OS I see from your link as well this is probably the origin of the idea of VPs that the heads of denominations had the mark of the beast. Branham taught membership in a denomination carried the mark of the beast.
OS I see from your link as well this is probably the origin of the idea of VPs that the heads of denominations had the mark of the beast. Branham taught membership in a denomination carried the mark of the beast.
I'll check it out...thanks for digging in...I literally found the link I posted to begin with but haven't dived in just yet...cool.
Remarkable similarities with wierwille on a lot of stuff.
The little bit that I’ve looked into this serpent seed topic over the years since I left TWI – I’ve come across some variations – besides Branham’s and wierwille’s – in my opinion, that’s not surprising on such a nebulous idea – some Scripture can be very malleable and lends itself easily to a wide range of interpretations…Personally I understand passages like Jesus saying "you are of your father the devil", to be figurative – that Jesus’ enemies were children of the devilby imitation.
.
Offhand I note some differences on seed of the serpent between the two:
Branham’s teaching taught Cain was produced through sexual intercourse between Eve and the serpent in the garden.
Branham believed that the Serpent Seed was the missing link between man and monkey
~ ~ ~ ~
wierwille taught seed of the serpent was spiritual – though he never explained how the devil can create seed nor how a human can be born-again of the serpent’s seed – just spewed out vague pat answers like making Satan your lord.
wierwille followed the biblical narrative of humankind’s origin – did not believe in a missing link or conventional evolution.
Offhand I note some differences on seed of the serpent between the two:
Branham’s teaching taught Cain was produced through sexual intercourse between Eve and the serpent in the garden.
Branham believed that the Serpent Seed was the missing link between man and monkey
~ ~ ~ ~
wierwille taught seed of the serpent was spiritual – though he never explained how the devil can create seed nor how a human can be born-again of the serpent’s seed – just spewed out vague pat answers like making Satan your lord.
wierwille followed the biblical narrative of humankind’s origin – did not believe in a missing link or conventional evolution.
Definately major differences too, as well as similarities, as you noted. With wierwille, considering he sort of gleaned what he could from whatever source tickled his fancy and/or sought after (and found) material he knew would appeal to his audience, all the time saying God just gave him the information by revelation....with Branham it's likely wierwille took what he liked, reworded it somewhat to seperate it from the source...that's my speculation anyway. What other sources have you come across on seed of the serpent? Ive searched around and havent found very much, which is why this Branham guy was significant to me in my search to figure out where this seed of the serpent doctrine originated.
In Genesis God does acknowledge the fact that Satan would have a seed...but....what the actual heck does that really mean. Ive read all sorts of information on the topic. Lot of people take it back to Edomites, or Idumeans as they were known in Greek.
13 hours ago, T-Bone said:
Personally I understand passages like Jesus saying "you are of your father the devil", to be figurative – that Jesus’ enemies were children of the devilby imitation.
I also think this point of view could have real merit as well, especially considering all the other figurative languange in Genesis...and maybe that's my error...trying to read a literal seed into a section of scripture that likely never contained a literal garden or literal trees in said garden.
To be clear too, my searches have been mostly limited to the term seed of serpent or variations that are similar. Accordingly I havent come across anything as blatant in termininology as Branham used and wierwille likely copied. Im going to spend some time later this morning on the internet and see what else I can come across.
Can't say that I'm tremendously interested in this, because I think anything VPW said is nonsense. The truth of it is God's business and God alone decides who's his and who isn't.
There was, however, this Roman business of adoption. The choosing of the heirs. The adoption in to a family, whether one was "blood" or naturally a part of the family ("born again"), or whether one was an outsider. For those who are interested in pondering this, could it be that "seed of the serpent" is a figurative expression denoting not a "new birth/born again" as a physical thing, but more like a rite of adoption?
...wierwille taught seed of the serpent was spiritual – though he never explained how the devil can create seed nor how a human can be born-again of the serpent’s seed...
For years Oakspear had a question here:
How come the devil was able to come up with seed for humans before God did?
Has anyone worked that question?
Is Oakspear still hanging out once in a while here?
Can't say that I'm tremendously interested in this, because I think anything VPW said is nonsense. The truth of it is God's business and God alone decides who's his and who isn't.
There was, however, this Roman business of adoption. The choosing of the heirs. The adoption in to a family, whether one was "blood" or naturally a part of the family ("born again"), or whether one was an outsider. For those who are interested in pondering this, could it be that "seed of the serpent" is a figurative expression denoting not a "new birth/born again" as a physical thing, but more like a rite of adoption?
I think you are on the right track here to answering Oakspear's question.
