The Two Seed Line Explained

[Michael K.]

I'm sorry that I can not provide positive Scripture to support my claim.

However, using a logical argument we might arrive at the same conclusion or very nearly so, to wit:

Why would Moses have included the genealogy of Cain in the Bible if Cain's entire line was destroyed in the great flood?

Stated alternatively, since we know that Noah was "perfect in his generations," that leaves only his wife, whom we can rule out since she also produced Shem, thus his sons' wives are the only possible route for the survival of Cainite genealogy.

So, what the Scriptures do not say explicitly, they say implicitly, that Cain's line must have survived the flood, and the only way that was possible was aboard the Ark itself, and not through Noah's blood. It clearly devolved upon Ham in some way, since he became the bearer of the curse, and his line produced Caanan and Nimrod. If this wasn't on account of his parents, it must have been his own wife.

In Genesis 6:12 we read,

   

"And God looked upon the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth."

All flesh would, of course, include the wives of Noah's sons, although they became included in God's covenant with Noah through grace, we know that at least Ham subsequently broke this covenant.


Notice in Genesis 9, the language of the Scriptures makes repeated reference to Caanan, son of Ham, who ends up cursed for some reason, even though he does nothing personally:

 

18And the sons of Noah, that went forth of the ark, were Shem, and Ham, and Japheth: and Ham is the father of Canaan.

    19These are the three sons of Noah: and of them was the whole earth overspread.

    20And Noah began to be an husbandman, and he planted a vineyard:

    21And he drank of the wine, and was drunken; and he was uncovered within his tent.

    22And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brethren without.

    23And Shem and Japheth took a garment, and laid it upon both their shoulders, and went backward, and covered the nakedness of their father; and their faces were backward, and they saw not their father's nakedness.

    24And Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his younger son had done unto him.

    25And he said, Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren.

The name Caanan is very likely a cognate of the name Cain, perhaps because his mother was from Cain's line. We know that the land of Caanan (the same one) was filled with wickedness when Joshua conquered it by God's grace. Nothing is for nothing in the Bible, so what does this mean?

I hope that makes a satisfactory justification for my statement.


I also found this website explaining it slightly differently, but also worth noting as it is perhaps an even better explanation:

http://www.propheticrevelation.com/original_sin/the_serpent_seed_2.htm

DID THE SERPENT SEED GET OVER THE FLOOD?

    There were eight souls in the Ark. They were Noah (a pure Sethite) and Mrs.Noah, and Shem, Ham, Japheth, and their wives. Was there any pure descendant of Cain in the Ark? Was there any seed of  the Serpent carried over the Flood? How did the serpentine nature get over the Flood?  And who carried it?

    Since Noah was a pure Sethite it only remains for the other seven members to be identified. Although the pure Sethites may be led to partake of the Cainic lifestyle, they did not possess in their blood the genes of the Devil-possessed Serpent. It is clear from Genesis 9:19 that every person born on this earth can be traced to one of the three sons of Noah — Shem, Ham, and Japheth — "These are the three sons of Noah: and of them was the whole earth overspread."   Noah and his wife did not have any more son or daughter. The Scriptures do not lie: Noah had only Shem, Ham and Japheth. Hence, there was not a single pure Cainite or seed of the Serpent in the Ark. [See Appendix 5.]

    In Genesis 9:20-24 it is recorded that Ham committed incest with his mother, Mrs. Noah. This act was committed when Noah was drunk and lying naked in his tent. Both Ham and Mrs. Noah were guilty of a perverted sexual act.

        Note: To you who do not understand the terms "uncovered" and "the nakedness of his father", I suggest that you study Leviticus chapters 18 and 20. The chapters deal with laws forbidding acts of immorality and the penalties for those who committed any such acts. According to Leviticus 18:8 and 20:11, a man who lay with his father's wife had uncovered his father's nakedness. Read also Deuteronomy 22:30 and 1 Corinthians 5:1. [See Appendix 6.]

    Thus, we see that both parties manifested the wrong spirit — a trait that could only come from the Devil himself through the Serpent. Therefore Mrs. Noah was obviously a Cainite or a hybrid. (Certain Jewish writings state that she was a Cainite. Also, in the genealogy of Cain's descendants, a woman by the name of Naamah was mentioned — Genesis 4:22. In the record of genealogy, women were not mentioned unless they played a part in the history of the people. Was Naamah the wife of Noah?) And since she was Ham's mother, Ham without controversy must have inherited the genetic traits of the Serpent from her. However, Ham was not a Serpent seed as he was not a Cainite, but a half-breed Sethite. Likewise, Shem and Japheth also possessed the serpentine traits.

    So, we have the righteous Noah (of Seth's lineage) and his Cainic or hybrid wife who gave birth to three sons of mixed blood. The sons, in turn, most probably married Cainic women or women of mixed blood because, during their time, the earth was heavily populated by people of mixed race who filled the earth with wickedness, evil, and violence (Genesis 6:1-13). Remember the Cainic women — "daughters of men" were fair (that is, sexy and seductive, perhaps like modern day Jezebels). With such conditions prevailing, the true "sons of God" — Sethites must have been watered down to nothing.

            Note:  Some Christians believe that Noah was also a mixed seed because he became drunk after the Flood.

    No, Noah was a pure Sethite. His drunkenness did not prove otherwise. Drunkenness is not an evil trait nor is it inherited. It was never considered a sin in the Old Testament time but only a curse (Isa.5:22-23; Prov.23:19-21). In the New Testament age, under Grace, Paul hit out at excessive wine drinking and warned that drunkards could not inherit the Kingdom of God because, as saints of God, our bodies are the temples of the Holy Spirit. Excessive alcohol when taken into the body, not only numb the senses, but gradually destroys certain tissues of the body. (Read Ephesians 5:18; 1 Timothy 3:3,8; Galatians 5:16-26 and 1 Corinthians 6:9-20.)

    Noah's indulgence in excessive wine drinking came upon him most probably as a result of the influence of the mixed populace of his generation before the Flood. He must have acquired the art of wine-making and drinking then. (You must remember that the people of Adam were simple people, mainly keepers of animals, but those of the Serpent were tillers of the ground as well as great achievers in many fields of science because of their imaginative and inventive minds.)  Noah became a husbandman, tilled the ground and planted a vineyard only after the Flood (Gen.9:20).

    If Noah was a mixed seed then his mother was either a Cainic woman or one who was a mixed seed. But the genealogy of the Adamic firstborn did not end with his father, Lamech. Read Genesis 5. It ended with Noah who was mentioned with his three sons together, rather than with Japheth his firstborn alone. Also, Japheth is placed last among the three sons. Thus, the last of the pure righteous firstborn was Noah. [See Appendix 7.]  (Examine the genealogy of Cain in Genesis 4:16-22 and you can see that the last of the pure Serpent firstborn was Lamech. Lamech had three sons and a daughter by his two wives, Adah and Zillah. Jabal was the firstborn of Lamech, and "he was the father of such as dwell in tents, and of such as have cattle" (verse 20). This verse leads us to understand that Adah could only be a Sethite as evidenced by the lifestyle of Jabal. Jabal's dominant Sethic characteristics could only have come from her. In contrast, Adah's second son, Jubal, inherited a dominant Cainic nature for "he was the father of all such as handle the harp and organ" (verse 21). The three sons of Lamech were of the same generation as Sethic Enoch whom God had raised up to prophesy against that wicked and evil generation of the two peoples when they began to intermarry.)

