Bible. As we discussed earlier in our address of his book, he purposely misread Genesis 6:4. Continuing with Weisman:

Page 43:

The belief of demons having sex with women had the support of the Bible only because Church leaders claimed it was in the Bible. It is interesting to note that Augustine’s “rationalistic explanation of the ‘sons of God’ (Gen. vi. 2) is that of Rabbi Simeon ben Yohai [150 A.D.].” [The Jewish Encyclopedia, vol. II, 1902, 1916, p. 313.]

So this notion of demonology, that sex with demons is possible, and that children may result, was a Jewish doctrine adopted by some early heterodox Christians. Over the centuries it became a theme for stories, beliefs, and doctrines.

As we explained, the ancient Sumerians, Babylonians, Assyrians and Greeks had also believed that their gods could descend from heaven and have sexual relations with women, or with men. But if early Christians had this understanding through the Bible, it must have been at least in part due to the misinterpretations of Scripture offered them by Jews.

As we also explained earlier in this series, there are two types of devils to which the idolatrous, sinful Israelites had made sacrifices. One type were shed, which were spirit-demons and first mentioned in that context in Deuteronomy 32:17 and again in Psalm 106:7. The other type is satyrs, which are first mentioned in that context in Leviticus 17:7. The satyr in Greek mythology was portrayed as a hybrid goat-human beast with an insatiable sexual appetite for human women. In Isaiah chapters 13 and 34 satyrs can dance in the houses of men and cry with their fellows as they occupy cities, so it is very likely that satyr is also an idiom describing certain men.

In the Enoch literature, there is a clear connection between the watchers, fallen angels, and spirits of bastards, which were called demons. So it is not unreasonable for Medieval Christians to confound these together into a belief that demons could have sex with people, especially since the Medieval Church did not teach the truth: that speaking of devils, Satan or spirits that are anti-Christs, the apostles were referring to actual people of their own time. So Weisman is making another straw man to argue against, as we today do not believe that spirit-demons can have sexual acts with people. Rather, we believe in embodied demons who are all around us here and now.

Continuing with Weisman, he changes the subject:

Witches have been historically infamous for consorting with devils and demons. The relationship is not solely for purposes of casting spells or curses on people, but also to have sexual relations with them. There are many stories about witches claiming to have had sexual intercourse with the devil. Some have confessed that their children were fathered by the devil. These sexual escapades usually occurred during a sabbat or “witches sabbath.” The sabbat is a midnight meeting of witches, sorcerers and demons. When worshipping the devil, the witches are said to approach him and assume different postures or dances to entice indiscriminate intercourse with the devil.

The term witch is broadly used, and its modern signification is not necessarily the signification it had always had. Today modern so-called Witchcraft is rooted in Judaism, and modern witches are mostly New Age hippie harlots, and so-called warlocks are their male counterparts. In the Middle Ages, and in ancient times, there were many different traditions based on what may be called folk magic. This is also evident in Scripture, in such places as the magic of the priests of ancient Egypt before Pharaoh in Exodus chapter 7, or the books of “curious arts” which were burned at Ephesus in Acts chapter 19. Magicians are mentioned throughout Scripture, and so are diviners, an art which is also known from throughout the pagan literature.

The claim of wanton men and women to be having sexual relationships with gods or satyrs, often while in a state of drunken revelry, when they were really only having sex with other men, is indeed very old. But while, like of all Greek mystery religions, the participants in their sacred rites were held to secrecy, some later writers did venture to describe them. In Broken Cisterns Part 1, along with other such descriptions I wrote how Diodorus Siculus had recorded the claim of a man that “the Dionysiac rites and the mysteries were simply a means to seduce the wives of other men…” (3.65.2, Loeb Classical Library).

In that same essay I also wrote the following:

Herodotus writes of Bel, or Baal, whom the Greeks equated with their Zeus, and the “sacred precinct” of that idol in Babylon: “On the topmost tower there is a spacious temple, and inside the temple stands a couch of unusual size, richly adorned, with a golden table by its side. There is no statue of any kind set up in the place, nor is the chamber occupied of nights by any one but a single native woman, who, as the Chaldaeans, the priests of this god, affirm, is chosen for himself by the deity out of all the women of the land.” (1:181, G. Rawlinson’s translation). The historian goes on to relate an identical practice in Thebes in Egypt in the temple of “Theban Zeus”, or Ammon (1:182).

Now it should be common sense to most men, Christian and otherwise, that Bel (Baal) himself certainly did not appear each night to some woman in this temple. Even Herodotus said of this “... but I for my part do not credit it – that the god comes down in person ...” (1:182), much to his credit. But evidently some man must have entered into these chambers. And quite possibly someone pretending to be Bel. Tertullian, the 2nd century defender of the Christian faith writes: “Then if I add – and the conscience of every man of you will recognize it as readily – if I add that in the temples adulteries are arranged, that between the altars the pander’s trade is plied, that, quite commonly, in the very vestries of temple-keeper and priest, under those same holy fillets, crowns and purple garments, while the incense burns, lust is gratified ...” (Apology 15:7, Loeb Library edition).

So ancient pagans imagined themselves to be having sexual intercourse with gods, or demons, and in reality it was only other men posing as gods or demons, and this was also characteristic of the so-called satyrs of ancient times. While it may only be conjecture, is most likely the truth behind many of these Medieval Witches, who, not wanting to be condemned and burned for adultery, made up similar stories to cover for their own immorality.

Medieval Christians, not really knowing the truths represented by ancient literature, on account of the false interpretations offered by the Jews, confounded the Biblical accounts. Most Christians were only acquainted with things such as sorcery, necromancy and divination through the Biblical accounts, which they had confounded. But none of that has anything to do with what we now interpret from Scriptures in relation to our own Seedline doctrine.

Weisman continues, on page 44 of his book:

Page 44:

Many devil stories have arisen by rumor perpetrated by those who hate or oppose others, or see them as being evil. Such persons are claimed to be the offspring of the devil.

Legends, perhaps arising from rumors circulated by their enemies, credited many well-known historical figures with devilish origin: Robert (the father of William the Conqueror), Luther, Alexander the Great, Plato, Caesar Augustus, Scipio Africanus, Romulus, Remus, Merlin, and the whole race of Huns. [Robbins, The Encyclopedia of Witchcraft and Demonology, p. 465.]

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.

So ostensibly, because certain men or nations have been slandered throughout history by their enemies, Weisman wants us to see the Jews in that same light, as if they were merely slandered because they oppose Christianity.

So where does that put Yahshua Christ? Christ had called His adversaries “serpents” and the “offspring of vipers”, meaning that even their parents were vipers. In diverse places in the Gospel He also called them “children of their father the devil” and “serpents and scorpions”. So does that mean that Christ Himself is no better than those men who had slandered Luther or Plato? This is what Weisman implies, because these things had started with Yahshua Christ. Christians, saying these things about Jews, are only following Christ, and Paul of Tarsus, and John the beloved apostle, and even Peter the apostle. But once again, we see that Charles Weisman is no Christian.