New Branhamite Church

[Obadiah]

Can we get to talking about the Serpents Seed?

[mfblume]

Branham once said "The original seed is the word of God." And I thought of that a lot when considering how I think he went into error with serpent seed. He may have been onto something, but got in the flesh and missed it. If we restrict the SEED to the concept of the WORD, then the SEED OF THE SERPENT would actually be HIS LIES TO THE WOMAN. Not a physical seed nor physical adultery or fornication. She believed his lie and rejected, in the process, the TRUTH from God.

[Sister Alvear]

true, Brother Blume....somewhere he really missed it...

[mfblume]

What is so strange, Serpent Seed teaching is identical to that found in mystical Jewish occult called the KABBALAH.

[mfblume]

WIKIPEDIA:

Serpent seed, dual seed or two-seedline is a controversial doctrine according to which the serpent in the Garden of Eden mated with Eve, and the offspring of their union was Cain. This belief is still held by some adherents of the Christian Identity theology, who claim that the Jews, as descendants of Cain, are also descended from the serpent.[1][2] The idea has also existed in several other non-racial contexts, and major proponents include Daniel Parker (1781–1844),[3] William M. Branham (1909–1965)[4] and Arnold Murray (1929-).[5]

The doctrine that Eve mated with the serpent, or with Satan, to produce Cain also appears in early Gnostic writings such as the Gospel of Philip (c. 350); however, this teaching was explicitly rejected as heresy by Irenaeus (c. 180) and later mainstream Christian theologians. A similar doctrine appeared in Jewish midrashic texts in the 9th century and in the Kabalah. It is considered a false doctrine by mainstream Protestant denominations.[6][7] Catholic theologians point to the fact that the Bible states that the original sin is that of Adam and Eve eating a forbidden fruit.[8]


History

The Serpent Seed idea appears in a 9th century book called Pirke De-Rabbi Eliezer.[9] Rabbi David Max Eichhorn, in his book Cain: Son of the Serpent, traces the idea back through early Jewish Midrashic texts and identifies many rabbis who taught that Cain was the son of the union between the serpent and Eve.[9] Some Kabbalist rabbis also believe that Cain and Abel were of a different genetic background than Seth. This is known among Kabbalists as "The Theory of Origins".[10] The theory teaches that God created two "Adams"(Adam means MAN in Hebrew). To one he gave a soul and to the other he did not give a soul. The one without a soul is the creature known in Christianity as the serpent. The Kabbalists call the serpent Nahash (nahash means serpent in Hebrew). This is recorded in the Zohar:

"Two beings [Adam and Nachash] had intercourse with Eve, and she conceived from both and bore two children. Each followed one of the male parents, and their spirits parted, one to this side and one to the other, and similarly their characters. On the side of Cain are all the haunts of the evil species; from the side of Abel comes a more merciful class, yet not wholly beneficial -- good wine mixed with bad."(Zohar 136)

In The Scofield Study Bible Scofield says, "The serpent, in his Edenic form, is not to be thought of as a writhing reptile. That is the effect of the curse (Gen. 3:14). The creature which lent itself to Satan may well have been the most beautiful as it was the most "subtle" of creatures less than man".[11] Scofield's notes are silent as to the idea of Cain being the serpent's seed, however in Genesis 6:2 his notes claimed that while it was an "error" to believe that the offspring mentioned were the product of supernatural unions, it was instead the intermarriage of the "godly line of Seth" with the "godless line of Cain" being referred to.[12] Advocates suggest that modern Christian translations of the Old Testament reduce emphasis on this concept, which they believe indicated the serpent had been an upright, human-like creature.

The foundational scripture for the serpent's seed doctrine appears in Genesis 3:15, which in the King James Version states "And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel." Advocates interpret this literally to mean that an offspring of the Serpent via Eve would eventually lose in a mortal conflict with one of "her seed". Eve's son by Adam would have presumably been called "Adam's seed" so it has been suggested, since a woman does not naturally produce seed, that "her seed" is the first prophesy of an eventual human messiah produced by means of a virgin birth. Adherents believe this sets up the serpent's seed as a antitype to Jesus Christ.

Advocates also point out that in Genesis 4:1-2 it is mentioned only once that Adam "knew" his wife, yet twice it is mentioned that she "bare" sons (see, heteropaternal superfecundation). Advocates also believe an unmentioned act of infidelity is implied by reproductive and marital curses placed on Eve in Genesis 3:16, that otherwise seem inappropriate to merely eating a forbidden fruit. St. Paul seems to suggest as much in 2 Corinthians 11:2-3, where he may have implied that Eve was not a chaste virgin at the time Adam first had relations with her: "For I am jealous over you with godly jealousy: for I have espoused you to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ. But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted..."

In the New Testament epistle of 1 John, ch. 3 v. xii it also states, "Not as Cain, who was of that wicked one, and slew his brother." John also recorded in his gospel (8:44) that Christ said, "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." These passages, if taken literally as they are by advocates, seem to suggest that the New Testament writers believed that Cain, the first murderer, was indeed the serpent's seed.