    All the pure righteous firstborn of Adam's blood had to pass away from the wicked world before God's judgement was poured out because God does not treat the righteous and the wicked alike (Gen.18:23,25; Psa.1:5-6). Methuselah was the oldest and the last (pre-Flood) patriarch to die.

    Though he was a pure righteous firstborn, Noah had to go through the tribulation of the Flood because he was unequally yoked in marriage with a woman of the world, so to speak. However, he found Grace in the eyes of God (Gen.6:8,9) to survive the Flood with his family. (Noah types the Foolish Virgins who have to ride the wave of the Great Tribulation period that is soon to come.)

[Timothy_Fitzpatrick]

MK, I always understood that the purpose of the flood was to kill off the Nephilim.

[Michael K.]

Agreed, Talmud Tim, but the Bible gives the most inclusive and complete explanation in Genesis 6:

5And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.

 6And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.

 7And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.

So this includes not just the Nephilim, but all sinful flesh which had gone astray with and through them.

[Timothy_Fitzpatrick]

MK, true. And I think the serpent seeders miss this very important point. Why do you need a demonic seedline to corrupt mankind when man is perfectly capable of this himself?

[Michael K.]

The Bible isn't about dueling genealogies alone.  It's message is clear, and repeated throughout:  Sin and perversion of nature lead to death and misery; righteousness leads to eternal life; repentance, self-sacrifice and re-dedication to the true God, the creator of Heaven and Earth is the path from error to forgiveness.  

There are natural born humans that in themselves are our pathway to God the Father, they are Our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God; and Our Lady the Theotokos and Ever-Virgin Mary.  Together they are the NEW ADAM AND EVE.  

And this is the really significant part, because if your head gets stuck back in the Old Testament, and you never come to know the Savior and the Theotokos, you will miss out on eternity along with the leaders of the Jews and the Muslims, who are all hung up back at the Temple of Solomon.

[GordZilla]

Cain's line didn't survive the flood, and Noah never took a wife from the land of the Canites, in fact he was explicitly forbidden to, as were the generations before him.

The answer for how the blood line made it thru the flood is found in the story of Esau (the Red) and Jacob, the dynamic of Cain and Abel was recreated  -by God-  in these two essentially right after the flood. Esau was the father, just as Cain was, of the Pharisees. This dynamic is important to God. He let the serpent sow his seed, and then went as far as to recreate the dynamic in Esau and Jacob. I personally believe His reason for doing  this is twofold, one is, again, to give Satan reign over this realm - to act as a filter to harvest only the best soles, soles who see thru it and will ascend themselves above it. This realm is as a test or level. This life is to act as a filter of spirits, unfortunately not all of us will make it - I personally doubt I will  :shh: . The second reason is to stand as testament to the words of Jesus Christ - testament to Christianity itself. In reality this dynamic is the greatest proof of God even being real  in the first place and it's the greatest source of human faith for God - 'faith' is His most valued treasure. You can't explain away the Jew any other way but that of being of Satan and without that, without the Jew,  the truth of God would be far harder to discover and believe. Most, if not all, would be atheists by now, or at the very least belong to a false Church (as most do). However the wise can see, and He left these clues for us. To see the truth, fight righteously for it and live by it is to ascend from this plain. (which, in my opinion, is why He stated so few will ever ascend especially in the end days, just as we see now; very few actually see)


The parallels are all there;

Cain is to Esau as Cainites are to Edomites - nothing good comes from neither of them and the Jew comes from both.  And none of the descendants of Abel nor Jacob were to ever take a wife from either Cainites nor Edomites. Again forbidden.
Jacob, becomes Israel, who is not a Jew  -which plays well into Identity folks beliefs.  The Jews are clearly from Pharisees who are from Edomites/Cainites i.e. from Satan's seed as allotted by God.

The devil's greatest trick is to convince you he is not real, God took extra steps to make sure that the wise would see that he was very real indeed. While the Jews play the devil's tricks for him, convincing others that they too are something they are not.  Without the Jews many WISE people would never believe Satan was real, but when you recognize his minions on earth it becomes all too real.

That's how I see it, and I think if you read the book again  it that light you will see that it lines up perfectly. Look at the Jew's nature and it also aligns perfectly. They are certainly not like the rest of us, they are not like any other group of people who ever were.


And still, Jesus could have meant NOTHING ELSE when He stated ; "You are of your father the devil, who is the king of all lies."


"Esau one day you will lift your brother's yoke, but your time will be short" - I guess it's all realitive  

[Timothy_Fitzpatrick]

Anybody can become the son of hell by partaking in lies—sin. Don't have to be a Jew to be called a child of hell.

[GordZilla]

I agree, but we have the choice, we choose our own path. It reminds me of the often restated line in the bible "God put it in the hearts of men". God put in us that little nagging voice, the annoying 'conscious', and ours tends to give us guilt when we steer the boat the wrong way. We can still correct the course or just go with it -we always have a choice.

However I feel the Jew has something entirely different in their 'hearts'. I think this is quite evident in their collective capacity to do evil. They are (among other things and in general) ; master liars, usurers, apathetic  creatures and even cold blooded murderers. This is not to say a gentile is not capable of all these things but it is to say we are certainly not; first prone to do such things naturally and collectively, and secondly  we are not masters at any of them -again collectively. Where the Jew is.  It's often said gentiles cannot act, and in general we are very bad actors. We don't have a natural ability to disguise our true natures, some of us even blush, our faces often give us away. The Jew is not burdened by this, nor a feeling of guilt, nor a pesky feeling of empathy when they do someone wrong.  The Jew is EXACTLY as Cain stated so long ago; not their brother's keeper. They feel no unity with the rest of mankind, and they also know well that our collective empathy is our greatest weakness. They exploit this fact constantly.  'Oh us poor Jews', they cry, and we feel sympathy for them as if on cue. No  I'm sorry but the Jew is a different beast from the rest of mankind, failing to see this fact is at your own peril.

 You could literally write a book about the general differences between Jews and Gentiles, and you will discover the 'differences' are almost always completely opposite as well as almost completely across the board. Like fire and water, black and white - we could be no different  (collectively).  There's hardly any 'gray' area there to speak of. We strive to do good, well most of us, yet the Jew strives to do us wrong, they strive to gain advantage, they strive to see us forced downward. That's a big difference, just look in your heart you know it's true. We don't see this sort of behavior coming from any other groups of people but from the Jews  (again collectively -I can't stress this enough). Virtually all cultures and races hold honor in high esteem. Truth and loyalty are dearly held virtues to almost all of mankind. At least it was this way for many hundreds of years  but inevitably the erosion of the Jew sets in and these virtues are cast out the window.

But the Jew? What is honor to a Jew?  What compassion does the Jew feel for others? What stock does a Jew place in truth, integrity or righteousness?

If you honestly think the Jew is merely a gentile who has suffered under some severe brain washing and is not just a product of their collective true nature then I invite you to YET AGAIN watch history repeat.  This same mistake has been made 109 times before when our collective empathy once again got the better of us and let them back into our lives. You know the rest.  Simply put; a leopard cannot change its spots.

