Commentaries and Podcasts

Addressing Charles Weisman’s What About the Seedline Doctrine? Part 19: Vagabonds, Wanderers and Weisman

Here we shall finally finish our presentation and discussion of Chapter 4 of Charles Weisman’s book, What About the Seedline Doctrine?, which he had titled The Role of Cain. Doing this, we shall attempt to summarize many of the things we found throughout our discussions, as Weisman consistently misread passages, purposely ignored the context of passages, twisting and even lying about Scripture in his attempts to deny the veracity of Two-Seedline. With our investigation of this one chapter having begun in part 9 of this series, we hope to have refuted Weisman comprehensively.

In our last presentation, we had left off where Weisman mischaracterized the relationship of Kenites with Israel at the time of king Saul, where he said “The Kenites were friendly to the Israelites.” There we had shown that from the time that Balaam prophesied about the Kenites in Numbers chapter 24, to the time of Saul, a period of nearly 450 years, there is only one mention of a single Kenite, and that referred to Heber, who was a Midianite smith in the days of Deborah and Barak, perhaps 400 years before the time of Saul. The Kenites not being mentioned again until for some unknown reason Saul had warned them to depart from Amalek, we see that Weisman had no basis for that statement. This is representative of the poor interpretations of Scripture offered by Weisman throughout this book.

Addressing Charles Weisman’s What About the Seedline Doctrine? Part 18: The Children of Cain

Here once again we shall continue with our series of presentations Addressing Charles Weisman’s What About the Seedline Doctrine?, and this is part 18 of our endeavor. We believe that all along the way, through each of the first 17 parts of this series, we have shown that Charles Weisman depended upon an ignorance of history – purposeful or not – coupled with many misinterpretations of passages, seemingly intentional misreadings of passages, and even outright lies, in order to convince his readers that Two-Seedline teachings are in error.

We last left off with Charles Weisman’s claim that the serpent of Eden was the first murderer, the “murderer from the beginning” mentioned by Christ in John 8:44. Making that claim, Weisman evidently hoped to decouple interpretations of Matthew 24:34-35 from John 8:44, which together, along with an understanding of the history of Judaea over the decades leading up to the ministry of Christ certainly do prove that He was indeed speaking to descendants of Cain. We have shown conclusively that within the Biblical context, the serpent of Eden could not have been the first murderer, and that Cain alone was the first murderer.

Addressing Charles Weisman’s What About the Seedline Doctrine? Part 17, The First Murderer

We have tarried with Charles Weisman’s prolonged disputations revolving around John 8:44 and Matthew 23:34-35 for several of these presentations, and we are still not through all of Weisman’s arguments in relation to these passages. Some of those arguments revolve around the question of who killed the prophets in the Old Testament. In that passage from Matthew chapter 23, Yahshua Christ declared that the blood of all the prophets from Abel to Zacharias will come upon a particular race. We would assert that according to the laws of God, that race must be guilty for the crimes for which it is going to be punished, or if the charge is false, then according to the law the individual making the charge must suffer the penalty. We cannot imagine that Christ our God was making false charges or acting contrary to His law.

In the actions of men and nations, there is collective guilt, and there is individual guilt. When one nation wars against another, the men who actually do the shooting are compelled by their rulers, and generally not motivated to commit murder on their own volition. If the war were unjust, the rulers would be guilty individually, although the nation which did their bidding would share collective guilt. Therefore Peter, in Acts chapter 2 addressing men of Judaea in reference to Christ had said “23 Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain”. The wicked hands were not those of the Romans, but the Jews, those who stood in the Praetorium demanding of Pilate that He be crucified, leaving him no other alternative. But the nation as a whole shared a collective guilt for the deed as they had suffered (tolerated) wicked rulers.

Addressing Charles Weisman’s What About the Seedline Doctrine? Part 16, The Blessed and the Cursed

In our last presentation in this series, which was subtitled The Blood of Abel, we left off where Charles Weisman discussed the episode in Matthew chapter 23 where Christ had told His adversaries that their race would be held accountable for the blood of all the prophets, from Abel to Zacharias, which, discounting the interpolation in verse 35 we believe refers to the father of John the Baptist. We do not believe that it referred to the Old Testament prophet Zechariah as Christ had laid direct blame for the murder of this Zacharias on his adversaries, and not merely on their ancestors, where He said “whom ye slew between the temple and the altar.” Here we will continue that discussion of Cain and those who are responsible for the death of Abel and the prophets, as we are not finished with the portion of this fourth chapter of Weisman’s book which concerns that subject.

