Month: July 2017

Every few years a gallery in Santa Fe, New Mexico will feature work exclusively offensive to Christianity. For example, we previously published the article Santa Fe Reporter’s Lady of Guadalupe in a bikini (again) with the term “(again)” denoting a consistent pattern.
In this case, a painting by Paz Winshtein depicts a version of “Our Lady of Guadalupe” with most of her body exposed.

There are very many issues wrapped up in the simple displaying of such a paining which we consider succinctly below:

1) Such perversion should not be surprising coming from Santa Fe as it is known for its overwhelming materialism mixed with occultism and peppered with promotion of homosexuality (for example, on the official city website you can find homosexual tourism deals but no heterosexual deals).

2) The artist, gallery and those not offended only ever seek to, for some reason, only see Christian icons in the nude or near nudity and not any other figure of any other faith. Why not a Buddha with his shmendrick exposed or Muhammad showing off his buttockular area or Kali with her legs spread about? No, they would not dare—and if they do so after reading this then, it does not count—capiche?

3) Our Lady of Guadalupe is not a generically Christian icon but a Catholic one. The real offense is not a topless Lady of Guadalupe but the actual, original Lady of Guadalupe image. This is because an apparition appeared to Juan Diego, in 1531 AD, at the site of an abandoned temple to an Aztec goddess. The apparition instructed that a shrine be built to her there. Thus, clearly, a demon got lonely as it was no longer worshiped as an Aztec goddess and would now be worshipped as “Mary.” For many details on these points see True Freethinker’s section on the Catholic Church

4) Any Catholic who has ever been to the Vatican knows that it is peppered with artwork depicting naked people. Indeed, clergy who are supposed to be committed to celibacy cannot look around that city without viewing church approved nudity—imagine that mind warping catch 22.

5) For the artist’s part, Paz Winshtein’s painting is actually very telling as it is titled “Three Goddesses in One.” It depicts a basic Lady of Guadalupe form with hooded robe opened, against a black background with the goddesss wearing a Hindu goddess Kali-like necklace of skulls and framed with a black upwards pointing cresent moon topping the painting (the original Guadalupe painting has the black moon under the apparition’s feet so as to, erroneously, identify the figure as the woman in Revelation 12—for details, see Mary in Roman Catholicism, part 12 – Assumed Into Heaven?).
Paz certainly seems to have some varied interests as his Facebook page lists an interest of his to be an Atheists internet TV show as well as two transgender / transsexual shows.

Paz Winshtein was one amongst others within a show titled “Guadalupe” at the Eye on the Mountain Art Gallery. He stated that he is “pretty proud” of it and that he intended to merge this goddess with others so as to form a new version of the female goddess:
The skull necklace which is one of the symbols of the Hindu goddess Kali, then there’s the crescent, that’s like the ancient Egyptian goddess, Isis.

A certain Jose Villegas stated that “It doesn’t belong in this, in our community” because “It’s culturally insensitive, bottom line.” To show just how accurate Paz Winshtein’s combined goddesses painting is, Villegas has contacted a group (obviously a cult) called “America Needs Fatima” (which we mention in On the Treatment of Images).

You see, we also previously reported on the combined Catholic Feast celebration and art exhibit in Albuquerque, New Mexico that was titled “Guadalupe: Goddess of the Americas” (see here for details). The Archdiocese of Santa Fe did not respond when asked for an opinion as whether the Archdiocese was in any way involved, officially or unofficially, (or whether it was an individual priest who took it upon himself) and as to whether the Archdiocese considers the Guadalupe apparition to be the “Goddess of the Americas.”

You see, for such Catholics the pseudo-Mary is the focus of their worship; America does not need an apparition, this time the one from Fatima, but needs Jesus.

Paz Winshtein’s paining has nothing to do with the real, historical, biblical Mary. However, it has a lot to do with a demon who enjoys being worshipped as a female and has induced many cultures to do just that; at one time as Kali, another time as Isis and yet another as “Mary” our lady of this, that and the other. Some Catholic call “Mary” the “Goddess of the Americas” and Paz refers to her as a “Goddess” thus, at least on that point, they agree.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

A plea: I have to pay for server usage and have made all content on this website free and always will. I support my family on one income and do research, writing, videos, etc. as a hobby. If you can even spare $1.00 as a donation, please do so: it may not seem like much but if each person reading this would do so, even every now and then, it would add up and really, really help out. Here is my donate/paypal page.

Due to robo-spaming, I had to close the comment sections. However, you can comment on my Twitter
page, on my Facebook page, on my Google+ page and/or the “Share/Save” button below the tags.