[GordZilla]

"You are of YOUR FATHER, the king of all lies"

He is not stating here that they made a 'choice' to follow Satan, nor that anyone, by merely sinning, can change who their father is. A sinner's father is still God, he'd just better hope on forgiveness. Jesus was not getting 'daddy's' mixed up here, He's being quite clear. Their 'father' is not God, and none of us have the capability to change who our father is. You can become Satan's property by your actions, I have no doubt about that, but your father will remain your father and it is He who will decide your fate. The people whom Jesus was talking to were not of this same 'father'  and I don't think He could have made that any more clear.

"And so answered the Jews"


And on a side note; could you think of a worse 'hell' then to be surrounded in close proximity with Satan's children for the rest of eternity?  I could think of nothing worse, and there they'd be free to show their true colors, 24-7 and forever.

                       

[mkpete777]

The seed of cain aka kenites are all around the globe.The zionists seem to be overtly so.A great web site is biblestudysite.com explains this in detail.It also is a great source for books concerning zionists etc.

[GordZilla]

The seed of cain aka kenites are all around the globe.The zionists seem to be overtly so.A great web site is biblestudysite.com explains this in detail.It also is a great source for books concerning zionists etc.

Good site, reading it now... lots here. thanks for this.

 

[Timothy_Fitzpatrick]

I don't know how you guys can buy into this Christian identity stuff. It's hermeneutic is so inconsistent with the Bible. It's nothing more than over-zealousy.

This gives us clearly to know, first that "the promises" exerted a mighty influence over those to whom they were first given, (proving that their faith in what God had spoken was real and unwavering); and second, that the nature of the promises were such as to turn their thoughts entirely away from the earth, and to raise in their hearts the expectation of a country "better" than the very best of earth (showing that the promises themselves were spiritual and heavenly in character). For those promises had the effect of making even "the land of promise" itself to be to them as a foreign country. For while the land of Canaan was indeed promised to Abraham's natural seed, that promise never was "the hope of Israel." The hope of the gospel which God preached to Abraham was of such a nature that it caused him, and those who were "the heirs with him of the same promise," to declare themselves "strangers and pilgrims on the earth."

 It was not until centuries of time had passed, not until faith had vanished from among the children of Israel, not until the true spiritual and eternal character of the promises had faded out of sight, and fleshly lusts had taken the place of heavenly hopes and longings, that there arose among the natural seed of Abraham the ruinous doctrine that "the hope of Israel" was an earthly thing. That doctrine was the product of degenerate times. It was tenaciously held and zealously propagated by the scribes, Pharisees, rabbis and lawyers of first century Judaism - that "generation of vipers"; and it wrought in them such devilishness that they eagerly carried out the will of their "father, the devil" (Matt. 23:33; John 8:44) in compassing the crucifixion of the Lord of glory. Should we not therefore regard that odious doctrine with abhorrence and fear? And should it not be a matter of anxious inquiry as to how it has arisen and spread itself among the true followers of Christ in these perilous times?

     And now we come to the grand climax of the passage we are examining, Hebrews XI. It is found in verse 16, where it is announced that the fathers of Israel desired "a better country, that is an heavenly. Wherefore God is not ashamed to be called their God; for He hath prepared for them a city"; and from Revelation 21:2,3, we learn that He will dwell with them in that city forever.

     Here is truth of the highest importance and most practical character. These words give us the explanation of the fact that the Eternal God, the Almighty Creator, He who is infinite in power, wisdom and holiness, condescends to call Himself "the God of Abraham, of Isaac and of Jacob" (Ex. 3:6, 16; Matt. 22:32).

     There could be no more emphatic assertion of the oneness of God's elect, the true "seed of Abraham" (Gal. 3:7,29), and of the truly fundamental truth that there is just "one hope," one "common salvation" for them all, whether by nature they be Jews or Gentiles.

—Phillip Mauro, The Hope of Israel

[checkitb4uwreckit]

I don't know how you guys can buy into this Christian identity stuff.

I don't know how you can buy into Christianity period. Your beliefs are no more rational or evidence-based then C.I. followers. Every version of Christianity is fantasist garbage.

[Timothy_Fitzpatrick]

Gordzilla, Preterism is a much better hermeneutic than Christian Identity. I strongly urge you to study it. I'll be writing an article about it soon on my blog—how it is the most anti-Zionist interpretation of the Bible in all of Christendom. Gord, Pas, I'll say that elements of the serpent seedline theory may be true, but it should not be the basis for overall interpretation of scripture.

Preterism = Grace through faith

Christian Identity = Grace through race (same as Judaism and Nazism)

[mkpete777]

Sargon the magnificent is an E-BOOK that offers credible evidence as to who cain was and what he did after eden.Its a quick and very interesting read.Its a free download at http://www.biblestudysite.com/sargon%20ebook.htm

[Roy Hobs]

Michael K -- Who is "Our Lady the Theotokos"

What is 'theotokos'?

[Michael K.]

http://orthodoxwiki.org/Theotokos

The title Theotokos (in Greek, Θεοτοκος) is a Greek word that means "God-bearer" or "Birth-giver to God."

Full title of Mary

The title Our All-holy, immaculate, most blessed and glorified Lady, the Theotokos and Ever-Virgin Mary (Greek: Τῆς Παναγίας, ἀχράντου, ὑπερευλογημένης, ἐνδόξου, δεσποίνης ἡμῶν Θεοτόκου καὶ ἀειπαρθένου Μαρίας)[1] is often used in Orthodox services when Mary is mentioned.

    1. All-holy

        The title Panagia (all-holy) never was a subject of dogmatic definition, but it is accepted and used by all Orthodox. This is because she is the supreme example of cooperation between God and the free will of man. "Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it unto me according to your word" (Luke 1:38). Sometimes Mary is called the New Eve because her obedient submission to the will of God offset Eve's disobedience in Paradise.

    2. Immaculate

        The Orthodox Church calls Mary "immaculate," "pure," or "spotless" (achrantos in Greek). Some Orthodox state that she was free from actual sin, some say she never sinned, and others just say she died sinless.
        As for original sin and the Roman Catholic doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, the Orthodox Church has never made any formal and definitive pronouncement on the subject. The majority of Orthodox have rejected the doctrine, for it seems to separate Mary from the rest of mankind, putting her in a completely different class from all the other righteous men and women of the Old Testament. It is important that Mary was the same as all mankind so that all Christians can follow her example and submit to God's will. Mary was born a sinner, a human with full human nature. Mary's Son, Jesus the Christ, took flesh from her. So as Son of God, He assumed fallen human nature from her and redeemed humanity by His Crucifixion and Resurrection. Also, the original doctrine of the Immaculate Conception (1869) implies an understanding of original sin not held by the Orthodox Church.

    3. Most blessed and glorified Lady

        The Orthodox Church honors the Mother of God on account of the Son. St. Cyril of Alexandria, along with the Fathers of the Council of Ephesus, insisted on calling Mary "Theotokos" not just to glorify her, but to safeguard a right doctrine of Christ's person, the Incarnation. Orthodox Christians feel that one cannot really believe in the Incarnation and not honor Mary.

    4. the Theotokos

        See above. This is often translated as "the Mother of God."

    5. ever Virgin Mary

        See below. The Orthodox Church honors Mary as "ever Virgin." In iconography, her virginity before, during, and after the birth of Christ is represented by three stars on her shoulders and forehead.