Speaking of Abel, in Hebrews chapter 11 Paul of Tarsus had written: “4 By faith Abel offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain, by which he obtained witness that he was righteous, God testifying of his gifts: and by it he being dead yet speaketh.” We have already discussed at length the sacrifices of Cain and Abel, and provided Scriptures supporting the plausibility of our argument that the only reason Cain’s sacrifice was rejected is that Yahweh would not acknowledge Cain himself, Cain not even having been eligible to make such a sacrifice. But the only reason that Abel’s sacrifice was better lies in the mere fact that Abel was even making a sacrifice, by which he had asserted that he was indeed the eligible son.

Addressing Charles Weisman’s What About the Seedline Doctrine? Part 15, The Blood of Abel

Here we shall once again continue with our rebuttal to Charles Weisman’s book, What About the Seedline Doctrine?, and we are still in the middle of Chapter 4, which is titled The Role of Cain. Our last presentation in this series brought us to the middle of page 35, and we have tarried quite awhile addressing his arguments under the subtitle Of Your Father the Devil. Doing this, so far we hope to have made it fully evident that Charles Weisman is guilty of three primary and crucial mistakes in his method of interpreting the Scriptures.

First, he has consistently misread verses, and especially important verses such as Genesis 6:4, John 8:44 and Matthew 12:34, where in each instance he had failed to realize what the passage actually means, and based his arguments on his own poor, or perhaps purposefully wrong interpretations. Secondly, making those interpretations he also twisted the meanings of the plain words of Scripture in the same manner as the Gnostics and universalists who have for ages insisted that father does not mean a literal ancestor, or that children are not literal offspring in Scripture. Yet when we examined the passages of Scripture which he himself had used as examples, we showed that the literal meanings of the words make perfect sense once they are understood in the actual historical context of Scripture, and in the context of the words of the prophets. Thirdly, Weisman himself has thus far refused to even consider the historical context of the New Testament, an understanding of which clearly refutes his own insistence, made without any supporting evidence, that all of the adversaries of Christ were Israelites. We have proven from the pages of Josephus as well as from the epistles of Paul and the words of Christ Himself that Weisman is wrong in making that insistence.

Birth pangs of the Coming Age

Here I am going to present and critique a sermon by Bertrand Comparet, titled Birth pangs of the Coming Age. While Comparet had excellent insight in many respects, in others it would be difficult to miss the proverbial handwriting on the wall. Yet none of us can really ever know exactly what lies over the horizon, so sometimes even the most visible trends don’t always result in the conditions or outcomes that we may have imagined beforehand. As I have said many times in the past, prophecy does not exist so that we can see the future, but rather, so that once it unfolds we can look back and know that God is true.

Like most of Comparet’s sermons, it is difficult to know exactly when this was written or delivered. But here he has helped us by mentioning a 1967 event in its last paragraph. His remarks on the struggles between the interests of capital and organized labor remind me of the newspaper headlines relating to that same thing, which were ubiquitous throughout the early 1970’s. So if I had to guess, I would date this sermon around 1974 to 1976, right around the same time that former Teamster’s union leader Jimmy Hoffa had disappeared.

Aside from the visible trends, who could foresee things such as the so-called coronavirus pandemic? Not that we believe in the pandemic, since in my opinion it is a hoax, or at the very least, the hype is a hoax, which I had first stated here well over two months ago. Several years ago Bill Gates “predicted” such a pandemic, at the same time that he was investing billions of dollars in pharmaceutical companies and giving large grants to certain scientific research institutions to create it for him. So Gates really isn’t a prophet, but a conspirator. Now the pandemic which his cabal had created is being used to decimate small businesses and the personal finances of tens or even hundreds of millions of people, to test the effectiveness of population control, and certainly the level of population obedience not only to government, but also the level of compliance with what they are told by mainstream media. In the aftermath of all this, we will know for sure that most people will comply even with the poisoning of their own bodies.

Addressing Charles Weisman’s What About the Seedline Doctrine? Part 14, The Bad Figs

Over our last two presentations in this series we have covered perhaps only two pages of Charles Weisman’s book, What About the Seedline Doctrine?, and have had a few long digressions. But we hope to have shown that in relation to many words found in the New Testament, Weisman had used the same methods of interpretation which had crept into the early universalist church, which were adopted from Gnosticism and Greek Philosophy, but which are not at all Christian.

