Talk:Serpent seed

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Christianity
Christianity Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page to become familiar with the guidelines.
B This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale.
Low This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale.
Assessment comments

—The external link is, well, a little lacking in credibility. At the end, the author claims to write God's words, a communiqué to her. Is this external link worth keeping? --JH 28 June, 2005

This article needs citations for the people believing this doctrine, and quotes could be helpful. Would be interesting to know how far back the belief goes, and someone with an extensive knowledge of unusual Christian beliefs may be needed. I'd come across this belief before too, I'm going to try to hunt down the reference. Шизомби 21:06, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] External link

I am removing the external link as it consists solely of non-verifiable information, parts of which could be viewed as anti-semitic.

I will try to add some details on what William Branham taught on the subject (which I am somewhat familiar with). I have no knowledge of some of the other manifestations of this belief, however, this should provide some material that could be added to in the future.

Taxee 16:52, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What did Eve eat?

Genesis 2:7 states that EVERY TREE in the garden was good to eat. Luke 21:29, Mark 8:24, Dan.4:10 and Prov.3:18 states that the word "tree" can be described as a nation, man, king and wisdom. Jer, 31:12 states the word garden does not necessarly mean a literal garden. It could symbolise the soul or the human body as in Songs of Solomon 4-8. The word eat could mean to partake as in Proverbs 30:20. The word "fruit" may be used literally or figuratively. For example read Deuteronomy 28:4; Psalm 127:3; Proverb18:20 and Luke 1:42. The bible was written in symbolism. It would be silly to think Yahweh would punish mankind for eating a piece of fruit. When you study the bible you must ask the holy spirit to guide you in the right path. Peace be unto all. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 198.184.0.252 (talk • contribs) .

Why is it stupid to think that God would punish mankind for eating a piece of fruit? He told them not to eat of the tree, but they did. Biblically the word Sin means disobeying God, it doesn't matter what you're doing to disobey God; be it raping someone, be it eating a pice of fruit that God told you not to. The Biblical God does not see morality the way we see it, to Him disobediance of his commandments (and not just the ten commandments) or disobeying anything He tells us to do is sin. For Pete's sake, that's where the word sin originated, disobeying God. To you it's stupid, to God its sin. ManofRenown87 20:47, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
If the sin was eating a piece of fruit, why did God curse her in conception and not in eating? Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy pain and thy conception; in pain thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee. Gen 3:16 (ASV) Taxee 17:10, 9 August 2006 (UTC)


       Also, sin does not mean disobeying God,

Sin is Unbelief in The Word of God. If you believe

that eating of a literal tree was the sin then you

should read about the same tree of life in Revelations 22:2.

Adam sinned, eve was only ignorant.

Two things. First, both of them sinned, and I'm not going to form an argument about that because I think its you who are ignorant if you're going to overanalyze that any further. You don't want to throw scripture at me, you'll lose. So I'll save you the embarassment and just say that they both sinned. Second, why does it matter how God punished Eve for eating of the tree? How is that even relevant? They sinned, and god punished them both, end of story. Just because you don't understand the ways of God (and to be honest I can't truly understand them either, but I accept them) doesn't change the truth. Besides, you said: "literal tree... then you should read about the same tree of life in Revelations 22:2" but in Genesis Adam and Eve ate from the Tree of Good and Evil, not the Tree of Life. So yes, the Tree of Life in Revelations can certainly be symbolic of something else, but you've got you're trees confused my friend, it is not the same tree described in Genesis. You screwed up. ManofRenown87 04:56, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] needs some NPOV / verification

For an article obviously written by partisans, the article actually reads OK, but more informed people should give it some attention. In particular, I'm wondering:

  1. Is this William Branham person really as important to this subject as presented in the article?
  2. Is the term "teachings" NPOV? It seems like an anachronsitic term used for rhetorical effect. If this is in line with other religin articles, I suppose this is fine.

