Re: Is The Serpent Seed Doctrine A "Damnable Heres
Well gee, Scripture tells us that A&E's firstborn was actually
"of the devil, Satan's seed," etc. I have no dog in this hunt,
and notice that 'serpent seed' has several iterations, but
whether there was any actual union, or just spiritual union,
the fruit seems pretty clear? The rest is all yack, really. Stumbling blocks.
Who cares.
Re: Is The Serpent Seed Doctrine A "Damnable Heres
William Branham's spin on the 'seed of the serpent' or in his rendition, "serpentMAN," was an obvious error. He "presumed" that Cain was the biological offspring of the serpentMAN, Branham's "missing link" theory, owing to the verse that tells us, "Cain who was of that wicked one." - 1Jn 3:12
Yet there is absolutely no indication that the Greek demands such exegesis, it is another of Branham's strange and unBiblical expositions. We have to remember he was of the view he was carried along by the Holy Spirit "restoring" lost Truths of the Sacred Record as were other men before him.
Yeshua settles the issue in John 8. Paul also indicated a spiritual kinship when he labels Elymas as a child of the devil. - Acts 13:10.
Careful reading of the Text in Genesis will indicate that both Cain and Able were the offspring of the seminal parents. There is not a scintilla of Biblical evidence that Cain was sired by the serpent, the devil [satan], Azael [Kaballah] or any other entity but the first man and the first woman.
Branham errantly taught the the Hebrew word, "beguiled," had sexual implications. Here again as with so many other teachings, he was in error. Both Cain and Abel had the same father [sire] as did Issac and Ishamael, Jacob and Esau. One was a link to Messiah and one was rejected in that sense, perhaps in other matters as well.
But we are not left to wonder for those of a right mind and an open heart. Yeshua declared those who resisted Him, rejected His testimony, turned the shoulder to their King as:
44 Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.
45 And because I tell you the truth, ye believe me not.
46 Which of you convinceth me of sin? And if I say the truth, why do ye not believe me?
47 He that is of God heareth God's words: ye therefore hear them not, because ye are not of God.
Note the consistency with Holy Writ as opposed to contradiction resident in the teachings of WMB. Yeshua [and Holy Writ] declare those who oppose Truth as "of the devil," the 'serpentMAN' is not mentioned simply because it is a mythical character, a creation of exegetical fiction. Cain was indeed "of the wicked one" as were those who resisted and finally murdered Yeshua "of their father, the devil." The word chosen by the Holy Spirit for "father" is 'pateer.' -Gk. and not as Yeshua agrees those who did reject Him as being of their father "seed," [sperma- Gk] Abraham. But regardless of their natural, physical, biological conception [sire], they were nevertheless of their "father, the devil."
This illustrates agreement with all that is taught by the writers of the Scriptures as moved of the Holy Spirit. In contrast we have the mumblngs of the apostate Jews in their fantasyland expositions [Kaballah] and other fictional literature.
Does the Bible indicate Cain and Abel were the offspring of the devil? Not a whisper of Biblical evidence, just some man's misguided mind.
Adam + Eve = Cain and Abel
One was declared righteous, accepted. The other's offering rejected [non revelatory deportment], rejection. One was "of God," and one was, "of the wicked one." Both had the same father and mother. Here we are reminded of Jacob and Esau. Both men were brothers as were Cain and Abel. Same father and same mother. Same biological seed but one was of the line of Truth and the other the resister of Truth. Neither was sired by the 'serpenMAN' or the devil or the fallen angel, Azael [Kaballah].
When the Bible is seen in its true essence these myths fall away and those who are able to receive Truth are armed against the wiles of the devil and his ministers.
Here I must explain. An error of exegesis does not indicate a child of the devil per se, common fallibility is the experience of us all. There are men and women who ARE children of the wicked one who stalked the realms of Christian Truth as commissioners of misdirection plays. The cults are evidence of this statement.
Yes, William Branham's 'serpent seed' teaching is a heresy and further proof as I see it that he was merely a confused evangelist and no true prophet at all. But then, each must follow their own leading.
Re: Is The Serpent Seed Doctrine A "Damnable Heres
Ya, well, the argument has been raging for like ever, and prolly won't get settled in this thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by Timmy
What Scripture?
The Scripture above, if you can get through all the posturing. Who cares whether it was literal or spiritual?
The end result is that Cain is not in Adam's geneology; I've never heard a good explanation for this yet. SOI, if you have one, could you keep it succinct? Ty
Re: Is The Serpent Seed Doctrine A "Damnable Heres
Quote:
Originally Posted by bbyrd009
Ya, well, the argument has been raging for like ever, and prolly won't get settled in this thread
The Scripture above, if you can get through all the posturing. Who cares whether it was literal or spiritual?
The end result is that Cain is not in Adam's geneology; I've never heard a good explanation for this yet. SOI, if you have one, could you keep it succinct? Ty
Neither Cain or Abel are in the genealogy.
The explanation has long been extant. Let me assist you in further Truth.
Not every man was registered in the genealogy, only those necessary to link the Messianic Line from Adam to Yeshua. Neither Cain nor Abel were to be in the line of Messiah. See 1 Chronicles 1.
Many men were sired and born of Godly parents but only those as the link to Messiah were recorded. Else thousands of names would have been recorded. It was not necessary. That the Sovereignty of God be established choosing whomsoever He would, the names represented in the genealogy are His choice of the men who link the first man [Adam] to second Man and Last Adam, Yeshua.
Re: Is The Serpent Seed Doctrine A "Damnable Heres
Quote:
Originally Posted by bbyrd009
Ya, well, the argument has been raging for like ever, and prolly won't get settled in this thread
The Scripture above, if you can get through all the posturing. Who cares whether it was literal or spiritual?
The end result is that Cain is not in Adam's geneology; I've never heard a good explanation for this yet. SOI, if you have one, could you keep it succinct? Ty
Re: Is The Serpent Seed Doctrine A "Damnable Heres
Quote:
Originally Posted by samuelofisrael
[FONT="Book Antiqua"][COLOR="Navy"]Neither Cain or Abel are in the genealogy.
The explanation has long been extant. Let me assist you in further Truth.
Ok, well, Abel, being dead, makes more sense being absent than Cain, being the firstborn, imo. But that is the most popular reply, I guess. Like I said, I've yet to hear a good explanation here.
Ok, it's repeated in a few other places, too. I'm somewhat skeptical of a physical union at this point, myself; and don't find it necessary. We have an idiom that exists to this day indicating that someone may be a 'father' spiritually to something, and we know that we are flesh, and spirit, and it is the spiritual 'family' that seems to matter more.
Re: Is The Serpent Seed Doctrine A "Damnable Heres
Proverbs 30:20
“This is the way of an adulterous woman:
She eats and wipes her mouth
and says, ‘I’ve done nothing wrong.’
James 1:14-15
but each person is tempted when they are dragged away by their own evil desire and enticed. 15 Then, after desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, gives birth to death.
Was it sex ? No , it was not listening , obeying.
After the first sin they were driven out of the Garden, and only than Adam and Eve had sexual intercourse.
Re: Is The Serpent Seed Doctrine A "Damnable Heres
Ya, that is just hard to fit into eating "fruit,"
but I think that is pretty close. But, if "not
obeying" was eating of the tree of knowledge,
there still seems to be another act, the actual
sin, missing?
Personally, I think it's a great description of acquiring frontal lobes;
what separates us from the animals, if not the knowledge of good/evil?
Linear Mode