So last week, in Part 13 of this series, subtitled Children of Wrath, we addressed a claim by Weisman that where Christ referred to His adversaries as children of the devil, He was only speaking metaphorically and telling them that they were mere followers of the devil. Making that argument, the first flaw is that he seems to have purposely ignored the fact that Christ was speaking in reference to Cain, and not to the serpent of Genesis. So if Christ was implying that His adversaries were mere followers of the devil, why would He make a reference to Cain as their father, and not to the serpent itself?

So while he made that assertion, Weisman then sought to show that being “children of the devil” was only a metaphor by comparing the phrase to similar metaphors which appear in the epistles of Paul or in the gospel accounts. Among these are the phrases children of wrath, children of light, children of the world, child of hell, children of disobedience and son of perdition. So we began to examine each instance that Weisman had cited, and a few that he did not cite, where these and similar phrases appear. Doing that, we found that these phrases certainly were used by the writers of Scripture to describe a class of people other than the children of God, a class which has no offer of mercy, forgiveness or redemption, nor any part in the promises of God. Weisman failed to examine those phrases in their original Biblical contexts, and therefore he expected his readers to take for granted his implication that they are all just metaphors describing people who are merely disobedient, rather than people who in fact could never really be obedient in the first place because they are literally not of God.

The World of Hate vs. Love, John 15:19

After bringing our Commentary on the Gospel of John to its completion, I thought perhaps it is appropriate to take a moment to hear from Clifton Emahiser. I am considering a commentary on the Wisdom of Solomon, alternating with my planned commentary on the epistles of John, and do not yet know which book I want to begin with first. Since beginning my New Testament commentaries with Matthew in 2011, I have been alternating between Old Testament and New, so I will probably continue after that pattern.

Here I am going to present and comment on a paper by Clifton Emahiser, titled Who’s Who in the World of “Hate” versus “Love”, for which Clifton used as its basis the words of Christ in John 15:19. According to Clifton’s records, this essay was written in April of 2012. While it may not be entirely possible for me to do, especially as Clifton himself had made the original presentation, I am going to at least try to present this in a way which makes it palatable for denominational Christians.

One hurdle we have in bringing people to understand our Christian Identity profession is where Judeo-Christians, or perhaps they would be better called denominational Christians, believe that God is love, as the apostle John had taught in 1 John chapter 4, but then they somehow misconstrue that teaching to believe that God is only love. The result is that these people then make Love their god, rather than love the God of the Bible. It is a form of idolatry by which they may as well be worshipping Venus, the pagan goddess of love, rather than Christ.

Addressing Charles Weisman’s What About the Seedline Doctrine? Part 13, Children of Wrath

In our last presentation addressing Charles Weisman’s book What About the Seedline Doctrine?, we began to answer his contention where he said that “The Jews… that Jesus was talking to in John 8 were true Israelites. They were not hybrids like those called ‘Jews’ today, and they were not the seed of the serpent or of Cain.” Later in this fourth chapter of his book, Weisman states, speaking of the words of Christ, that “Words may be spoken figuratively, symbolically, allegorically, poetically, typically, or anti-typically.” But he fails to mention anything of understanding words in their original historical context, which is an important aspect of understanding any real-life narrative or discussion from the past. None of the Judeo-Christian commentaries upon which Weisman has relied, as his citations throughout this book indicate, had ever interpreted the words of Christ or his apostles through the proper historical context of the captivities of Israel, the relatively small remnant which returned to Judea, and the history of that remnant over the 450-year period from the time of Ezra to the birth of Christ. Weisman, as well as the mainstream commentators, all take it for granted that the people of Judaea at the time of Christ were all Israelites, and that is certainly not true.

In his voluminous Antiquities of the Judaeans, in Book 13, Flavius Josephus described in detail how the high priest John Hyrcanus, around 129 BC, had conquered several of the cities of Palestine which had formerly belonged to Israel and Judah, but which were occupied by the Edomites since the 6th century BC. In that same book, Josephus later described how in the days of Alexander Jannaeus, a successor of Hyrcanus, he had done that same thing in 30 other towns or regions in Palestine, during his long rule as high priest in Jerusalem, from 103 to 76 BC. Both of these rulers had forcibly converted the Edomites whom they had conquered to Judaism, the Edomites accepted the conversion, and that is also explained by Josephus. These passages are cited and described in detail at Christogenea, notably in Part 12 of the commentary on Romans: The Epistles of Paul - Romans Part 12, 06-27-2014: Jacob and Esau.