--Apantomimehorse 08:26, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

The followers of William Branham number well over 100,000 worldwide and this is one of their fundamental beliefs. As a result, they represent one of (if not the) major proponents of the doctrine. Taxee 17:26, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree. In fact I believe the followers of William Branham number in the millions today, but this article does need input from someone with an in-depth knowledge of what other proponents of this doctrine have taught. This doctrine has been extant for many years, and certainly pre-dates William Branham. Malachi456 09:33, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I think the word "teachings" should generally be replaced with the term "doctrine". No one seems to be looking at this article lately. i have waited three weeks to make any major change, but no one has responded, so i went ahead and did it to adress the concerns by the "wikipolice". i am quite knowledgeble of this topic and have done a fair amount of research before making the changes. I think it is much more coherent than it's previous form.Cool10191 (talk) 21:04, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
I have added about 20 references, mostly in the doctrine section that I have added. I think there is enough there to at least put the notability to rest. as for NPOV, i think is pretty nuetral myself. Whoever put that there, do you think it is biased for or against the idea? I think it is fairly balanced. There is a strong counter position in the article and in the introduction.Cool10191 (talk) 16:13, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] if your interested,

The teachings of Pastor Arnold Murray explains the idea behind the serpentine doctrine by further explaining that Satan was indeed the "serpent" and had sex with Eve to disrupt the line between Adam and Jesus Christ. As to the refrences of "tree" he explains as being parts of the body, ways to describe beings, trunk being the chest and branches being the arms and so forth. Pastor Arnold Murray explains this using the King James Bible and The Strongs Concordinance, also the Companion Study Bible. Check out his teachings for more information. Just trying to be helpful.

Hadassah I've realised that this debate surrounds the teachings of the serpent seed. And I would like to add my input. Firstly as the Wikipedia article states it is an old teaching. I've have encountered Muslims who believe this doctrine. I've heard from persons who went to Jerusalem and have spoken to Rabbis say that some Rabbis confirmed that this teaching has been taught for centuries.

Here are a few pointers to take note of. 1. When God created woman, she was called woman. He did not give the woman a name. Only after the fall in the Garden of Eden, Genesis 3 V20 she is given the name Eve. Eve means the mother of all living. Note that Adam's name did not change to the father of all living. After the fall. Was he the father of all living?

2. This point was made before but I will add it to my list. Cain is no where found in the geneology of the sons of Adam. Abel and Seth are but not Cain. Why?

3. There are many referrals in the Bible to the tree of life. But when Jesus himself comes to the earth he says to eat of him, And he will give you eternal life.

4. The Woman's seed will bruise the serpents seed. Genesis 3 V15 If one cannot understand that seed means heir/ child then this point will be useless. If the womans seed will defeat the serpents seed. Where are the serpents children. Why aren't the upright serpents commencing this battle. Could it be that the seed of the serpent is the seed of the fruit. It makes perfect sense. The bible is not written for all to understand. It is highly coded. The seed of the fruit is chidren. How can a eating a fruit bring forth a child. Why does the fight end up between the two children.

Realization of Nakedness, Children and Conceiving children in sorrow all connected to eating the forbidden fruit. Where is the fruit today? The bible ststes banning from the tree of life but not banning from the tree of knowledge of God and evil. How were children to be brought forth if not in sorrow the way we make children now?

WHAT ABOUT THIS: Access to the tree of life/ eternal life, was banned in the Garden of Eden, but Access to the tree of life/eterenal life is now made possible through the death of Jesus the Christ. Was the tree of life the Christ?

4. Adam knew his wife only once. Two children came forth. Gensis 4 V 1&2 Paul plainly says that Cain was of his father the devil.

5. we are all born in sin and shaped in eniquity. But three people weren't. Jesus, Adam & Eve. Adam and Eve were made by God full men and women. Brought by the spoken word, then when they had sin they bring forth children in sorrow. Jesus the Chirst was not born by sex, and not born in sin. Every one else is born by sex and born in sin, are they not connceted? Why couldn't Jesus be born by sex? Or a union between Mary and Joseph?

6. Last but not least the serpent was cast down to the dust of the earth. His form changed from a beast to a reptile. Why did God change his body? Was it that his body caused the sin? The beast was the only mammal that could mingle with seed of man. So he stopped it from ever happening again.

This doctrine by no means has any racial meaning. It solely identifies what happended in the Garden of Eden.--201.238.103.233 00:50, 7 October 2007 (UTC)Hadassah

[edit] Some info for editors

I want to give some info about this topic from some things i have read on the discussion page.