Note that he ultimately blames the victim, he still blames Salman Rushdie, “The book itself destroyed the harmony between peoples and created an unnecessary international crisis.” The book destroyed harmony and created an international crisis? Rushdie destroyed harmony and created an international crisis?

Nay, the Ayatollah Khomeini, his fatwa and the particular Muslims who supported it destroyed harmony and created an international crisis.

Next, note that for some reason he decides to throw some raw meat at both, those who oppose and support him,

Note that he ultimately blames the victim, he still blames Salman Rushdie, “The book itself destroyed the harmony between peoples and created an unnecessary international crisis.” The book destroyed harmony and created an international crisis? Rushdie destroyed harmony and created an international crisis?

Nay, the Ayatollah Khomeini, his fatwa and the particular Muslims who supported it destroyed harmony and created an international crisis.

Next, note that for some reason he decides to throw some raw meat at both, those who oppose and support him,

In the run up to the May 2009 release of the movie “Angels and Demons” based on the book by the same title authored by Dan Brown (of The Da Vinci Code infamy) pop-culture is sure to revisit the very same historical myths that are so very popular with conspiracy theorists and those lacking in the knowledge of History 101.

This run up seems to have begun by the televising, in January 2009, of the movie “The Last Templar” based on the book by Raymond Khoury. Whilst watching it I was very much reminded of the fervor over the gospel of Judas.

To state it very succinctly: “The Last Templar” centers around the search for a lost Templar treasure. The suspicion is that the treasure is a manuscript of the gospel of Jesus of Nazareth, a document which will prove that Jesus was just a man and nothing more, that its discovery would discredit Christianity and that the Templars were hiding it from the Vatican which would surely destroy it.

The similarities between the gospel of Jesus of Nazareth and the gospel of Judas are fascinating. I do not mean that similarities in content but in how they are perceived as documents and how their implications are expressed. Both are said to have to power to counter Christian claims or be enough to altogether simply discredit Christianity. Yet, in both cases we are confronted with the rather odd concept that one single apocryphal document could somehow counter the circa 25,000 manuscripts of the New Testament.

In other words, consider what historians, textual critics and skeptics of every sort demand of the New Testament manuscripts; that we know the who, when, why, where, how, the time of event vs. time of writing, time of writing vs. first manuscript, how many manuscripts, how do they compare, etc., etc., etc.
Take all of these, rightful, demands and throw them away when it comes to anything, anything at all, that contradicts Christianity. When it comes to contradicting Christianity one apocryphal document is enough for some people-this is a substandard double standard.

Within the story the main protagonist ends up finding and destroying the gospel of Jesus of Nazareth without even reading it but based on the fact that she had seen that basically; faith makes people feel good and so why destroy a nice fairy tale with hard facts?

It is sad that this is the only thing that it comes down to for some believers, some skeptics, and some authors. Comparing the facts of the matter would have been much more interesting and realistic. Instead, with such stories old stereotypes are reiterated and reinforced.
Thus, for people whose idea of historical research amounts to reading “The Last Templar,” “Angels and Demons,” “The Da Vinci Code,” etc. (or just watching the movies) or doing an internet search for “conspiracy, Templar and Christianity is a fraud” and then believing the first thing they see (which is usually a Wikipeia article) these stories are not just fun fiction but the stuff of knowledge and wisdom.

As it turns out, within the story, the Templars had actually forget the gospel, made it up out of thin air, in order to have some weight to wield against the Vatican who were persecuting them.

As we get closer to the release of “Angels and Demons” I will be posting on the gospel of Judas in greater detail, will make the point about the substandard double standard clearer and will provide some information about the Gnostics.

The newest of Dan Brown books has been released; entitled “The Lost Symbol,” it deals with Freemasonry in early America and it is a huge, huge disappointment.

The way the book ends is…

Just kidding-no spoiler here.

I have not read the book (although, I actually do know the way the book ends).

I have not read any reviews of the book.

I barely know that it is about.

This is why knowing virtually nothing about it, I consider it a disappointment:

I was really hoping that after becoming a very, very wealthy celebrity after writing novels that sought to discredit Christianity Dan Brown would continue that trend and go after every religion.

Let him besmirch Islam, put down Buddhism, claim that the main tenets of Hinduism are a fraud, contradict Taoism, tear down Judaism, etc., etc., etc.

But alas, no.

Unless, one were to consider Freemasonry a religion in which case perhaps Dan Brown is continuing his crusade.

However, he appears to be interested in them more in terms of secret societies who communicate via esoteric symbolism and involve themselves in political intrigues.

The Da Vinci Code gained Dan Brown wealth and celebrity while The Satanic Verses gained Salman Rushdie a death sentence.