Addressing Charles Weisman’s What About the Seedline Doctrine? Part 12, Children of the Devil

In our last presentation from Weisman’s book, where we are still in chapter 4 , The Role of Cain, under the subtitle Of Your Father the Devil, we actually only presented one paragraph from the bottom of page 31. There Weisman claimed that Christ, in His discourse with His adversaries as it is recorded in John 8:41-44, did not mean father where he said father, but was instead using the word metaphorically. However the answers which John attributed to the Jews themselves reveal that they understood Christ to have been speaking plainly and literally, and the words of Christ in the surrounding dialogue also demonstrate that He was speaking plainly and literally, where He was clearly referring to the origin of His adversaries and not merely to what they believed.

So we had a necessary and long digression to explain that the origin of such allegorical interpretations of the plain words of Scripture are found in early Greek philosophy and in Gnosticism, and that early Church Fathers were following the philosophers and Gnostics in their own interpretations of Scripture, in spite of the plain meanings of words and the clear intent of the speakers, Christ and His apostles.

At the end of that last program, we also heard from a friend who has been involved in Christian Identity circles for a very long time, perhaps over 40 years. So according to our friend Michael, as we heard towards the end of our presentation last week, Charles Weisman did indeed admit to having some Jewish ancestry in a quip which he had made at a dinner party over 20 years ago, and the Christian Identity pastors and teachers and their wives in the circles in which he traveled had chosen to cover it up because they were impressed with his supposed learning. But here we have proven that if Weisman was indeed learned, he consciously chose to spread lies instead of the truth.

Addressing Charles Weisman’s What About the Seedline Doctrine? Part 11, Gnostic Heresies

In our last discussion Addressing Charles Weisman’s What About the Seedline Doctrine?, which was Part 10 of this series, we discussed the The Nature of Cain, and how it is that when he was challenged by God to do good, but then immediately went out and killed his brother, that also serves to prove the circumstances of his birth, that he could not do good because “sin lieth at the door”. We also discussed how and why both Cain and Abel were making sacrifices in the first place, since Cain’s rejected sacrifice was the catalyst for his having been challenged, and having killed Abel. Weisman imagined that Yahweh was offering Cain acceptance, but that is not the case at all. Yahweh, being God, certainly knew that Cain was going to fail. His challenge to Cain and Cain’s failure are not an exercise in vanity on the part of God, but rather they serve as a lesson to us, that a bastard will always do evil in the end. The fact that Abel was even making a sacrifice to Yahweh after Cain had done so also serves to illustrate the reasons for Cain’s disqualification, once it is examined within the context of later Scriptures and statements made by the apostles concerning the patriarchs Enoch and Noah. By the act of making a sacrifice Abel was asserting his own claim as rightful successor to his father.

Following that, Weisman began to address the statements which Christ had made to His adversaries in John chapter 8, and he cited verses 41 through 44 of the chapter. Doing that, he made the assertion that in those words of Christ the word father does not really mean father. But if he had cited more of the passage, the overall context would have proven Weisman to be wrong. In fact, even the part he did cite proves him to be wrong, as the Jews themselves certainly did understand Christ to have been speaking about their ancestry, where they answered Him in verse 41 that “We be not born of fornication; we have one Father, even God.” Of course they were wrong, because they were Edomites, something which is also established in the overall context, but if the Jews understood the word father to be literal, and Christ answered along those same lines, how does Weisman claim that the word father is not literal, but only figurative?

Addressing Charles Weisman’s What About the Seedline Doctrine? Part 10, The Nature of Cain

Once again, there were many extemporaneous remarks in this program which did not make it into my notes. In one, I mentioned Melchizedek in conjunction with Paul. I did not mean to leave any impression that Melchizedek was contemporary with Paul, but only that Paul had described Melchizedek, referring to his explanation that Christ was a priest after the order of Melchizedek. Of course, the only other Melchizedek mentioned in Scripture was contemporary to Abraham.

In our last discussion of chapter 4 of Weisman’s book, we showed that on four occasions, and a fifth, Weisman had lied about the substance of the genealogies which are provided in the Bible. We also spoke at length on Genesis 4:1, and showed that it is a corrupt witness, that interpretations of it and even the actual substance of it were debated in ancient times, and that if it is corrupt and it is not corroborated by any other witness, then it is useless for the purpose of formulation of doctrine because it is unreliable. Since it is the only witness that Cain was a natural son of Adam, the supposition must be open to debate because it is an unreliable witness. To the contrary, there are many witnesses in Scripture and in early Christian apocryphal writings which insist that Cain was not the natural son of Adam. The words of our Redeemer and His apostles also serve to prove that Cain was not Adam’s natural son.