Talk:Serpent seed/Archive 1

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) 17:38, 25 July 2006 (UTC)


 * 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)

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)

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

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.

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

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)

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)

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 . 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)

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)

Manichaeanism and the Serpent Seed
Regarding the statement: "This same idea also appears in the teachings recorded by the Manichaeans."

This statement isn't entirely true. The Manichaean belief is that Eve and the evil archon (the gnostic Demiurge) were the parents of Cain. The serpent, according to Manichaean belief, was Jesus and told Adam to lead an abstinent lifestyle. The idea is the same where the devilish figure fathers Cain, however it isn't technically the serpent's seed. Would this information still be relevant to the Serpent Seed article? --d_bokk (talk) 03:02, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

"Fringe" in lead sentence?
I don't think the lead sentence needs to call this "fringe". It may well be "fringe" to many people, but we try not to push our point-of-view on readers, and let them judge for themselves from the objective facts (see WP:NPOV. If you look up the article fringe, you will only see it defined there as "scientific inquiry departing significantly from mainstream theories". Look it up on wiktionary, and the only applicable definition there is, short for "lunatic fringe".  That's where the slang comes from - it's a pejorative pov, and we are now seeing the proliferation of it as wikipedia jargon, and into actual articles themselves, that are supposed to describe theological concepts that don't even pretend to be "scientific inquiry".  This is not unlike declaring something a "heresy", as if wikipedia is some kind of an eecclesiastic body that determines what people are or aren't supposed to believe.  Let us not be a prescriptive encyclopedia with weasel words, but a strictly descriptive one. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 14:36, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree. The article goes over the controversy of the doctrine, and while the doctrine is certainly minority, I am not so sure that fringe is the best term when there are millions of apparent adherents. I would be ok with using "minority" instead of "fringe". It would convey that it is not majority view, while at the same time not maligning the topic with a POV. Charles Edward (Talk) 14:49, 20 February 2009 (UTC)


 * If it is a fringe view, then it should be stated clearly in the lead. As it is now, the first sentence makes it look like serpent seed is a commonly held doctrine, which it is not. Readers should not have to read the whole article to find out the most basic things. If you feel that "fringe" is derogatory, how about "uncommonly held" or something like that? --Apoc2400 (talk) 14:54, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The lead says "Serpent Seed is widely held to be a false doctrine by mainstream Protestant denominations", I think that is fairly clear that it is not a common view. To make it more clear we could put a sentence before that which says something like "Belief in a Serpent Seed doctrine is only held by a small minority of Christians." Charles Edward (Talk) 15:12, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I attempted a rewrite of the first paragraph. See what you think. --Apoc2400 (talk) 15:30, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I think it is good. I removed (snake), so not to confuse the reader the believers think eve had sex with a snake, and the part that said they were decended from Satan, which from my reading and research, is abhorrent to be sure, is not part of the beleif of major groups of followers. It is among Arnold Murray and his followers, and the Christian Identity movement, but not among Branhamism, which is the largest group by far. Charles Edward (Talk) 15:39, 20 February 2009 (UTC)


 * "Serpent seed is a controversial minority teaching in Christianity (and rarely Judaism and Gnosticism) " - That is a lot better, but it was more like a central tenet of Gnosticism (a 1st century doctrine) that managed to insert itself into the other two.. I wouldn't even mention Gnosticism until the 3rd paragraph, and leave it as "Serpent seed is a controversial minority teaching in Christianity, and rarely Judaism". Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 15:43, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I changed the intro a bit more and added a new section "Christian Identity movement". --Apoc2400 (talk) 19:16, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * i think that is a good idea. Their views are alot more radical that other followers of this doctrine, it is probably best to put what they think in a separate section. Charles Edward (Talk) 19:23, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Irenaeus and the Church Fathers in the first two centuries AD did not explicitly teach against this doctrine
I have studied the Ante Nicene Father's and have yet to find any teaching against this idea, explicit or implicit. If anything the statements made implicitly support the teaching. For example