Meanwhile, the militant activist new atheists besmirch Judaism and Christianity from the safety and comfort of countries premised upon Judeo-Christian principles while all but ignoring radical Islam or any other belief system.

Will no one play fair and present balanced condemnations?

I have provided information about the Da Vinci Code, Angels and Demons and The Last Templar including information about the Salman Rushdie affair, see here.

I recently read a fascinating interview with Dan Brown by James Kaplan-“Exclusive Interview With Dan Brown – Life After ‘The Da Vinci Code’,” Parade, Sept 13, 2009

James Kaplan noted that Dan Brown, “still seems surprised that his book started such a frenzy.” You have to wonder about such personages as Dan Brown. Is he really thinking, “Come on now, I attempted to discredit Christianity and accuse a real life Roman Catholic organization of murder; what’s the big deal?”

There came a point in Dan Brown’s life when “he decided to write fiction.” But that is just the issue is it not? At least with the Da Vinci Code he claimed to be premising his novel on fact and then simply collected his millions of dollars and sidestepped all historical and factual challenges.Dan Brown stated,

The furor died down, and I realized that none of it had any relevance to what I was doing. I’m just a guy who tells a story.

None of it had any relevance to what he was doing? The only relevance was to what he was doing. He was the one misrepresenting Christianity, history, even artwork and architecture. This is that to which the furor pertained.He also stated,

The power that religion has is that you think nothing is random: If there’s a tragedy in my life, that’s God testing me or sending me a message. That’s what conspiracy theorists do.

Do not forget that just because you are paranoid it does not mean that no one is out to get you.He also made a statement that is actually very accurate and could/should be very useful to a lot of people who think that atheism is based on “science” or that “science” is the only reliable epistemic system.

I was raised Episcopalian, and I was very religious as a kid. Then, in eighth or ninth grade, I studied astronomy, cosmology, and the origins of the universe. I remember saying to a minister, “I don’t get it. I read a book that said there was an explosion known as the Big Bang, but here it says God created heaven and Earth and the animals in seven days. Which is right?”

Unfortunately, the response I got was, “Nice boys don’t ask that question.” A light went off, and I said, “The Bible doesn’t make sense. Science makes much more sense to me.” And I just gravitated away from religion. The irony is that I’ve really come full circle. The more science I studied, the more I saw that physics becomes metaphysics and numbers become imaginary numbers. The farther you go into science, the mushier the ground gets. You start to say, “Oh, there is an order and a spiritual aspect to science.”

Indeed, note the words of Gil Dodgen:

I was raised an atheist, and was very devout as a kid. I studied astronomy, cosmology, and the origins of the universe. I remember saying to a scientist, “I don’t get it. I read a book that said there was an explosion known as the Big Bang, and that all the laws of physics were fine-tuned to make life possible. Wouldn’t this require design and purpose?” Unfortunately, the response I got was, “Only mindless, uneducated religious fanatics ask that question. It was all an accident. Stop asking stupid questions.”

But I wasn’t mindless, uneducated, or a religious fanatic. I was an atheist!

A light went off, and I said, “Materialism doesn’t make sense. Design and purpose in the cosmos makes much more sense to me.” And I just gravitated away from atheism.

Both were shrugged off and both ended up recognizing that, as with everything, the scientific endeavor is premised upon certain necessarily basic beliefs. Although, what Dan Brown actually believes about God is somewhat obscure.

When asked “Are you a Christian?” he responded:

Yes. Interestingly, if you ask three people what it means to be Christian, you will get three different answers. Some feel being baptized is sufficient. Others feel you must accept the Bible as absolute historical fact. Still others require a belief that all those who do not accept Christ as their personal savior are doomed to hell. Faith is a continuum_we’re each following our own paths of enlightenment.1

What of Dan Brown’s real life theology? Here is a taste:

“We now turn to God for only a handful of questions that science has not yet been able to understand. We still have religion based on “proof from incredulity” (it must be so because there is no other explanation). We still believe in a God of the gaps_We are unable to conceive of our hopes, dreams, memories, and spirits evaporating into thin air when we die, so therefore we say there must be an afterlife. We can’t imagine it another way_The biggest challenge to our spiritual being is our brains are evolving_

How do we become solidly minded scientifically, without losing our religion?”2

Finally, he also stated, “I think one reason my books have found mainstream success is that they’re written from a skeptical point of view.” Or, it could be that he was besmirching Roman Catholicism at a time when the news was saturated with reports of pedophilic priests and the Roman Catholic church’s cover-ups.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

A plea: I have to pay for server usage and have made all content on this website free and always will. I support my family on one income and do research, writing, videos, etc. as a hobby. If you can even spare $1.00 as a donation, please do so: it may not seem like much but if each person reading this would do so, even every now and then, it would add up and really, really help. Here is my donate/paypal page.