The doctrine that Eve mated with the serpent, or with Satan, to produce Cain, has been taught in various forms for thousands of years, and it finds its earliest expression in Gnostic writings (e.g., the Gospel of Philip) and especially in Manichaean doctrines; however, it was soundly rejected by mainstream Christian theologians such as Irenaeus [13] in the second century, and St. Augustine in the 4th century.

More recent variants are central to the beliefs of Two-Seed-in-the-Spirit Predestinarian Baptists founded by Daniel Parker. Other variations occur in the Christian Identity movement. Some of these groups appear to use the doctrine as a rationalization for racist beliefs. One of the largest, but non-denominational, groups that believe in a form of the serpent seed doctrine are the followers of Branhamism who are documented to number over 1,500,000.

[mfblume]

More:

Christian Identity movement

Adherents of the white supremicist theology known as Two-Seedline Christian Identity hold that white people are descendants of Adam and are hence the chosen people of God. The Jewish people are said to be descendants of Cain and thus of Satan. This belief was developed by Wesley A. Swift, Conrad Gaard and William Potter Gale among others.[31] The opposing faction is called One-Seedline Christian Identity and holds that all people are descended from Adam, but only Aryans (here meaning Northern Europeans) are truly God's people.[1][2][32][33]

William Branham's teachings

William Branham was not the first to preach the doctrine of serpent seed, but he was one of the major proponents of the doctrine in modern times. Branham was the most widely known minister of the 20th century to actually teach serpent seed and much of its spread can be attributed to him. William Branham taught that the fall of mankind resulted from Eve having sexual intercourse with an upright Beast whom Adam had named 'Serpent'.[34]

Because of his wide acclaim in the late 1940s and throughout the 1950s, Branham was widely followed in Charismatic and Pentecostal movements and to a lesser degree by Methodists and Baptists. His meetings, held all over the world, were attended by hundreds of thousands of people which gave him a very large audience. This popularity and influence gave him the best platform of all adherents of the serpent seed doctrine to spread it to the masses. Although he did not regularly espouse the doctrine in front of his largest audiences his belief in the doctrine was not kept secret and he did preach several sermons on it in smaller meetings.

Branham was well aware of the potential connections of the doctrine to racism but he tried to show that his belief was not racially targeted. ("He Cares, Do You Care?", 21 July 1963). He tried to show that although he believed the doctrine he did not think it was a basis for racism.[35]

[mfblume]

The doctrine

The doctrine of the Serpent's Seed is followed by several minor Christian groups, the followers of Branhamism, Two-Seed-in-the-Spirit Predestinarian Baptists, and some of the Christian Identity Movement among others. There are variations and differences between these groups but the basic belief is that the Original Sin was an act of sexual intercourse between Adam and Eve and, prior to that act, Eve was sexually seduced by the serpent and committed sexual intercourse with the serpent; further, that Cain was conceived by the act with the serpent and Abel by the act with Adam.

The main variations are on the aftereffects of the act. Some proponents believe that the serpent was Satan himself.[14] Others believe that the serpent was an animal being influenced by Satan.[15] Another key difference is in the descendants of Cain. Some believe that the two lines remained separate and that eventually Cain's descendants were all destroyed, others believe that Cain's descendants became completely mixed with the descendants of Adam (meaning that all humanity is partially descended from Cain),[16] and still others believe that the two lines remain separate to this day.[17] Finally others disagree whether sex itself was the original sin[18] or if the original sin was sex for pleasure rather than sex for reproduction.[19]

The following points and scriptures are largely agreed upon by all proponents to be the basis of the Serpent Seed doctrine, although variations do occur as mentioned above.

• The Two Trees. The starting point of the discussion is usually on the two trees, the Tree of Life and the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil (Gen. 2:10). Proponents note the difference between the "trees that grow out the ground" as opposed to "the trees in the midst of the garden". This is used to indicate the two trees are not physical trees but principles (e.g. ideas, rules).[20][21] They also point to Rev. 2:7 and Rev. 22:2, where the Tree of Life is now in heaven to show that the two trees are not the same kind of trees that grow on Earth but instead are something spiritual. Furthermore they point out that since man was given the tree of knowledge by their choice it should still be visible somewhere in the world today, which they claim is the overt sexuality of society.
  
• The Serpent, Gen. 3. The serpent in its original form was a creature capable of speech, and it had not yet at that point been cursed to go "upon [its] belly"; thus some proponents claim that the "serpent" was originally an upright human-like creature.[22] Some proponents claim the serpent was intended to be used for manual labor and therefore was made to look like a man but was not given a soul.[23] The chapter states that the serpent "beguiled" Eve. In Early Modern English this word literally meant to seduce or lead astray.[24]
  
• Sex. In the Bible, the sexual act is always obliquely referenced in Moses' writings. It is always referred to discreetly, such as "knowing". Similarly in Proverbs 30:20, it states "such is the way of an adulterous woman; she eateth, and wipeth her mouth, and saith, I have done no wickedness." This is used as evidence that the trees and the fruit are just another cryptic way to describe sex.
  