 * For he who thinks he knows anything without true knowledge, and such as is witnessed to by life, knows nothing, but is deceived by the Serpent, as not loving life. But he who combines knowledge with fear, and seeks after life, plants in hope, looking for fruit. Let your heart be your wisdom; and let your life be true knowledge  inwardly received. Bearing this tree and displaying its fruit, thou shalt always gather  in those things which are desired by God, which the Serpent cannot reach, and to which deception does not approach; nor is Eve then corrupted,  but is trusted as a virgin; and salvation is manifested, and the Apostles are filled with understanding, and the Passover  of the Lord advances, and the choirs  are gathered together, and are arranged in proper order, and the Word rejoices in teaching the saints,—by whom the Father is glorified: to whom be glory for ever. Amen.

The Epistle of Mathetes to Diognetus, Chapter XII – p. 30, Volume 1 Ante Nicene Church Fathers, Philip Schaff

Essentially He is saying here that Eve is not corrupted (violated) but remains a trusted virgin – clearly the corruption spoken of here is in relation to her status as a virgin. This statement is made relative to the Tree of Life: Christ who is the seed of the woman and therefore the second Adam, from whom springs forth a spiritual generation that is holy and undefiled as a chaste virgin to Christ, having been reborn of incorruptible seed by the Spirit of God…

Justin Martyr has this to say on the subject:

For [Christ] called one of His disciples— previously known by the name of Simon—Peter; since he recognised Him to be Christ the Son of God, by the revelation of His Father: and since we find it recorded in the memoirs of His apostles that He is the Son of God, and since we call Him the Son, we have understood that He proceeded before all creatures from the Father by His power and will (for He is addressed in the writings of the prophets in one way or another as Wisdom, and the Day, and the East, and a Sword, and a Stone, and a Rod, and Jacob, and Israel); '''and that He became man by the Virgin, in order that the disobedience which proceeded from the serpent might receive its destruction in the same manner in which it derived its origin. For Eve, who was a virgin and undefiled, having conceived the word of the serpent, brought forth disobedience and death. But the Virgin Mary received faith and joy, when the angel Gabriel announced the good tidings to her that the Spirit of the Lord would come upon her, and the power of the Highest would overshadow her: wherefore also the Holy Thing begotten of her is the Son of God; and she replied, ‘Be it unto me according to thy word.’''' ”  And by her has He been born, to whom we have proved so many Scriptures refer, and by whom God destroys both the serpent and those angels and men who are like him; but works deliverance from death to those who repent of their wickedness and believe upon Him

Justin Martyr, Dialog with Trypho, Chapter C, pp. 404-405, Volume 1, Ante Nicene Fathers, Philip Schaff

This is also an implicit corroboration of the doctrine of the serpent seed set forth in this manner: Christ came by virgin birth to right the tipped balance perpetuated in Eve, who was defiled and lost her state of virginity. Justin Martyr says here that the cause of the disobedience, its origin, is found in the virgin Eve who was defiled by the serpent, even as the obedience of Mary, and her undefiled state, remaining a virgin and bringing forth the spoken word seed of God, is superior to the woman Eve who brought forth the seed of the serpent’s perverted word: disobedience unto death.

As for Irenaeus, he hardly mentions the subject from what I have read and certainly does not teach explicitly against it. There is only one fragment of writing that is explicit in its discussion of the serpent and this is disputed as to its authorship, in it the author (purportedly Irenaeus) examines the physical attributes of the Edenic serpent:

How is it possible to say that the serpent, created by God dumb and irrational, was endowed with reason and speech? For if it had the power of itself to speak, to discern, to understand, and to reply to what was spoken by the woman, there would have been nothing to prevent every serpent from doing this also. If, however, they say again that it was according to the divine will and dispensation that this [serpent] spake with a human voice to Eve, they render God the author of sin. Neither was it possible for the evil demon to impart speech to a speechless nature, and thus from that which is not to produce that which is; for if that were the case, he never would have ceased (with the view of leading men astray) from conferring with and deceiving them by means of serpents, and beasts, and birds. From what quarter, too, did it, being a beast, obtain information regarding the injunction of God to the man given to him alone, and in secret, not even the woman herself being aware of it? ...