Due to robo-spaming, I had to close the comment sections. However, you can comment on my Facebook page and/or on my Google+ page. You can also use the “Share / Save” button below this post.

Herein we consider the contents of Radio Broadcast #22 by Bethel – The House of God – Message believers – Revealed Bible Truths Association (which is in Freeport, Trinidad) that is titled The Original Sin (The Serpent Seed). Since the name of the radio show’s speaker was not given, we will simply refer to that which “Bethel” claims.

The premise of the talk is “highlighting some of the greater facts of the original sin” and it gets into our context of the serpent seed of Satan theory by noting:

…many hold the conception that it was an apple that Eve ate in the Garden of Eden…we have another view of scripture which is totally contrary to what was taught throughout the ages in organizations, and denominations, and we sufficiently proved by the scripture on our last Monday’s message that the fruit could not have been an apple nor an apricot, and that it was definitely Adultery that was committed between the Serpent and Eve, and we still hold those views and we would not back up…This is a doctrine that was preached by William Branham, God’s servant and prophet.

Great caution must be taken when someone admits that they “have another view of scripture” and that it is “totally contrary to what was taught throughout the ages in organizations, and denominations.” Also, see my previous article on a sermon by Branham on this subject: On William Branham’s sermon “The Serpent’s Seed”
Well, it was not, as far as the Bible states, “an apple nor an apricot” but was an unspecified “fruit” and was definitely not adultery.

Bethel-The House of God

Having recognized that their theory goes against Jewish and Christian history and theology, they seek to buttress their self-appointed authority to do so:

These things were hid from the foundation of the world; these mysteries of God, and they were revealed today by the ministry of Malachi 4:5-6, an Elijah that was to come to the Earth before the burning. Also Revelation 10:7 declares: “But in the days of the voice of the seventh angel, when he shall begin to sound, the mystery of God should be finished, as he hath declared unto his servants the prophets.” and this is so strange to so-called Christians, Bible schools, Organizations and the theologians, and it is supposed to be strange even because it was a mystery that was hid for many generations but it is now made known.

You see they are claiming a special gift of discernment whereby they can freely invent some new theory.
Even considering that “an Elijah that was to come to the Earth before the burning…the mystery of God should be finished, as he hath declared…even because it was a mystery that was hid for many generations” does not mean that the serpent seed of Satan theory is that mystery that is being or will be revealed.

Referring to Branham, the radio show further states:

He challenged the world upon this doctrine, and we hereby challenge any Bible expositor, Superintendent, Organization, any wise and prudent who thinks that he has the knowledge to unravel the scripture, to prove to us that it was an apple or an apricot or some other fruit that Eve ate that caused all the problems in the world.
Common sense could tell us that an apple did not cause the problem because nowhere in the Scriptures says, “Thou shall not eat an apple or apricot”, and when they ate that fruit we realize that it caused them to understand that they were both naked. It helped them to understand that they should hide their nakedness and so they were hiding from Almighty God in the Garden of Eden.

Indeed, nowhere does the Bible state, “Thou shall not eat an apple or apricot” because those where not the fruit that Adam and Eve ate. But then, why does the Bible not condemn eating, “”some other fruit”? Well, because as far as we know there was one tree of the knowledge of good and evil which no longer exists and thus, no restriction against eating from it is necessary.
It seems that the reason that eating the fruit leads to “understand that they were both naked” is that the fruit imparted the knowledge of good and evil and they realized that there was something about nakedness that could be used for evil.

So what was this “strange fruit” as Bethel calls it?:

It was none other than Adultery in the Garden of Eden, sexual indulgence between the serpent and Eve. You definitely wouldn’t hear that in your Organization and in your Bible Schools, even because the mysteries are now revealed by a God-sent prophet anointed by the Spirit of Elijah called William Branham, of whom we are not ashamed.

Get the picture? You did not hear it from millennia of Jewish and Christian history and theology but only because they did not possess the God-sent prophet anointed by the Spirit of Elijah theory promulgated by Branham.

Serpent seed of Satan theorists tend to ask questions that supposedly have no answer outside of the template—the eisegetical interpretation—of their theory:

This fruit caused Eve and Adam to realize that they were naked, and furthermore God never cursed their mouths, neither did He say, “thou shalt not eat apples”, but He cursed human reproduction. Right there He said that a woman would bring forth children in pain and sorrow, and the Lord was going to multiply their conceptions. He cursed the womb of the woman and He never even cursed Adam. He cursed the ground for Adam’s sake.