As a title for the Virgin Mary, Theotokos was recognized by the Orthodox Church at Third Ecumenical Council held at Ephesus in 431. It had already been in use for some time in the devotional and liturgical life of the Church. The theological significance of the title is to emphasize that Mary's son, Jesus, is fully God, as well as fully human, and that Jesus' two natures (divine and human) were united in a single Person of the Trinity. The competing view at that council was that Mary should be called Christotokos instead, meaning "Birth-giver to Christ." This was the view advocated by Nestorius, then Patriarch of Constantinople. The intent behind calling her Christotokos was to restrict her role to be only the mother of "Christ's humanity" and not his divine nature.

Nestorius' view was anathematized by the Council as heresy, (see Nestorianism), since it was considered to be dividing Jesus into two distinct persons, one who was Son of Mary, and another, the divine nature, who was not. It was defined that although Jesus has two natures, human and divine, these are eternally united in one personhood. Because Mary is the mother of God the Son, she is therefore duly entitled Theotokos.

Calling Mary the Theotokos or the Mother of God (Μητηρ Θεου) was never meant to suggest that Mary was coeternal with God, or that she existed before Jesus Christ or God existed. The Church acknowledges the mystery in the words of this ancient hymn: "He whom the entire universe could not contain was contained within your womb, O Theotokos."

The title "Theotokos" continues to be used frequently in the hymns of the Orthodox Church.

2. Translating the word Theotokos While some languages used by various Orthodox churches often have a single native word for Theotokos, it gets translated into English in a number of ways. The most common is Mother of God, though God-bearer and Birth-giver to God are also fairly common. There are difficulties with all these translations, however. The most literally correct one is Birth-giver to God, though God-bearer comes close. Theophoros (Θεοφορος) is the Greek term usually and more correctly translated as God-bearer, so using God-bearer for Theotokos in some sense "orphans" Theophoros when it comes time to translate that term (for St. Ignatius of Antioch, for instance). The main difficulties with both these translations for Theotokos is that they are a bit awkward and difficult to sing.

The most popular translation, Mother of God, is accurate to a point, but the difficulty with that one is that Mother of God is the literal translation of another Greek phrase which is found on nearly all icons of the Theotokos: Μητηρ Θεου (Meter Theou), usually in the standard iconographic abbreviation of ΜΡ ΘΥ. Additionally, a number of hymns employ both Theotokos and Meter Theou—translating both as Mother of God can yield some rather nonsensical language, and it destroys the distinction that the hymnographer intended.

The usage that seems to be dominant in English-speaking Orthodox churches in North America is to adopt the original term itself into English (something English speakers have traditionally done with foreign words almost since the earliest known history of the language), transliterating it simply as Theotokos. British usage gives preference to translating Theotokos as Mother of God.

Testimony from Scripture

The principal understanding of the Virgin Mary as Ever-Virgin in Scripture is expressed in terms of her being a new Ark of the Covenant, a created thing which somehow contained the uncontainable God. The reason that St. Joseph the Betrothed (as tradition names him) did not enter into marital relations with her is that he understood her as one would understand the Ark, that she had been set aside for use by God, and that her womb had in some sense been made into a temple. The language used for the Virgin in the New Testament parallels that used for the Ark in the Old:

From a Roman Catholic source:[5]

    For the first time God's presence has descended upon a person as the new ark of the Covenant. . . . Rene Laurentin speaks of the subtle use of ark imagery [early in Luke]. For instance, he shows how in II Samuel 6, there was a journey to the hill country of Judah that the ark of the covenant took. Likewise, the same phrase is used to describe Mary's journey to the hill country. . . . Both David and Mary "arose and made the journey." In II Samuel 6:2 and Luke 1:39. Laurent goes on to describe how when the Ark arrived and when Mary arrived, they were both greeted with "shouts of joy." And the word for shout or the word for Elizabeth's greeting, anafametezein, is very rare. It's only used in connection with the OT liturgical ceremonies that were centered around the Ark. It literally means to "cry aloud, to proclaim or intone."

    Elizabeth greets Mary the same way the Ark of the Covenant was greeted. The entrance of the Ark and the entrance of Mary are seen then as blessing an entire household. Like Obededom's household was blessed, so Elizabeth sees her household as blessed. Laurentin goes on to talk about how both David and Elizabeth react with awe. "How shall the Ark of the Lord come to me?" David says in II Samuel 6:9. And likewise Elizabeth says, "Why should the mother of the Lord come to me?" The Ark of the Covenant and the Mother of our Lord are in a sense two ways of looking at the same reality which is becoming clearer and more personal with Our Lady. Then finally, the Ark of the Covenant and Mary both remain in the respective houses for three months, II Samuel 6:11 and Luke 1:56.

    In Luke 1 and 2 we have the annunciation of Gabriel to Zachariah and six months later the annunciation by Gabriel to Mary, then nine months later Jesus is born, and thirty days later He is presented in the temple. You add up 180 days in the six months, 270 days in the nine months, and the 40 days in the presentation and it adds up to 490, which is a very rare number that is found in one of the most memorable prophecies in the OT, Daniel 9. . . . Luke is once again giving a surplus value, a surplus meaning to those who are really willing to dig deep into the text to see all of the inspired meanings behind what God has done to inaugurate the New Covenant salvation in Christ and in His Blessed Mother.

    This is the Ark of the Covenant. Now let's go back and conclude our time in Revelation 11 and 12. We have Mary the Ark of the Covenant. We have Mary the true tabernacle. We have in Mary a figure for the New Jerusalem because at the end of Revelation, how is the New Jerusalem described? As being a bride that is pure and yet also being a mother of God's children Well, how is it that you could be at the same time virginally pure and maternally fruitful? It seems impossible in human nature, but not for Mary, not only in mothering Jesus, but in John 19 at the cross and also in Revelation 12 where we read at the very end of the chapter, verse 17, we discover that Mary becomes by grace the mother of all God's children.

How is it that our Lord would have brothers? Many look at the story of Ss. Mary and Joseph and see a young couple about to embark on their married life together, but Church tradition holds differently. St. Joseph was a much older man, a widower, and had children by his previous marriage, thus his sons were in some sense Christ's step-brothers, and their being older than Jesus can also account for some of the way he is treated by them as being the baby of the family, somewhat out of his mind. Joseph takes in Mary as something like his ward, because in leaving her life as a Temple virgin, she could not go out into the world alone (cf. Protevangelion of James). That is why Joseph, a righteous, respected man, was chosen to take her in. His being much older than she also accounts for the notion that they should have had relations—she had already dedicated herself to a life of virginity, whereas he was a much older man who had already had his children and whose wife had died. Another possible understanding is that these "brothers" of our Lord were his cousins—St. Jerome holds this view, that these were the children of St. Joseph's brother Cleopas, who had died and left his children and widow in Joseph's care, according to Jewish custom.

Additionally, both the Hebrew and Greek terms for "brother" are often used to refer to relatives who are not necessarily what we in English would term "brothers," i.e., perhaps a cousin or an uncle, or some other relative. For example, Abraham and Lot are called adelphoi in Gen. 14:14 in the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the OT used by the Apostles), though they are certainly not what we would call "brothers." Jacob and Laban are also called "brothers" (Gen. 29:15), though Laban would have been Jacob's uncle. In any event, the words do not mean the precise thing that the modern English "brother" does.