Irenaeus, Lost Fragments, Chapter CXIV, pp. 570-571, Ante Nicene Fathers, Philip Shcaff

What is he saying here? That the serpent in the Garden was clearly more than a serpent as we now know them. Also that it was possessed by a spirit that knew things that a dumb brute beast could not and would not know concerning God's council to man. Tertullian had this to say on the subject:

For it was while Eve was yet a virgin, that the ensnaring word had crept into her ear which was to build the edifice of death. Into a virgin’s soul, in like manner, must be introduced that Word of God which was to raise the fabric of life; so that what had been reduced to ruin by this sex, might by the selfsame sex be recovered to salvation. As Eve had believed the serpent, so Mary believed the angel. ''' The delinquency which the one occasioned by believing, the other by believing effaced. But (it will be said) Eve did not at the devil’s word conceive in her womb. Well, she at all events conceived; for the devil’s word afterwards became as seed to her that she should conceive as an outcast, and bring forth in sorrow.'''

Tertullian, Anti Marcion - On the Flesh of Christ, Chapter XVII, p.940, Ante Nicene Fathers volume 3, Philip Schaff He seems to be implying that it was not a word alone that got Eve pregnant, God by the creative power of His spoken word was able to cause a conception to occur in the womb of the Virgin Mary, by contrast Satan, also a spirit being, was unable by any creative power of his own to do the same. The Devil is not a creator, he is a perverter of creation, therefore he required another agency by which to do his bidding, and that is where the serpent presents itself as a possible candidate. Tertullian says here that it was not by any words the serpent uttered that Eve conceived, however it is certain that she did conceive by the serpent's seed...

This is the evidence as the record of history provides, and therefore the statement in this article's introductory remarks - that Ireneaus and the early church fathers taught explicitly against this doctrine is inaccurate and should be amended. MalcolmFerris (talk) 21:37, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Irenaeus DID explicitly teach against this doctrine.
The book as given in the text of the article is easy enough to find, just follow the internal links to the article for the book, and you will find external links to it, then you can look up "Book 1, Chapter 30". But here it is conveniently linked for you: Irenaeus I:30. Please notice that he devotes this entire chapter to what he considered the heretical teachings of the Ophites and Sethites, such as their teaching that Eve mated with the serpent to produce Cain. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 22:12, 7 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm a newcomer to all this (and not a follower of Branham), but I've got to say after reading the link above that I agree with the comments made by Malcolm Ferris below. Regardless of whether the "Serpent Seed" doctrine is right, wrong or downright wacky, what Irenaeus writes is hardly an "explicit rejection" (although it could be argued that it is an *implicit* rejection --- or even an implicit *endorsement*, as Malcolm Ferris points out).


 * After wading through screen after screen of Irenaeus's tediously comprehensive description of the doctrine of the Ophites & Sethites and finding no specific repudiation of the "Serpent Seed" doctrine, I was positively itching to delete the line "this teaching was explicitly rejected as heresy by Irenaeus" --- but managed to restrict myself to simply appending a 'citation needed' to it. As I say, no axe to grind (nor Wikipedia account!) --- just a vaguely (dis)interested passer-by...  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.14.218.149 (talk) 20:35, 29 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I think this is where WP:PRIMARY comes in - Irenaeus being a primary source. Nobody has ever disputed in any secondary source that Irenaeus wrote his book to condemn, reject, expose and refute all these heresies and not to endorse them, because that's common sense for most readers.  So that's what the secondary sources will tell you.  If you have a different interpretation of Irenaeus we can only use it if it is published in a reliable source somewhere. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 20:40, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Re: The Teachings of the Ophites and the Sethites - Irenaeus
I disagree with your conclusion that this chapter explicitly refutes the doctrine of the serpent seed. What Irenaeus is doing in this and other chapter’s is summarizing the false teachings of this group. In this chapter the origins of John the Baptist and Jesus Christ are also mentioned and the truth of them abused to fit the herecy of this group. By relating these things, Irenaeus is not refuting them either explicitly or implicitly. He is merely outlining the details of their beliefs, which were kept hidden from novices, and revealed only to the initiated as mystery teachings.