Another note is that when dealing with serpent seed of Satan theorists one must go step by step because they tend to compound claim upon claim so that it sounds convincing or impressive by the end.
When discussing the curse for sin they focus on the fact that Eve’s curse was increased pain in childbearing and that this has nothing to do with a sin that consisted of eating. Since the biblical model is and eye for an eye, they will note, how does an act of eating have to do with the act of childbearing?

Serpent seed of Satan theorists tend not to get around to asking why Adam’s sin of eating has to do with his curse. In this case, Bethel actually mentions Adam but seeks to separate Adam from the curse. I discuss this issue in detail in my article Reply to Zen Garcia on the serpent seed of Satan theory but to state is succinctly; we are told little about Adam and Even within the Bible but that which we are told correlates directly to their curse. We are told that Adam’s hobby, as it were, was to be a gardener of sorts (Genesis 2) and we are told that Eve is the mother of all living (Genesis 3). Thus, the curse on Adam is to go from gardening to actually having to work the ground so as to get it to produce, to have to deal with thorns and thistles, to do so by the sweat of his brow—this changed the dynamic of that which is specified about him. Likewise, the curse on Eve is to go from being the mother of all living to doing so with increased pain.

This is why the curse for eating results in the curses that it results in.

Thus, God did not curse, “human reproduction” as Bethel wrongly put it, nor was he going to “multiply their conceptions” but multiply Eve’s pain in childbearing neither did God “cursed the womb.”

Note that Bethel identifies the seed of the woman and of Satan very specifically:

…the woman’s seed was our Lord Jesus Christ…the woman’s seed was our Lord Jesus Christ through Mary; a virgin did conceive and bring forth a son and he went to the cross…
The serpent indeed had a seed…the seed of the serpent, and the original seed of the serpent was none other than Cain.

So for some odd reason, at least at this point, Eve’s seed would come about millennia later but the serpent’s seed of Satan came about immediately.

In typical form for serpent seed of Satan theorists, Bethel must dismantle various portions of the record of Genesis so as to make room for their theory. For example, we have been told that fruit was not fruit and they also note that the tree of the knowledge of good and evil “was a spiritual tree and that spiritual tree was Lucifer, the devil, Satan, God’s adversary, and he had the knowledge of good and evil, and he demon-possessed the serpent (having this knowledge) and came to Eve.” They state this as a conclusion of reasoning that the tree “was not a natural tree even because trees do not have knowledge.” Well, this one did. Note that they ignore the tree of life; what was that tree in this scheme of things? Was it representative of Adam or God? No, because Adam and Eve were barred from entering Eden after their fall so as to not access the tree of life within. Yet, Adam was without along with Eve and, of course, so was God since, for example, He interacted with Cain.

In short, good was already known (having been stated some nine times within Genesis 1-2) and so what knowledge did the tree impart; only evil.

Now, after having gone on and on about the serpent, Bethel claims the following:

People have the idea about the serpent being a snake, but the Bible never said the serpent was a snake. The Bible called him a beast, and the Bible called him the most subtle of all beasts. Therefore that beast was a special class of a beast and that is the “missing link” between man and chimpanzee. He was higher than the Ape, higher than the chimpanzee, almost a man. He resembled a man in all respect, and his seed did co-mingle with the human seed.

This utterly unfounded claim come directly from William Branham and you can read my article about him, On William Branham’s sermon “The Serpent’s Seed”
Genesis 3:1 states that “the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field” which does not necessitate that it was, itself, a beast of the field but only that it was more subtil then they. In my article On satan, divination and metal it was detailed how one Hebrew word makes reference to serpent, to divination and to brazen copper. Yet, the claim is that serpent is really beast. Well, the word for serpent is used, for example, some 31 times within the KJV as serpent and not merely as a word but along with descriptive terms which elucidate that they refer to serpents.
Genesis 3:1-2, 4, 13-14, 49:17 (“Dan shall be a serpent by the way, an adder in the path, that biteth the horse heels”); Exodus 4:3, 7:15; Numbers 21:6-7 (“the LORD sent fiery serpents among the people, and they bit the people”), 9; Deuteronomy 8:15; Job 26:13; Psalm 58:4 (“Their poison is like the poison of a serpent”), 140:3 (“sharpened their tongues like a serpent adders’ poison is under their lips”); Proverbs 23:32 (“it biteth like a serpent, and stingeth like an adder”), 30:19; Ecclesiastes 10:8 (“whoso breaketh an hedge, a serpent shall bite him”), 10:11; Isaiah 14:29, 27:1, 65:25; Jeremiah 8:17, 46:22; Amos 5:19, 9:3 (“the serpent, and he shall bite them”); Micah 7:17.