Beyond that, it is nowhere to be found in Scripture that any man other than the God-man Jesus Christ is called the child of Mary.

Some would cite the use of the "until" in Scripture ("...and he knew her not until (Greek eos) her having brought forth her firstborn son..." (Matthew 1:25; Luke 2:7)) to indicate that after she gave birth to the God-man, that St. Joseph then "knew" her maritally. Again, this is a translation problem.

From this webpage:

    This verse seems to be often translated as "he knew her not until after..." This is not, however, what is meant. The Greek original, eos, indicates the true meaning, of "he had no sexual relations with her prior to her giving birth." The Evangelist makes this statement in order to assure us that Joseph had no part in the conception of Jesus. The term eos ou does not require the understanding that he had relations with her after Christ was born. It merely indicates that, as regards the birth of Jesus, Joseph had not had relations with Mary prior to the birth, thus, he was not the father of Jesus. This is merely a usual turn of phrase, the use of a standard and familiar form of expression. This same term and meaning is used elsewhere in the Bible as a standard expression, and it clearly does not indicate what the heterodox (non-Orthodox) claim it does. At 2 Samuel 6:23, for instance, we read, "And Milchal, the daughter of Saul, had no child until [eos] her death. Did she, then, have children after her death? Of course not!, and neither did Joseph "know" Mary after the birth of Jesus. At Genesis 8:7, we read that Noah "sent forth a raven; and it went forth and did not return till [eos] after the water had gone from off the face of the earth." We know from Scripture that in fact, the raven never returned to the ark. It says that it did not return "until after," but in fact, it never returned at all. The Scripture says that "Joseph knew her not till after...", but in fact, he never "knew" her at all. In another example, the Bible says, 'The Lord said to my Lord, 'Sit at my right hand until [eos] I make Thine enemies Thy footstool" (Mark 12:36). Does this mean that Christ will cease to sit at the right hand of the glory of the Father once His enemies have been overcome? Of course not! Hence, the Bible does not say that "Joseph knew her not until after she brought forth her first born, but then he did." The Bible says, "He did not know her before (up until) she had brought forth her firstborn," meaning simply and clearly, "Joseph was not the father. He had not come together with her before her pregnancy, thus he was not involved in the conception of Jesus."

Another testimony from Scripture is that on the cross, our Lord gave his holy mother into the care of the Apostle John (John 19:26). This might seem a merely practical thing to do, but if we recall the Mosaic Law would have dictated that she be given into the care of other natural children, since her firstborn son was dying. Christ, who kept the Law perfectly, would not have violated it in any detail, and so when he gave his mother to the apostle to look after, he did so only because she had no other children who could take her in, St. Joseph having long since passed away.

Testimony from the Protestant Reformers

Though the Orthodox Church does not follow the teachings of the Protestant Reformers, their views regarding the Theotokos's ever-virginity are a point of commonality with Orthodoxy. Many of the major figures amongst the Protestant fathers in the faith believed in the Theotokos's ever-virginity.

John Calvin:

    He says that she [Mary of Cleophas] was the sister of the mother of Jesus, and, in saying so, he adopts the phraseology of the Hebrew language, which includes cousins, and other relatives, under the term 'brothers.' - John Calvin, Commentary of the Gospel According to John, on John 19:25

    The word 'brothers', we have formerly mentioned, is employed, agreeably to the Hebrew idiom, to denote any relative whatever; and, accordingly, Helvidius displayed excessive ignorance in concluding that Mary must have had many sons because Christ's 'brother' are sometimes mentioned. - John Calvin, Commentary on a Harmony of the Evangelists, Matthew, Mark, and Luke, vol. II, p. 215 (on Matthew 13:55)

[Note: Helvidius was a 5th-century Christian who denied the perpetual virginity of Mary and was rebuked and refuted by Jerome in his treatise, "On the Perpetual Virginity of Blessed Mary Against Helvidius"]

Huldrych Zwingli:

    I give an example: taught by the light of faith the Christ was born of a virgin, we know that it is so, that we have no doubt that those who have been unambiguously in error have tried to make a figure of speech of a real virgin, and we pronounce absurd the things that Helvidius and others have invented about perpetual virginity. - Huldrych Zwingli. "Friendly Exegesis, that is, Exposition of the Matter of the Eucharist to Martin Luther, February 1527," in Selected Writings of Huldrych Zwingli, Volume Two, trans. and ed. by H. Wayne Pipkin, Pickwick Publications, 1984 p.275.

    Then the pious mind finds wonderful delights in searching for the reasons why the lamb chose to be born of a perpetual virgin, but in this other case it finds nothing but a hopeless horror. [The other case that Zwingli here refers to is the Real Presence] - Huldrych Zwingli. "Subsidiary Essay on the Eucharist, August 1525," in Selected Writings of Huldrych Zwingli, Volume Two, trans. and ed. by H. Wayne Pipkin, Pickwick Publications, 1984 p.217.

Martin Luther:

    A new lie about me is being circulated. I am supposed to have preached and written that Mary, the mother of God, was not a virgin either before or after the birth of Christ, but that she conceived Christ through Joseph and had more children after that. - Martin Luther, "That Jesus Christ Was Born a Jew," in Luther's Works, vol. 45, ed. Walther I. Brand, 1962, Muhlenberg Press, p. 199.

    The form of expression used by Matthew is the common idiom, as if I were to say, 'Pharaoh believed not Moses, until he was drowned in the Red Sea.' Here it does not follow that Pharaoh believed later, after he had drowned; on the contrary, it means that he never did believe. Similarly when Matthew says that Joseph did not know Mary carnally until she had brought forth her son, it does not follow that he knew her subsequently; on the contrary, it means that he never did know her. Again, the Red Sea overwhelmed Pharaoh before he got across. Here too, it does not follow that Pharaoh got across later, after the Red Sea had overwhelmed him, but rather that he did not get across at all. In like manner, when Matthew says, 'She was found to be with child before they came together,' it does not follow that Mary subsequently lay with Joseph, but rather that she did not lie with him. - Martin Luther, "That Jesus Christ Was Born a Jew," in Luther's Works, vol. 45, ed. Walther I. Brand, 1962, Muhlenberg Press, p. 212.

John Wesley:

    I believe that he was made man, joining the human nature with the divine in one person; being conceived by the singular operation of the Holy Ghost, and born of the blessed Virgin Mary, who, as well after as before she brought him forth, continued a pure and unspotted virgin. - John Wesley "Letter to a Roman Catholic"

Protestants who deny the ever-virginity of the Theotokos are breaking even with their own fathers in faith.

[Roy Hobs]

Thank you Michael.  I feel lazy now however.  I should have just googled it.  But I do appreciate your content.  I was surprised to learn that Wesley believed in the teaching that Mary was a perpetual Virgin.  I have always admired Wesley.  Thanks again.

[Chad]

I believe a little of both, myself.  I believe that there is a literal seedline of Satan.  That is not necessarily based entirely upon traditional seed line references.  There are non-canonical books which support seedline views.  The book of Enoch spells it out in no uncertain terms that demons have mated with human beings and produced offspring.  