In later sections, he then deals with factors of these heresies that he wishes to focus upon in order to expose their folly in light of the Holy Scriptures. This Gnostic account of supposed serpent seed does not constitute a refutation any more that the account of the supposed nature of the birth of John the Baptist or Jesus Christ. This is what Irenaeus says in the chapter following the above mentioned:

“So, in our case, since we have brought their hidden mysteries, which they keep in silence among themselves, to the light, it will not now be necessary to use many words in destroying their system of opinions. For it is now in thy power, and in the power of all thy associates, to familiarize yourselves with what has been said, to overthrow their wicked and undigested doctrines, and to set forth doctrines agreeable to the truth. Since then the case is so, I shall, according to promise, and as my ability serves, labour to overthrow them, by refuting them all in the following book. Even to give an account of them is a tedious affair, as thou seest.”

You asserted that, the Ophites and Sethites taught, that Eve mated with the serpent to produce Cain. However, this chapter relates that, firstly ‘others’ mated with her to produce ‘angels’ and that the demiurge also desired to mate with her to produce offspring but was beaten to it. Also in section 9 Irenaeus states:

“They also found out food, through the guidance of Sophia; and when they were satisfied, they had carnal knowledge of each other, and begat Cain, whom the serpent, that had been cast down along with his sons, immediately laid hold of and destroyed by filling him with mundane oblivion, and urging into folly and audacity, so that, by slaying his brother Abel, he was the first to bring to light envy and death”

So, according to Irenaeus, they (the Ophites and Sethites) taught, that after their expulsion from Eden, Adam and Eve had carnal knowledge to produce Cain, and that the serpent and his sons then sought to destroy this son of Adam and Eve. In this statement it is clear that the seed of the serpent (according to these heretics) were spiritual beings and that Cain was the seed of Adam and Eve, whom the Devil sought to destroy. He would hardly attempt to destroy his own human offspring if he had any, but rather would seek to protect, and further it.

One final thought, it might be argued that the absence of any explicit correction, concerning the teaching of the serpent seed, in the following books of Irenaeus, is an implicit refutation. However, one could equally assert, that the lack of direct refutation in books 2 and 3 constitutes an implicit validation of the teaching, that Irenaeus expends his efforts to expose that which is in error in the teachings. By implication then that which is not dealt with explicitly is omitted because no error exists. Personally I do not hold to either of these views, but my opinion lies somewhere in the middle of the two. MalcolmFerris (talk) 00:33, 8 December 2010 (UTC)


 * These were early gnostic-type heresies he was describing; and I don't read it to say they taught Eve mated with Adam to bear Cain, when it says "they had carnal knowledge of each other, and begat Cain", the antecedents are not Eve and Adam, but rather Eve and Prunicus, one of several names he says they had for the serpent offspring; in other words, these early gnostics had quite a lot of teaching in this area that was never in the Hebrew Bible, and this also happens to be the earliest detectable trace of such originally Gnostic / Manichaean serpent doctrines, as both the "Gospel of Philip" and St. Augustine are later-dated attestations of it, but also quite relevant. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 02:36, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Lack of criticism
Nary a point raised in the article about criticism or objections, at least one of which can be referenced in the text. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.129.226.235 (talk) 01:33, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Notability of interpretations included in this article
There is currently a brief section on Arnold Murray's teachings. As the article on the teacher was deleted (see Articles for deletion/Arnold Murray), this seems prima facie evidence that he is not notable as an interpreter, and therefore his interpretation should not be retained here. I therefore deleted it, believing this to be in accordance with Fringe theories.