Of course, we are told that the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field but it is likely that the term serpent was employed for that very reason; to emphasize the characteristic of being subtil. Also,
Revelation chapters 12 and 20 provide a very useful statement, “the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan” thus, dragon, serpent, etc. do not refer to different animals just like the words devil and satan mean accuser and adversary; in short, as per Ezekiel 28 Satan is a Cherub.

This is important because Bethel further notes:

Somebody might want to make an argument today that the “animal’s seed does not co-mingle with the seed of the human race.” Of course, it does not do that today, but the beast that was in the Garden of Eden was so close to the human race that his seed did co-mingle, and that is why science cannot find the “missing link” between man and the chimpanzee, even because the serpent was that creature, and only when God cursed him did he go upon his belly. We noticed that Cain was the direct seed of the serpent but he came closer to the human race, and he had that knowledge as well as Eve and Adam who inherited that knowledge from eating from that tree.

Previously, they noted that the tree was not a tree and had no knowledge to impart but now they, “inherited that knowledge from eating from that tree.”
As aforementioned, William Branham simply invented the idea about Satan possessing the missing link and committing adultery with Eve; Bethel merely parrots his claims. The issue is that Cherubs and Angels are different just like humans and bovines are different even though both are Earth dwellers. Angels were able to mate with woman, as per the Genesis 6 affair, because they look like human males (they do not have wings nor halos) whilst Cherubs appears to have a basic humanoid form with four wings and four faces: man, lion, ox/bull and eagle/vulture (see Ezekiel 10). Thus, Satan could not have mated with Eve and thus, Branham and Bethel have to invent a possessed missing link.

Now, as for the serpent seed of Satan being Cain and Eve committing adultery, Bethel states:

Oh the wise man caught that revelation!!…the wise man is bringing out a sex act…the Original Seed of the Serpent was Cain. He was the progenitor of all other seeds of the serpent that was to follow. This sounds horrible, it sounds incredible, but the mysteries of God are revealed today, showing that Cain’s seed traveled up until Judas was manifested, and then Judas being a direct offspring of Cain rejected the Lord and sold him for thirty pieces of silver. Judas Iscariot was the one that betrayed our Lord in order to fulfill the prophecy of Genesis 3:15, that Christ will bruise the head of the serpent, but then the serpent seed will bruise his heel.

It may very well be that Judas was being implied in Genesis 3:15 but not because he is genetically descended from Cain but rather, because, as the Bible clearly explains in 1 John 3, “the children of the devil” are “whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of God” and also “neither he that loveth not his brother.” In fact, the text specifies that “Cain, who was of that wicked one, and slew his brother” but explains that “And wherefore slew he him?” Because his own works were evil, and his brother’s righteous.” This is not about genetics but about actions, about sin.

Bethel then ask, “How is it that the theologians don’t tell us about the bruising of the heel of our Lord by the serpent seed?” Well, of course they do. But just to buttress their particular and peculiar theory, they state, “I am here this morning to tell you that it was revealed from the mysteries of God by Revelation 10:7.” Now, you may think that this settles it; Revelation 10:7 must revel the serpent seed of Satan theory. Yet, it states, “But in the days of the voice of the seventh angel, when he shall begin to sound, the mystery of God should be finished, as he hath declared to his servants the prophets.” Apparently, because the text refers to a “mystery,” Bethel feels justified in simply asserting that the mystery must be the serpent seed of Satan theory.

Note also that they make a reductio ad absurdum argument (reducing the issue to absurdity) in order to make their theory sound more convincing:

…there are thousands, even hundreds of thousands of people right here in this country and the Caribbean, and throughout the world that knows that it could not have been an apple that caused all this trouble…They know better that an apple could not have caused that. There is not one scripture in the Bible where God said, “Thou shalt not eat apples”…If an apple caused that, then that’s a dangerous fruit, and nobody should eat apples.

Not only do they appeal to apples but claim that when Cain brought his offering to God, “went forth and brought the fruits (no doubt he had an apple on top), an apricot second” and further claim that he did so “because his mother told him a lie that she ate an apple…and probably she made an excuse that she ate an apple, and so his offsprings still believe today.”
So, not only are they simply inventing things such as imagining what Eve said but if you believe that Eve ate an apple, a real fruit, then Bethel labels you as literally having Satanic genetics.