What militates against the seedline theory, is the fact that Jews are not one race, even though they are intensely self-preservative and in some cases supremacists.  As anti seedliners point out, when the Israelites of the southern kingdom of Israel, called the House of Judah (consisting of the tribes of Judah and Benjamin, with the vast majority of the remaining Israelites of the northern kingdom of Israel having been carried away into Assyrian captivity), conquered the Edomites of Idumea, the Edomites "converted" in order to avoid being slaughtered, for fear of Judah. Jewish sources record that Edomites completely absorbed into the House of Judah, and became "Jews," that is, citizens of Judea. However, the new testament shows that there was a latent ethnic-religious rivalry between true Israelites and these Edomite Jews.  At some point after the House of Judah returned from their captivity in Babylon, and after Edomites were absorbed into Judea, there was a total perversion of the Hebrew faith in Yahweh.  That was the end of Hebrewism and the dawn of modern Judaism, which Jesus Christ called Jewish fables and the commandments of men.  

We all know what the Talmud says about Jesus Christ. And if anyone here doesn't know, read Israel Shahak's Jewish History, Jewish Religion.

Back to Esau-Edom.  I know of many examples in the new testament of this rivalry between true Israelites and fake Jews, and I would be happy to ad lib on that. But the point is, if the Jews today are Edomites, along with other converts such as Khazars, then how can they be the literal seed of Satan?  After all Esau-Edom was Jacob-Israel's half-brother.

The key is...we do not know much about what else was in the bloodline of Edom's descendants.  A mixture of some or all of Israel's ancient enemies?  Probably.  Very likely there was also an introduction of Satan's seed into that lineage of Edom.  There is no reason to think Jesus Christ was speaking "figuratively" when he said those Edomite Jews were the devil's children.  Not when Esau-Edom is prophesied to be utterly destroyed on the day of the Lord, perhaps the same day that the Lord will make those who say they are Jews, and are not, but lie, and are of the synagogue of Satan, perhaps when God makes them confess that Jesus is the Messiah and that He loves us, right before he destroys them. I believe the judgement of the false Jews in the book of Revelation, and the judgement of Edom, is one and the same judgement.  It will happen.  

That is what I believe.

[Chad]

Serpent Seed heresy may sound good to anti-Judaics, but it is still heresy.

Here I respectfully disagree with you, nothing fits better. I've first heard of this back in 94, and since then I still have yet to find flaw in the story. It fits like a glove and explains away so much of the bible that is often used against believers -stuff that seems to be contrary or nonsensical. The generations of Adam, for example, is one of the most concise lists of the bible, God just goes on and on and on listing out names, but why? I believe it is to illustrate to the reader that the lack of Cain's name is NO oversight. Esau 'The Red' also brings back the same dynamic that's originally found in the story of Cain and Able. The fact that Jesus Himself refers to the Jews as being 'of their father, the king of all lies' etc, you could go on indefinitely, but the bottom line is; this story fits. It fits the bible, it fits our current situation, "What am I ? My brother's keeper?". It helps to understand the Jew beyond evolution and indoctrination, it explains them in the way they truly are; demonic. They stick together no matter what;  the 'it's us against them' mentality. Evolution and indoctrination fail to explain why they remain (and have always been) such a tight net group. Jews are testament to Christianity, and this version of Christianity holds the most weight to that fact. My only concern with it, and it's why I still don't consider myself as C.I., is the fact the 12 tribes are indeed 'chosen'  and  I would NEVER make that assumption of myself. It's a dangerous and arrogant mindset to hold. But the 'devil's seed' theory fits perfectly  in most other categories - especially when one becomes 'Jew wise'.  

 It also sheds light on to why it is that there is a split between Old and New Testaments. Jesus said "I didn't come to change the word of God, nor disregard it, but to fulfill it.".  All of the Old Testament were words we were to live by until -as Jesus Himself put it- "Till it's fulfilled' (He stated both these things) So if He came to 'fulfill it' (the Old Testament) then in His passing we should consider it 'fulfilled' And if it's fulfilled  then now our focus should be on the words of the New Testament -IMO. (the sequel, You know ...where Jesus starts to really kick some Talmudic ass    )

Also this view sheds light on why God seemed to be so devastatingly evil, especially in the Old Testament. Imagine that  we knew all our enemies, some say we already do, and imagine if God also knew of the unjust things they were doing; What would you expect Him to do about it? Sure He tried to correct them, but that usually failed, as  human arrogance always takes hold and God's words are inevitably ignored, so Instead He choose to wipe the slate clean. His targets were often Edomites or Cainites. But remember, after all, when 'killing' He is only removing the mortal vessel as ultimately He alone determines what becomes of the spirit. (what is 'killing' to the keeper of souls after all?)  So again, understanding that Satan's seed line is well and good on earth, and that it's still with us,  does that not almost make you wish for this same 'justice'? Even today?

Without the Jew, or the devil's seed line, there would also be no reason for faith. And faith is the greatest gift one can offer God, indeed it's the only one He truly values - but He didn't want it to be too easy. He wanted you to have free choice, but He also wanted you to realize, threw the Jew, that to follow the serpent is also a choice you can make. (the path of Satan is wide) It's a very real choice with very real results.  To me this 'life' is only but a filter for the next, 'up or down' that's our choice. Choosing not to believe is fine but you are left with very little when it comes to trying to explain away the Jew's true nature. You can simply ignore that too -it's all about choice and consequence after all.

Jesus nailed it, and they are playing their role to a 'T' , it's left for us to recognise this and choose our side. And we'd have it no other way. His alternative would be to be here every day holding our hands and telling us what we should or should not do in every situation -I don't think any of us would want that. So instead He left a clue, and a force compelling us to seek truth and goodness, that being 'evil' and He let it reign supreme on earth. The best of us will recognize and reject it, the worst of us will side with it. However most of us are somewhere in the middle, still trying to figure it all out -personally I believe we still have time.


"I know of your works and of your lies, how you claim to be poor though thou are rich, and of the blasphemy of those that call themselves Jews but are not and are of the synagogue of Satan"


[youtube:73qxr2in]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7uoSA8cngZM[/youtube]73qxr2in]

I see you didn't investigate some of the contradictions I brought up before that this serpent seed heresy creates. The biggest problem that arises from this escapist theory is that it basically leaves you with no conclusion other than that man is not responsible for his sin. Instead, we are to believe that it's all the fault of the Jews and the serpent seed.

And what about the few good Jews out there? Shouldn't their alleged demonic genetics prevent them from doing any good? Is Mordechai Vanunu a demon? Hoffman?  I'm not saying there are not demonic Jews, surely there are, just as there are demonic gentiles. Are there more demonic Jews? Maybe, but not in the context of said heresy. If anything, the serpent seed is a spiritual seed—as is the seed of Abraham also a spiritual seed. It would make sense that they would be reciprocal in this way.

I admit that I can't quite explain the cause of the collective evil of the Jew, but there has to be a more reasonable answer than the serpent seed theory. Jews may not be the serpent seed, but they certainly collectively embody evil more than any other group on the planet. But ask yourself what predisposed them to this? God instilled them a collective though for their survival. Unfortunately for God, the Jews, and everybody else, they used their collective thought for wrongdoing. God is not to blame, but their collective thought didn't come out of a vacuum or from Satan.



Why did none of the "anti-Semitic" Church Fathers endorse this? Surely, Martin Luther would definitely have.