However, it was promptly restored here with the explanation: how did "fringe" suddenly come to mean "something we can't mention" Undo censorship. – Fayenatic  L ondon 16:07, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
 * You seem to be using a slippery slope fallacy. "We got away with censorship there already, now as a fait accomplis it is prima facie evidence and the whole process can be streamlined with minimal scrutiny"  Very trendy fallacy these days.  Now come up with a logical argument that applies in this situation without just pointing at other people who made other decisions, somewhere else. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 16:22, 17 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Arnold Murray's theological opinion is that the Jews are not descended from Cain.
 * This is also the mainstream theological view, because according to the Bible, Jews are not the descendants of Cain, who all drowned long before there were any Jews.
 * There have been only a few teachers, discussed in this article, who have taught that Jews are descended from Cain. This view has been rejected by all but a very few, but that is the subject of this article on a tiny minority view.
 * These are all theological opinions, so we need to cover them thoroughly and impartially. Evidently User:Fayenatic london does not care for Arnold Murray's theological opinion to the point where he doesn't want anyone else to read it in the wikipedia article.  However you can take ANY individual's version of the truth, and guaranteed there will be someone else who considers it "fringe".  That's how it is with theology.  That's why we must strive to cover all viewpoints even if we personally don't like them rather than enforce our own personal prejudices as editors and look for things to censor "because it's the other guy's viewpoint, not mine". Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 16:15, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
 * You are jumping to conclusions. I did not even look into Murray's viewpoint. I simply saw the redlink to his name, checked for linked articles, and found that this was the only remaining link to the deleted article on that teacher. I therefore removed it as a piece of housework that was logically appropriate after deletion of the article on the teacher, on grounds of notability.
 * We certainly do not and should not cover all viewpoints, or any other subjects, but only notable ones; that is what Notability is all about.
 * Are there any secondary or tertiary sources indicating that Murray's teaching on this subject is notable? – Fayenatic  L ondon 16:29, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I think it is WP:UNDUE that covers this. But your question is the right one to answer. We do not cover all viewpoints. Dougweller (talk) 16:38, 17 November 2013 (UTC)


 * All of the theologians in the article who teach "serpent seed" are considered kooks by Biblical Christians. This entire article is about basically the fringe theory so it seems odd to single one of them out as fringe (who incidentally agrees halfway with the mainstream view, in distinction to the other fringe teachings). I see his article was deleted 5 years ago - even though there were sources, he was considered "too controversial" allowing all of the sources to be overruled and disqualified by editors. I haven't really looked yet but ideally we should get a clear statement of what his take is on the serpent seed teaching, if he is one of the fringe proponents of this fringe teaching, that should be notable enough for a sentence or so on this article that is dedicated to the fringe teaching. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 16:40, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for persisting. Now I see what it the subject is about, and have found some prominent refutations. I agree that it is better to retain the mention of Murray, with links to the notable opposing views. – Fayenatic  L ondon 18:40, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you, it ties in much better with the topic now and what was there before was really inadequate. BTW I don't know all that much about this topic so note I am not arguing for inclusion out of any kind of personal emotional attachment to Murray or whatever he teaches, just on general principles. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 19:09, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
 * You're welcome - same here. – Fayenatic  L ondon 20:09, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Jung Myung Seok's teachings
I took out this section since this person seems to be a very minor figure (who is now in prison for rape BTW) and not noted as a theologian or biblical scholar. The material was put back with a note mentioning BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. This seems to be the next step in the cycle. Kitfoxxe (talk) 11:27, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I will continue the cycle and remove the material on this person's views again, unless someone objects. Kitfoxxe (talk) 22:08, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Less than 48 - where's the fire? I object. The criterion "minor figure" is relative to who? Do you believe the reader gets a better article by leaving out the section on Jung Myung Seok, and if yes, why? Sam Sing! 20:39, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Well yes, there are probably millions of people who believe in one or another version of this concept. Most of them are not in prison for rape. Giving a section to the one person, out of millions, who is gives an unbalanced view of the topic.Kitfoxxe (talk) 21:27, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
 * BTW thank you for not putting the material back until there is more discussion. I have pretty much said what I have to say on the issue. Now waiting for others, or more from you. Cheers. -Kitfoxxe (talk) 21:29, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I gave a "thank." I hope that counts as a "ping."  I couldn't figure out the "ping" page. :-) -Kitfoxxe (talk) 21:32, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, no rush. ... I doubt there are millions of people believing in this doctrine, but I do not know. And I don't quite get your point now, we're no longer talking about notability or lack of same as a theologian or biblical scholar, we are talking about having gone to prison for rape as the criterion? Sam Sing! 23:46, 14 July 2014 (UTC) re ping will post on your tp
 * I'm sure there are many who believe it as part of their Folk religion. Kitfoxxe (talk) 06:22, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