• The Punishment, Gen. 3. Proponents also point to the punishment to show that the act was sexual. When Adam and Eve sinned they covered their genitals, not their mouths, indicating they sinned not with their mouths but with their genitals. The punishment God put on them also affected sexual reproduction: He caused the woman to have menstrual cycles and to have increased pain in childbirth. God's curse also put enmity between the descendants of Adam (e.g., Abel) and the descendants of the serpent (e.g., Abel's murderer Cain).[25]
  
• The Birth, Gen. 4. At the birth of Cain, Eve said "I have gotten a man from the Lord." Proponents claim that in the remaining two pre-Flood chapters, Adam's descendants are called the "sons of God", not "men",[26] while the word "men" refers solely to the descendants of Cain. Eve was also called "the mother of all living" (Gen. 3:20), but Adam was not similarly called "the father of all living".
  
• The Offspring, Gen. 4. Cain and Abel were of different occupational backgrounds. Abel tended the flocks and Cain tilled the ground. Proponents claim these traits were inherited from their fathers; Adam was to rule over the animals and the serpent was intended to tend the Garden of Eden. Another difference between them was that Abel, being of pure birth, knew how to give a proper sacrifice to God. Cain, not being pure, did not know how to give a proper sacrifice, he only knew he needed to give one, indicating he was only inherited a portion of the knowledge that Abel had inherited. His impurity was also displayed by his jealousy and murder of Abel, some proponents argue that these are not traits God would have created in Adam and Eve and could not have been inherited from them.
  
• The Two Lines of Descent. Gen. 4–5. Some proponents claim that because the two lines of descent are recorded separately it indicates they were somehow different. It notes how the developments in Cain's sides were all negative (e.g. Lamech's declaration in Gen. 4:23 that "I have slain a man to my wounding"[27]) But in Seth's line (Gen. 5) nothing is mentioned of anything evil, and each patriarch "begat sons and daughters". Ultimately, the two lines intermarry (Gen. 6:4: "There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown."), and God then destroyed the world with a flood.[28] Proponents also point to the biological principal of heterosis being evidenced in the offspring of the interbreeding of the two lines being giants.
  
• Christ. Ultimately Seth's line leads to Jesus, who was born of a virgin. Proponents point to the fact that all humanity was impure and therefore incapable of "breeding" a "pure" Son of God as the reason Christ had to be born of a virgin. Many proponents claim that Christ was born in the same state that Adam was created: perfect and without sin. They claim he had to be created by God in order for him to be pure and to be the "perfect sacrifice".[15][29][30]
  
• Parable of the Tares. Regardless of the understanding of the Serpent Seed based on the book of Genesis, many who believe in the doctrine hold that one of the most important evidences for the doctrine comes from Jesus unfolding the revelation the Parable of the Tares. In this parable Jesus confirmed there were two distinct children present in the world until the end.

[Sister Alvear]

Thank you, Brother Blume.

[samuelofisrael]

Originally Posted by mfblume

Branham's big mistake was thinking he could teach the Bible. I believe he was called to preach the gospel but not teach the Bible. He had astounding ministry in the gifts, and Paul explained such gifts do not validtae one's teachings. Unfortunately Branhamites differ. Gordon Lindsay warned him several times to stay away from teaching, but he "liked" to teach. So so so so sad.

After over 40 years acquainted with the Branhamites, I am not sure WMB "had" an astounding ministry in the "gifts" at all. His mainstay was the alleged discernment which was really a "word of knowledge" which he attributed to his "angel."If push came to shove it might be that AA Allen had as many if not more "claimed" healings, manifestations than Branham. Either way, I agree that the teaching phase of the man's ministry is what unmasked him in the end. Prior to the internet there was little ability to ferret out his claims and doctrine. POST internet a person could discover about anything about any issue. And then it began to come apart. Far too many holes and unanswered questions.

Gifts do not validate doctrine as accurate.

Bottom line in my estimation: why bother with it as a faith issue? Clearly the man was NOT vindicated and he was far from infallible in his prophecy, visions, predictions and certainly not his doctrine. End game is a deceived cult composed of either the fearful, the ignorant, the gullible, the joining because the family is involved or possibly because they find common ground in the fact Bill was a hunter or an outdoorsman or even because he took an apparent hard stand on the woman issue. Personally I never knew any of the Message types who were hard on their wives and a few were henpecked if the truth be known.

As has been said here on the forum and years ago, they are a mixed bag. Some are in the Twilight Zone, some are clearly unbalanced, idolaters, deluded but sincere and the "firebrand" who believes they have discovered the theological end of the rainbow. It takes all types and they have them.

My personal advice is to leave their congregations, free oneself of their influence, find a Bible teaching, careing Christian fellowship with a seasoned pastor and eldership. William Branham was NOT the "restoration of the Word." Far from it. He added to the confusion.

Even so, come soon Lord Jesus