First of all, the question about is Branham worth mentioning on this topic. I would answer yes to that. The majority of churches that I am aware of that still believe the serpent seed doctrine are those churches that are somehow affiliated in some way with the followers of branhamism. Also note that Branham could draw crowds of hundreds of thousands and it was he, probably more than anyone, influenced the current beliefs of serpent seed. He was the only major preacher of the last 75 years who beleived and taught this doctrine. There are theologians, etc who do believe it, but they are in no position to influences the masses on the subject like branham was. Branham was not the first to teach the doctrine, but he the most responsible for spreading it.

I would also like to lay out in the modern way of how serpent seed is viewed. Branham has been dead for over 40 years and the doctrine has evolved among his followers since then. I am not going to go deeply into this if you want to reference a publication on the topic see http://www.thecontender.org/read/twolaws1.htm . Raymond M Jackson's followers are a distinct offshoot of branhamism.

Evidence:

1. The Trees: A. The two trees in the garden of eden are categorized differently. There are "the trees which grow out of the ground" and "the tress in the midst of the garden". This perhaps points to the fact the these two trees (tree of knowledge of good and evil and the tree of life)are not physical trees that grow from the ground.

B. Furthermore as noted in revelation the tree of life is now in heaven, this clearly indicates it is not a physical tree but something spiritual.

C. Another point is that if the trees are physical trees then would it not stand to believe that the tree of knowledge still grows today. It is never mentioned that is destroyed or removed. So why is there no longer a tree of knowledge. (Of course believers in serpent seed believe the "tree" is still here it is just not a physical tree; it is the act of sex for pleasure)

2. The serpent:

A. The serpent was not a snake until it was cursed. It was "the most subtle beast of the field". And obviously it could speak, so besides a human form or a parrot what else could actually talk? A parrot does not sound like the most subtly beast of the field.

B. The bible also indicates that mankind was not intended to till the ground, which leads you to believe that god must have provided another means for the garden, etc, to be maintained; hence an upright animal looking similar to man, but without a soul therefore and animal.

C. The bible says the serpent "beguiled" the oringal Aramaic more accurately translating as "seduced"

3. Sex:

A. god obviously intended people to have sex, he gave them sex organs. The idea is that the two trees represent sex for pleasure and sex for reproduction.

B. Until much farther along in Gensis sex is never called sex. But starting with partaking of the fruit with each mention the word becomes more and more recognizable as sex.

4. The Act

A. Notice that god did not come down until the act happened with Adam also. This could be used to indicate that when it happened with the serpent it was not exactly the sin god forbid them to commit.

B. Note in the book of matthew 19, when jesus was talkig about divorce because of adultry he said "but it was not so in the begining" perhaps referring to the fact that Eve had adultry but adam forgave her. This can be further extracted from 1st timoth 2 "adam was not deceived" indicating he knowly sinned to protect his wife from being punished alone.

5. The punishment

A. When they sinned they covered up their private parts. They did not cover up their mouthes. Obviously they were covering up the part they sinned with.

B. When god punished the woman he caused her to have pain in child birth, he multiplied her menstrual cycles. The punishment would fit the crime. They sinned in sex, so god would curse the consequenses of sex.

C. He said he would put emnity between the serpents seed and adam's seed. Didn't Cain kill Able? Didn't Cains descendants seperate from adam's?

6. The offspring

A. When Cain was born Eve said "I have been given a "MAN" from god. Notice that all the other offspring of adam and eve are refered to as "The Sons of God" Not as MEN.

B. Able kept sheep, like his father he was a keeper of the animals. Cain tilled the ground, like his father he did manual labor.

C. Able knew how to give a good sacrafise to god, Cain did not know how to. It was not bred into Cain.

D. When Seth was born eve said "She was given another seed to replace able" indicating that Cain was different then able.

7. The two lines of Decent

A. Notice that the two lines are recorded seperately. The "Sons of God" are recorded as the descendant of Adam. Nothing evil is mentioned of them

B. Notice the transcendent of Cain are referred to as the line of "Men". Also notice how everything 'evil' is invented by this line. Wicked music, evil learning, murder, theft, etc.

C. Notice it is when the two lines intermarry and mix that god decides to punish the world with flood. "The sons of god took wives among the daughters of men". So the two lines became completely mixed and no one was of pure blood anymore.