The reason/reasons for deletion is/are unclear to me. First a diffuse assertion that the leader of the sect in question should be supposedly non-notable. My one question for clarifying the criterion was left unanswered. Then the discussion jumps to something that to me sounds just as diffuse something along the line that the leader's use of the doctrine as a jump board to get sex with his female followers and his subsequent conviction on charges for doing so gives an unbalanced view of the topic. Apparently. My question about this diversion in argument was not answered. I'll gladly follow up with why none of the criteria are valid, if the discussion is brought back on track, but will for now restore the material. Sam Sing! 12:33, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree. Default to keep. Kitfoxxe (talk) 17:19, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Long, detailed, uncited passage
In the section "Doctrine" there is a very long section introduced by this: "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." There's no sources given for how this was decided on and put together. Isn't this Original Research? Kitfoxxe (talk) 22:12, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree, will tag it for unsourced for now.Borock (talk) 15:04, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I just checked the sources and the entire section is from single original sources. However it claims that these are representative of most believers. Clearly OR. Will remove section. BayShrimp (talk) 17:11, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree. It should be removed. Taxee (talk) 19:20, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Doctrine?
The article Doctrine starts out: "Doctrine (from Latin: doctrina or possibly from Sanskrit: dukrn) is a codification of beliefs or a bodys, taught principles or positions, as the essence of teachings in a given branch of knowledge or belief system." Is this what this really is? Might "theory" or "belief" or "idea" be better? BayShrimp (talk) 17:54, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
 * How about "concept"? That sounds fairly neutral. "Theory" sounds too scientific. Kitfoxxe (talk) 15:06, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Daniel Parker
Daniel Parker (Baptist) is mentioned in the lede as a notable proponent, but is not mentioned again in the article. If notable, he needs to be mentioned either under History or in his own section. If not, his name should be removed. – Fayenatic  L ondon 23:05, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
 * His own article discusses this. Probably some of that material could be transferred here as a new section.BayShrimp (talk) 21:15, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Serpent seed. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100216160255/http://www.shepherdschapel.com/critics.htm to http://www.shepherdschapel.com/critics.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120929194615/http://www.adl.org/learn/ext_us/gayman.asp?xpicked=2&item=gayman to http://www.adl.org/learn/ext_us/gayman.asp?xpicked=2&item=gayman