Do not let the way that the Jews have behaved push you away from CI.  I did this as well, and lost faith because of it for a long time. The thing is, being an Israelite does not mean being born into a life in which you do not have to personally work, like some of the Jews in Israel, like rabbi Ovadiah Josef, who do not work.  It does not mean you are better than anone else. What it means is that you have a responsibility to be God's emmisary on earth and to set an example for the rest of the earth about riteous living. Being an Israelite was meant to be being God's servants.  But the Jews perverted this. And that is why God said "You (Edomite Jews) have left your name as a curse on my chosen; I shall slay you and call my servants by another name (Christian)", emphasis mine.  And elsewhere the scripture says that the Lord is being prayed to by a people not his own, back in Babylon times, which is near to when Edomites took over the religion of the Hebrews.  Also He said, His name is cursed and blasphemed among the Nations because of them.

Forget all of that stuff about chosen this and chosen that.  The 10 tribes of Israel which were lost to history books under that name, after their release from Assyrian captivity , completely lost their identity and became divorced from God, and it was meant to be so; but God is not through with them yet. Under the new covenant of Jesus Christ, those who were "not my people" because they were divorced from God because of their sins and given up to bondage in Assyria, would become, again, sons of the living God. See the prophet Hosea, and the new testament discusses this too by the apostle Peter, whose epistles were written exclusively to the 12 tribes scattered.  

In the end, the scripture says all nations will worship Christ.  So, on this point you can perhaps safely deviate from C.I people, who think nobody else but them was meant to hear the gospel. However, those people I believe forgot what Adam's purpose was and what their purpose is on this earth.  We are meant to be a light unto all nations, not a light unto 12 only.  You can still be C.I my friend, just think outside the box.

[Chad]

Further, another false assumption about the seedline theory is that satan's seed are the workers of ALL evil on the earth.  The scripture tells us that even true Israelites transgressed the commandments of God, and broke covenants.  The scripture also says that even demons are capable of good works when they want to, even capable of healing.  That is why Jesus Christ commanded us to love our enemies, because it is not enough to merely love those who love us, in as much as evil men love those who love them.  The Catholic church would not allow a copy of the scriptures to be in the hands of any common person, and they ordered the deaths of those who possessed copies of the scriptures.  And while some Jews joined the Catholic church under duress, I do not believe we can attribute the evils of the Catholic church to the Jews.  Satan works not just through his children, but tempts every man. Satan even tempted Jesus Christ.  

It is Satan's triumph to corrupt God's church on earth.  Remember, Satan wants to be like God, which was why he was kicked out of heaven in the first place.  Satan will try to corrupt God's servants, wherever they may be, and whoever they are, and these corruptions are the devil's trophies. That is why Satan accused JOB of only being a riteous man because of God's blessings, in absence of which, the devil claimed, JOB would be a sinner like so many others.

Just as God has a purpose for His people, to do His will, Satan has a purpose for his own seed, to do the devil's work.  While Satan may tempt anyone to sin, it is the devil's children who do mass evil on earth and cause the whole world to sin.  That is why the Jews are evil.

[Roy Hobs]

those people I believe forgot what Adam's purpose was and what their purpose is on this earth. We are meant to be a light unto all nations, not a light unto 12 only.


Well said Chad!  It is very unfortunate that you have the likes of men like William Finck - http://www.christogenea.org - out there representing CI in a bad light, encouraging us to hate other races.  You have to wonder if these men are not also infiltrators trying to gin up race war.  There is nothing wrong with freedom of association.  But men like Finck take it beyond that.  Finck, afterall, was setenced to prison for murder.  You have to wonder if he was given some kind of deal for early release.  

The Jews infilitrated the British Israel movement.............why wouldn't they try to infiltrate any start up CI society today in 2012.  

CI may seem to have many flaws, but it is the ONLY theory of the Jews which makes sense.  In my opinion....for what it is worth.  I do not believe that the evils we witness in this life can be contributed to mental illness.  This is beyond human.  This is a Spiritual Battle.

How can following the Words of Christ ever be a bad thing???

[Chad]

those people I believe forgot what Adam's purpose was and what their purpose is on this earth. We are meant to be a light unto all nations, not a light unto 12 only.


Well said Chad!  It is very unfortunate that you have the likes of men like William Finck - http://www.christogenea.org - out there representing CI in a bad light, encouraging us to hate other races.  You have to wonder if these men are not also infiltrators trying to gin up race war.  There is nothing wrong with freedom of association.  But men like Finck take it beyond that.  Finck, afterall, was setenced to prison for murder.  You have to wonder if he was given some kind of deal for early release.  

The Jews infilitrated the British Israel movement.............why wouldn't they try to infiltrate any start up CI society today in 2012.  

CI may seem to have many flaws, but it is the ONLY theory of the Jews which makes sense.  In my opinion....for what it is worth.  I do not believe that the evils we witness in this life can be contributed to mental illness.  This is beyond human.  This is a Spiritual Battle.

How can following the Words of Christ ever be a bad thing???

Amen.  I agree with you.  

Yes, there are commandments about who we can marry and who we can't, and who can serve in our government and in positions of authority in the church, but God also said to be kind to the stranger among us.  And Jesus Christ commanded us to love one another as he loved us.  If we love the Lord with all our heart, soul and mind, and if we love our neighbor as we love ourselves, that is a fulfillment of all of God's laws....which, as you know, are still in effect.  As Saint Paul said, a sin is a transgression of the law and without law there would be no sin, and no need for the grace offered by Jesus Christ.  

I know that British Israelism teaches that China is Edom, not the Jews, so yeah I would say it has been infiltrated.  And CI is heavily infiltrated.  It is best to read your bibles, but be wary of things said with little or no scriptural support or scriptural consistency, like the teaching that Satan does not exist.

[Chad]

The original 12 apostles described the characteristics of the holy spirit, as including love, peace, joy, and other such characteristics.  The holy spirit was never described as including feelings of hate.  While the apostles, who were filled with the holy spirit, told us that the riteous should not have any fellowship with the unriteous, we know that judgement engenders feelings of anger and wrath, which is one reason why we are told to leave judgement to the Lord.

It is a slippery slope when it comes to the Jews, who not only own and control the mass media, but use it in such a way as to degenerate the morality of society.  Summer Redstone aka Murry Rothstein, Rupert Murdock, the Asper family, et al, changed the entertainment of America and Europe from Leave It To Beaver to Weeds and Family Guy, and in so doing coursened our culture for the worse.  So they wouldn't feel so paranoid and uneasy, they had our immigration laws turned upside down in 1965, and in another 50 years this country will be altered beyond the point of no return: America may no longer exist.  I tell ya, the Jews execute every point in the protocols of Zion, while claiming it is a forgery.

Their day of judgement is coming and it will not be pretty for them. That is what I believe.

[Chad]

Within C.I there is a rift when it comes to the seedline theory.  The anti-seedliners have gone as far as believing that Satan does not exist, in effort to persevere against seedline doctrine.  They say that the Hebrew word saytawn (sorry for my spelling, I am on an iPhone ) means "adversary" and that in the bible every instance of this word in the scripture should only mean adversary.  Likewise with other words translated as devil or lucifer.  After correcting this mistranslation, they say, there is no evidence that the adversary in any case is a fallen angel.

That is going too far.  Even Sheldon Emry fell for this crazy teaching, and everything else Emry wrote on CI is gospel true.  