Now, note that Bethel selectively quotes Genesis so as to fool people into buying that which they are selling:

Genesis 4:1 says, “Eve brought forth a child and his name was Cain”, and she said “I have gotten a man from the Lord.” Was he a man from the Lord? The Bible already declared in Genesis 3:15 that it was the seed of the serpent; and she did eat the fruit which was adultery she committed and got pregnant, and then Eve, in her deceived condition, now trying to cover up her wicked deeds in the Garden of Eden said, “I have gotten a man from the Lord.”

Note that they did not quote Genesis 4:1 but rather, quoted 4:1b because 4:1a would have been inconvenient for their theory. In other words, they only quoted half of 4:1 while implying that they quoted the whole verse. This is a common tactic of serpent seed of Satan theorists who appear to do this because the verse is much too clear, “And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the LORD.” Thus, as per the clean reading of the text—without adding speculation about possessed missing links—Cain’ father was Adam. In fact, Genesis 4:2 states, “And she again bare his brother Abel. And Abel was a keeper of sheep, but Cain was a tiller of the ground.” Thus, in the very same way, within the very same context, following the very same thought; Adam was the father of Cain and Abel—period.
Moreover, if Eve was “trying to cover up her wicked deeds” just whom was she attempting to deceive? Both God and Adam knew who impregnated her.

Bethel continues thusly:

If you take that literally Mr. Theologian, was Cain a man from the Lord? He was the first murderer…He was a rebel to Almighty God. Are you calling that a man from the Lord? No, he was a man from the devil. He was a man of the serpent. He was a masterpiece of the devil in that Satan could find a higher creature towards man that he could demon possess. The reason that Cain behaved in such a manner is because he was the son of the serpent and the Lord allowed Lucifer to demon-possess him.

They also mention (also following William Branham’s claims) that:

Even when he brought his gifts to the altar, he had his own religion. He had his own revelations. He had his own ideas what will please God. Yes, and God rejected his sacrifice, and when God rejected his sacrifice, never did a man behave so rebellious towards Almighty God; that was Cain.

Here, again, the issue was not Cain’s genetics but his actions as when God confronts him about his offering He states, “Why art thou wroth? and why is thy countenance fallen? If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him.” In turn, Cain’s reaction is not to repent but to murder Abel.
Bethel would surely agree but claim that his actions were a result of his genetics yet, we have seen that this is simply not the case. Moreover, as aforementioned, 1 John 3 does away with Cain’s doings being based on genetics; Adam sinned, Eve sinned and Cain sinned. Now, is Bethel denying that Adam was created by God and Eve from Adam?

Note that Bethel does get around to quoting 1 John 3 but do not seem to note the focus on deeds and not genetics:

I want to declare to you that the Bible, a man speaking by divine revelation called ST. John the divine, and in 1 John 3:12 declared by divine revelation the same thing that William Branham declared, the same thing that all preachers around the world declares, the same thing that all believers of this message declares to be the truth, and that is, “Cain, was of that wicked one.” Eve said that he was a man from the Lord but John, the divine, a man with a revelation of the antichrist; he said, “Cain was of that wicked one and slew his brother, and wherefore slew he him? Because his own works were evil and his brother’s righteous.”

What they get from the text is:

There we are my friends. Compare those two scriptures: Genesis 4:1 and 1 John3: 12. Did the Bible make any mistake? Under no condition did the Bible make any mistake. The Bible is true. The Bible is right. Eve said that “she had gotten a man from the Lord” and that one proved that he was from the devil.
Yes, and he was the first murderer and here we are over in the end of the book, John, the divine, firmly declared that Cain was of that wicked one.

Lastly, along the way, Bethel makes various statements seeking to make themselves authoritative and here are some others:

Yes, I believe that these things are true, and any reasonable thinking man, anybody that search the scriptures and wants to be right can follow the same pattern and see that Our Lord Jesus Christ was the woman’s seed and Cain was the seed of the serpent…How dare can you great, wise and prudent deny the serpent seed and condemn William Branham because he brought forth that revelation of the serpent seed…Nobody could deny that, and the seed was Cain through the pregnancy that Eve received from the serpent, and the serpent was demon-possessed by Lucifer himself…There we are!

Well, they take this up a notch by stating the following regarding the serpent seed of Satan theory:
God revealed to his prophet today the same thing that John understood that Cain was of that wicked one. We are ready to pick up the challenge. Please call us on our telephone and try to defend your doctrine, and if you cannot defend it then believe it and accept William Branham as the messenger for this age.