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 08:58, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Undue Weight
The article has historically skewed to the Christian Identity Theology's teachings, but based on the sources, they represent a very small percentage of overall adherent's of the modern versions of the teaching. It seems like the Unification Church and Branhamism constitute the overwhelming majority of adherents. All three seem to have branched from British Israelism as a root, but they have unique takes on the doctrine. To focus to heavily on the Christian Identity version of the doctrine could constitute a violation of WP:UNDUE. I am hoping to have resolved that issue in my recent expansion of the article. &mdash;Charles Edward (Talk 16:07, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your contributions to the article. I don't necessarily disagree with you, and am finding the additional insight quite interesting (especially the Branhamism material). One thing I wanted to comment on specifically to CI is something I believe is in the content you added (and if not, it should still be addressed).  In Modern adherents > Christian Identity movement it states "Groups which adhere to Christian Identity Theology include..." and then lists some groups, sourced in Schambers.  There are some problems with that.  The KKK and the American Nazi Party are not actually adherents of CI as a group.  Gleaning that from Schambers would be a misreading of the source, in my opinion. Reading Schambers, it does fit with what other sources such as Barkun or Kaplan would suggest - that there are adherents of CI within those groups, but those groups are not specifically CI.  They have cross-over and mutual interests, but they as a group believe different things. If you read Schambers carefully, the quote from SPLC says "had ties to," which should not be taken to mean "has the same theology as," if you get my meaning. (Likewise, it doesn't say "American Nazi Party" specifically.  Neo-Nazi is a viewpoint.  American Nazi Party is a group that has neo-Nazi views, but not all neo-Nazis are American Nazi Party.)  I've edited with some suggested rewording to hopefully clarify, but I'm open to discussion and suggestion.  I think these are important distinctions that sometimes get lost because most people simply lump all neo-Nazi militia types into the same bucket, which politically is somewhat accurate, but is far from reality when considering their theological belief systems.   Butler Blog   (talk) 20:16, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your insight, I am not personally an expert on this topic and am just going off what I am reading in the sources. It is possible I have misread Schambers in that way. There seems to be alot of nuance in the different groups, and that is something I am definitely struggling to define. I welcome any help to sort it out and bring clarify. I am still trying to get my arms around who believes what, and to what extent, and just how it propagated through the different groups. I still feel like I am missing some pieces and still hunting down sources. &mdash;Charles Edward (Talk 20:46, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
 * "Nuance" is a great way to describe it. The lines are definitely blurry. Some of that is due to the affiliations of the early developers of these ideas. Another part of that is due to Richard Girnt Butler's "World Congress." He invited all manner of neo-Nazi racists to his compound each year, causing some people to believe all the attending groups were similarly unified ideologically. I think what you've done so far is a good expansion of the topic. I would consider myself pretty well read on topics related to CI, and I learned some new things from what you've added, so keep on going!    Butler Blog   (talk) 21:09, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Shakers and serpent seed belief
See the hymn and footnote with Cain: https://www.sacred-texts.com/utopia/csus/csus14.htm#fr_6 (Charles Nordhoff's Communistic Societies of the United States)

This is the only time I've seen anything like this from the Shakers so I thought it was interesting. Trying to find out more but can't find anything else at the moment. If I can I'll add it to the article. 24.44.73.34 (talk) 19:11, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

White supremacy agenda?
Why does it look like the Democrat party has edited this page to conform to the WEF agenda, etc? I'm not expert at wikipedia but i've been using the website for over 20 years now and this looks a heavy biased article with a political agenda in mind.

Example, there is talk of the Ku Klux Klan supporting this theory, but no (historical) source is linked, just an article / opinion piece.

How are these two sources even remotely related to the scriptures ?!? https://books.google.nl/books?id=XdXpn6NH2GcC&pg=PA453&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false https://books.google.nl/books?id=nuCGVxJGPs0C&pg=PA53&redir_esc=y

These are the sources ( [3] + [4] ) that are used to claim this theory is a hate group lmao I'm sorry but this whole article reads like it was made with a heavy bias and not a neutral point of view at all. This is the first time browsing wikipedia that i have seen such a strong bias implicit in the article. If hate group is related to this theory then it is very poorly explained how this came to be. It seems more like an opinion / bias than a neutral point of view explaining the history of the situation as i have been accustomed to on wikipedia.org for the past 20 odd years.

This article shouts red flag to me. This is not how i'm used to wikipedia articles looking like. Again i'm no pro so if anyone wants to take up the task of reformatting i think it will go a long way towards keeping neutral p.o.v

Why i am saying this is because according to scripture it is unclear what exactly this forbidden fruit was (it could very well have been sexual intercourse, i don't know, i wasn't there) And as a Christian myself i am very familiar with the theory. There are many different scriptures which allude to this and not at all related with white supremacy or critical race theory and whatnot. I don't appreciate being called a white supremacist simply for having an interest in scripture and theories surrounding said scriptures. At all.

This needs to be changed.

I second that comment ! I Added the Targum Pseudo-Jonathan tab to this article, because it's a ridiculous article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.205.131.120 (talk) 18:19, 10 March 2022 (UTC)


 * First of all, it’s actually called the Democratic Party. See this article. Also, what on earth does the World Economic Forum have to do with any of this? 2600:1014:B00F:DCA0:DD14:350F:5BF:79CE (talk) 22:37, 4 August 2022 (UTC)