D. Also noticed that adam's descendants always had "sons and daughters" But on cain side some had all sons, others all daughters. This would note a genetic difference, this also indicates that Noah was mixed.

8. Jesus

A. Finally let's look at jesus. He was born of a virgin. Why? because there was no 'pure' son of god to make him. He had to be born without the mixed genetics in order to be perfect.


So those are the points as I know them. Also let me be clear that this is not racist. Christ died to set "all" men free. Any race can be equally saved if they believe on Christ.

One more thing. There is a difference between Branhisms beleif and that as mentioned by murray. Branhamism belives that the serpent was an animal that was manipulated by satan. Murray beleives that the serpent was in fact satan himself.

So.. I guess I am going to try and fix this up my self anyways. I am going to leave this posting here so you can understand where I am coming from should anyone else undo my doings. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.38.8.229 (talk) 13:44, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.38.8.229 (talk) 20:53, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


I am not signed in.. oops. i am cool10191 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.38.8.229 (talk) 21:05, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


Ok - So I have added in quite a bit of info and reorganized the article somewhat. I added the info about serpent seed in Judaism. What this article could really use is a strong point of view in oposition to the serpent seed doctrine. Maybe someone could research the catholic view of the topic and add a section on that.

I am temped to add another section that explains the serpent seed doctrine in a little better way than how it is done in the branham section. Branham has alot of quotations but I think a simpler point by point of every point like i listed above with each point linking to the scripture referenced. Then change the branham section to be more about how he influenced the belief and helped to spread it. I will think about that awhile and maybe hope someone will give a little input on this discussion page.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cool10191 (talk • contribs) 18:13, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Redoing major section of article

Ok, I have decided to do it. No one has replied to any of my comments. I notice that the wikipolice (lol) are putting flags on the article and it has to be fixed up or we are gonna loose it! Yikes. So I am going to work on a major edit. Here is what I want to do: I am going to make a new big section on the general christian "arguement" for serpent seed (i will also note the main difference between those beleive the serpent was satan and those who think it was more like an animal). I am going to remove most of the Branham section (since he has been dead for nearly 50 years) and change it to a peice on how he had the biggest impact on the teaching and spread of serpent seed in the last 75 years (at least) and link it to branhamism if they are curious about that. I also want to fix up the section on judiasm a little better. And if i have time (or someone else does) there is a stream of islam that beleives something similar to this and I would like to add it into here. In the section on christian version I am going to reference mainly arnaul murray, branham (and junior jackson and pearry green), and the daniel parker.Cool10191 (talk) 16:49, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

OK I have done a large portion of what i wanted to do. I want to do a few more things still. If anyone wants to revert and add back in the portion of the branham section i removed please leave the doctrine section i added. it is well referenced to sources other than just branham but to some of branham's adherents as well as murray and some detractors of the doctrine. I don't feel it is nesecary or good form to duplicate information within the article and i think a broader definition is more suited than one that just describes on branch of the teaching. I have tried make things as balanced as possible. I want to do a little more referencing on that section though to have a broader basis of refrence and to refine the references to no jsut point to the page but to note the paragraph on the page or something like that. I think the section against serpent seed still needs a little work and i still think the article would benefit from something on serpent seed in islam. Cool10191 (talk) 20:58, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
when you guys re figure the npov etc on this page consider that this doctrine has probably around at least a million adherents and is spread globally, that is notable. You want some clear information on it check out www.thecontender.org (search two laws of eden), www.biblebeleivers.org (search serpent seed), www.thesheperdschapel.com (search serpent seed). Also see this google book and [1]. These are excellent explanation recources and help to give a view of how widespread the beleif is. Also see www.serpentseed.com if you want to see the racist side. I have not linked this racism from the article page because i beleive it to be horribly offensive and reprehensible. I beleive it should be acknowledged to exist but it is not in any acceptable to promote that sort of evil. As far as neutrality goes the major points ared countered somewhere else in the article by the main stream view.Cool10191 (talk) 17:14, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] sourcing

I've used alot of primary sources, actually they are all primary in my opinion, to source the article. I am unaware of a external study on the doctrine. But until such references are found i think simply linked to sermons published by the various adherents of the doctrines is sufficient to establish they follow the doctrine and what specific tenants they hold. Charles Edward 18:53, 20 May 2008 (UTC)