The bottom line is that we can see from the plain reading of the Bible that Cain was the son of Adam, that the tree was a tree, that fruit was fruit, that Adam was a direct creation of God and yet sinned and that William Branham and Bethel simply invent tall tales in order to buttress their theory. Thus, we can know that the actions of sinners are not the result of satanic genetics.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

A plea: I have to pay for server usage and have made all content on this website free and always will. I support my family on one income and do research, writing, videos, etc. as a hobby. If you can even spare $1.00 as a donation, please do so: it may not seem like much but if each person reading this would do so, even every now and then, it would add up and really, really help. Here is my donate/paypal page.

Due to robo-spaming, I had to close the comment sections. However, you can comment on my Twitter page, on my Facebook page and/or on my Google+ page.

Twitter: #SerpentSeed, #Seedlines, #WilliamBranham
Facebook: #SerpentSeed, #Seedlines, #WilliamBranham

Granted that Pro-Life supporters should help the Pro-Life cause in various ways. Now, since we are dealing with Abortion’s Arguments we will dissect this charge—which is that you have no right to complain if you are not willing to help—logically.

How much would a person have to donate in order to buy the right to complain? Should people opposed to capital punishment not be allowed to complain unless they are willing to take mass murderers and rapists into their homes? Or should they donate money in order to keep them jailed for decades?

According to this argument, no person or country in the world had the right to oppose the Nazis unless they were willing to take the 12,000,000 victims into their home or country. We could not assist a person being violently attacked right before our eyes unless we were willing to pay for their hospitalization and therapy.

If Pro-Abortionists follow this argument to its logical conclusion then they would have to donate money to abortion clinics or they would have no right to be Pro-Abortion (of course, many do just that). The case is worse for those in the middle who label themselves Pro-Choice because they would have to donate money both to abortion clinics as well as organizations that support mothers who gave birth.

Just how far do we take this, should Pro-Abortionists not be allowed to be Pro-Abortion unless they were personally willing to personally perform abortions?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

BOOKS:

Bernard Nathanson, The Hand of God: A Journey from Death to Life by the Abortion Doctor Who Changed His Mind

Randy C. Alcorn, Why Pro-Life?: Caring for the Unborn and Their Mothers

Randy C. Alcorn, Pro-Life Answers to Pro-Choice Arguments Expanded & Updated

Scott Klusendorf, Pro-Life 101: A Step-by-Step Guide to Making Your Case Persuasively

ESSAYS:
“Sacred Abortion”

Richard Dawkins – On Abortion, Tadpoles, Rape, Cows, Murder and Sheep

The Exorcist’s Abortion and the Satanist’s Repentance

George Tiller, Abortionist Murders, and the Richard Dawkins Correlation

Is pro-life and pro-death penalty a contradiction?

Dan
Barker – His Views On Human Dignity

The
Abortion Money Machine Rolls Out the Ads in the UK

Pro-abortionists target pro-lifers

Greg Koukl on pro-abortion “logic”

Abortion and the Intolerance of the Pseudo-Tolerant

Abortion and Homosexual Marriage – The Faulty Correlation

Sam Harris – The Dehumanizer

Social networks:
My Amazon author’s page
Facebook
Twitter
YouTube
Archive video site
Ken Ammi’s Product Reviews
My CafePress shop
Google +

Norm Geisler references TrueFreethinker.com:
Apologeticspress.com’s Kyle Butt references TrueFreethinker.com:

Read the article about which Gary Habermas, PhD (Distinguished Research Professor & Chair of the Department of Philosophy at Liberty Baptist Theological Seminary) said, “I have hung on to it since you sent it, & plan to keep doing so”: Historical Jesus – Two Centuries Worth of Citations.

Social networks:
My Amazon author’s page
Facebook
Twitter
YouTube
Archive video site
Ken Ammi’s Product Reviews
My CafePress shop
Google +

Norm Geisler references TrueFreethinker.com:
Apologeticspress.com’s Kyle Butt references TrueFreethinker.com:

Read the article about which Gary Habermas, PhD (Distinguished Research Professor & Chair of the Department of Philosophy at Liberty Baptist Theological Seminary) said, “I have hung on to it since you sent it, & plan to keep doing so”: Historical Jesus – Two Centuries Worth of Citations.

Social networks:
My Amazon author’s page
Facebook
Twitter
YouTube
Archive video site
Ken Ammi’s Product Reviews
My CafePress shop
Google +

Norm Geisler references TrueFreethinker.com:
Apologeticspress.com’s Kyle Butt references TrueFreethinker.com:

Read the article about which Gary Habermas, PhD (Distinguished Research Professor & Chair of the Department of Philosophy at Liberty Baptist Theological Seminary) said, “I have hung on to it since you sent it, & plan to keep doing so”: Historical Jesus – Two Centuries Worth of Citations.