The fly in the ointment for those who believe that Satan does not exist, is the book of JOB, and the gospels in the new testament concerning those who were demon possessed.  There is two-way communication in each instance between God or Jesus Christ, and Satan or his demons.  And that cannot be satisfactorily explained away.  Those who cannot explain it satisfactorily, simply dismiss it.  Yet dismissing it does not make the evidence go away.

God put enmity between the seed of the serpent, and the seed of the woman, Eve.  That was no snake, which talks, and has seed.  Reptiles do not talk or tempt people to sin.  That was the devil in the garden of Eden.  And the book of Enoch confirms what type of sin was committed in the garden.  

Satan bruised the heel of the woman when Christ was killed, but He will smash the devil's head in the day of the Lord, which will come.

[Timothy_Fitzpatrick]

There are much bigger problems with Christian Identity theology than the serpent seedline theory.

[Chad]

There are much bigger problems with Christian Identity theology than the serpent seedline theory.

Yeah you are right in that CI, in popular form, is a theological basis for racism.  Those who embrace CI for that reason are, like you have said, very similar to the yehudees that do the same thing.  

If we believe the word of God to be true, then we know the 10 tribes still exist, because God promised things to Abraham that Abraham earned through faith, although his seed did not necessarily deserve these blessings.  Israel would never cease to be a nation.  So, you agree the Jews are not Israel.  Who else could the 10 tribes be?

[Chad]

Who is Esau - Edom?   http://www.scribd.com/mobile/doc/46566146

The first few chapters of this book goes a long way in explaining the status quo at the time of Jesus Christ, and how things got to be that bad.  

There is another book about a parable by Jesus Christ that also explains a bit more about Edomite Jews. That is the parable of the rich man and Lazarus.  A real quick synopsis: the rich man in this parable are Edomite Jews, which had usurped the priesthood and controlled the temple, and comprised a large part of the religious factions of that day.  Here is a link where you can read about this parable, analyzed by the late CI pastor, Sheldon Emry.  http://www.sheldonemrylibrary.com/Rich% ... azarus.pdf

There are some more points I would like to add when I return home and can get on a real computer and copy and paste scripture and  bible referrences.   I will summarize these points by saying that John the Baptist knew that these Edomite Jews were false Israelites, and so did Jesus Christ.  Both told the Jews to their faces exactly what they thought about them, and their mascquarade, based upon the argument by Edomite Jews that Abraham was their father.  There was an ethnic and religious rivalry between Edomite Jews and true-blue Israelites.  

The above books make very interesting points about the Edomite ancestry of Jewry.  One does not have to agree with everything else these authors have written on other subjects to appreciate their contributions to the subject of Edom.

[Timothy_Fitzpatrick]

There are much bigger problems with Christian Identity theology than the serpent seedline theory.

Yeah you are right in that CI, in popular form, is a theological basis for racism.  Those who embrace CI for that reason are, like you have said, very similar to the yehudees that do the same thing.  

If we believe the word of God to be true, then we know the 10 tribes still exist, because God promised things to Abraham that Abraham earned through faith, although his seed did not necessarily deserve these blessings.  Israel would never cease to be a nation.  So, you agree the Jews are not Israel.  Who else could the 10 tribes be?

In keeping with the theme of the transition from the Old to New Testament, I believe the house of Israel to be nothing more or less than a spiritual people. The Old Testament physical nation of Israel was a foreshadowing of the greater spiritual nation of Israel to come—with the spiritual designation being the Creator's original intention. The Christian Identity view is stuck in the days of Moses. The whole purpose of scripture is to teach us spiritual truths that are manifested in or foreshadowed in the physical realm. Jews, Nazis, and Christian Identity adherents have not learned any spiritual truths. They have no depth to them, nothing more than what they perceive through the physical senses. I believe the Bible would classify them as spiritually dead persons.

[Chad]

There are much bigger problems with Christian Identity theology than the serpent seedline theory.

Yeah you are right in that CI, in popular form, is a theological basis for racism.  Those who embrace CI for that reason are, like you have said, very similar to the yehudees that do the same thing.  

If we believe the word of God to be true, then we know the 10 tribes still exist, because God promised things to Abraham that Abraham earned through faith, although his seed did not necessarily deserve these blessings.  Israel would never cease to be a nation.  So, you agree the Jews are not Israel.  Who else could the 10 tribes be?

In keeping with the theme of the transition from the Old to New Testament, I believe the house of Israel to be nothing more or less than a spiritual people. The Old Testament physical nation of Israel was a foreshadowing of the greater spiritual nation of Israel to come—with the spiritual designation being the Creator's original intention. The Christian Identity view is stuck in the days of Moses. The whole purpose of scripture is to teach us spiritual truths that are manifested in or foreshadowed in the physical realm. Jews, Nazis, and Christian Identity adherents have not learned any spiritual truths. They have no depth to them, nothing more than what they perceive through the physical senses. I believe the Bible would classify them as spiritually dead persons.

Timmy, regarding C.I. being stuck in the day of Moses, is that in reference to the frequent reference to bible law and commandments within C.I. circles?  C.I. finds itself frequently challenging the mainstream Christian notion that all of God's old commandments, given by Moses, are abolished or "nailed to the cross" under the new covenant.  C.I. challenges this teaching, and also challenges the "rapture" doctrine.  Both teachings go hand-in-hand.  The first teaching deceives people into sinning, while the second teaching instills a sense of apathy into people, making people not worry about the deterioration of their values in society because everyone will "raptured" away any second now.  There's obviously much more to the scriptures than the law.  I am with you on that.  However, I know from personal experience that God has never answered my prayers when I was disobeying his commandments; but when I am obedient, He answers my prayers. Even if one believes he or she is a "spiritual Israelite," there are valuable lessons in the bible about what happens to people--and entire nations--when they become lawless.  They loose all their blessings, and earn for themselves curses instead.  In the old times, they were even carried off into captivity and became slaves.  It's really simple, in my view.  The ordinances pertaining to animal sacrifice were abolished and nailed to the cross; those, are gone, dead.  The commandments, which are a different part of the law, e.g., thou shalt not kill, are still in effect.  It says in the new testament that sin is a transgression of the law and without law there would be no sin; and without sin, there would be no need for atonement or grace.  But there is a need for grace and atonement offered by Jesus Christ, because we are imperfect people, sinners, transgressors of the law, at least, until we are baptized for the remission of sins and, hopefully, we do not sin afterwards.  But, you get the point.  That's all they are saying.  If it weren't for so many preachers teaching the opposite, I doubt C.I. would emphasize the Mosaic law as they do now.  As for the the malice in many of them, I can't defend that.  I don't have that in common with them.  I am familiar with their doctrines because I used to be C.I.  But I am not C.I anymore.  I don't go to their churches.  I attend a LDS church that takes the gospel to "everyone."  

It's hard for me to describe the LDS church.  They are very obedient to the law and take obedience very seriously, perhaps equal or more so than C.I., but, it's a very small part of spirituality.  One doesn't even think about it, beyond being obedient.  In the church I attend, everyone is very into helping other people.  Two church members just helped me dig a four foot deep trench in my backyard and refused any money or compensation from me.  Like I said, it's very hard to describe, but I don't see obedience to commandments as a stumbling block for spirituality.  Maybe that's not what you were driving at.  I dunno.