It looks to me that the serpent's seed is counterfeit, and only resembles what God was planning.
My answer to Oakspear is that with lots of close fellowshipping with the adversary, a human's mind-goals and buttons and triggers become well known to the adversary. With such detailed info the adversary can possess the man's mind and muscles to do exactly what is desired, and whenever it is wanted. It is a breakdown of all the biological protections against possession that God built into our DNA.
I think you are on the right track here to answering Oakspear's question.
It looks to me that the serpent's seed is counterfeit, and only resembles what God was planning.
My answer to Oakspear is that with lots of close fellowshipping with the adversary, a human's mind-goals and buttons and triggers become well known to the adversary. With such detailed info the adversary can possess the man's mind and muscles to do exactly what is desired, and whenever it is wanted. It is a breakdown of all the biological protections against possession that God built into our DNA.
It looks to me like you are making things up as you go. That’s not what VP taught in PFAL he taught that it was confessing Satan as Lord, not close fellowshipping with the adversary.
BTW how exactly does one go about this close fellowshipping with the adversary? Does he run a twig? Or do you just randomly go out Satan witnessing and see who you can convince to do a goat sacrifice?
Logical minds want the breakdown not more fabricated bullshonta.
Also, what biological protections are you referring to against possession? Didn’t hear that one in PFAL series either?
So you dedicate yourself to PLAF logic until it fails, then make up something plausible on the fly?
I know we could do dueling revelation battles about who is possessed like they did in John Lynn’s spin-off.
“ I saw a snake with your head in it” “I saw a black cat and it reminded me of you”
If you want to skip the creepy cringe, Heiser swoops in at the 4:00 mark.
Grammatical markers: A concept not widely understood by English speakers, yet oh so critical in some other languages. Just one reason why word studies and interlinear translations can result in pretzel logic. Thinking we could substitute this word for that word and arrive at a meaning. It can be all the difference between going TO the store and coming FROM the store. I think back on images of little kids putting on Mommy and Daddy's clothes and pretending to be grown-ups. That's what we were, kids pretending to understand the nuances of linguistics and translation.
Lambano, laballo, ball, throw the ball, throw it out....Lo shanta.
Well...I think I stumbled on the source for wierwille's infatuation with the seed of the serpent...and also Martindale claiming Eve had sex with the devil.
The Serpent Seed teaching is a belief that Cain was produced through sexual intercourse between Eve and the serpent in the garden. The curse of the Serpent’s Seed he believed is the cause of all mankind’s problems and women are to blame and it is evident in their temptation of men.–William M. Branham, My Life Story, p. 19.
Branham also believe that the Serpent Seed was the missing link between man and monkey.
Hitler also believed in the Serpent Seed teaching and this was the main reason why Jews needed to be eliminated, for the Jewish nation was of Satan. Now if Hitler believed in this and Branham believed in this, and Hitler was of Satan and Branham is of God then….we have a HUGE problem here.
It is also noted that Branham despised women and on one occasion stated, “But I remember when my father’s still up there running, I had to be out there with water and stuff, see young ladies that wasn’t over seventeen, eighteen years, up there with a man my age now, drunk. And they’d have to sober them up and give them black coffee, to get them home to cook their husband’s supper. Oh, something like that, I said, ‘I…This was my remarked [sic] then, THEY’RE NOT WORTH A GOOD CLEAN BULLET TO KILL THEM WITH IT.’ That’s right. And I hated women. That’s right. And I just have to watch every move now, to keep from still thinking the same thing.”–M. Branham, ‘My Life Story’ (Spoken Word Publications, undated), p.27.
So now we can see why he was so adamant to preach this Serpent Seed teaching for he had an immense animosity towards women. This would also explain why he preached a rigid ‘moral code’ for women with regards to dressing, hair etc, etc. Branham also had a ‘revelation’ that allowed for divorce.–All Things Are Possible, p.162.
The bible says inGenesis 4v 11;
1 “And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the LORD.” …. not from the Serpent/Satan.
The scripture itself above refutes Branham's belief. What I remember: the original sin as taught by VPW was masterbation (CFS class). Sometime later, Craig said that Eve had a lesbian relationship with the serpent who appeared to her as a beautiful woman, but I don't recall if he ever said anything about that producing fruit? I don't think so; I think that also was in the context of the original sin. The seed of the serpent teaching of VP (the unforgivable sin) was a person confessing satan as their god, thereby getting born again of the devil's seed, thereby making it impossible after that to get saved. That alone does contradict other scriptures and promises of God of what happens when people repent and ask God for forgiveness.
The scripture itself above refutes Branham's belief. What I remember: the original sin as taught by VPW was masterbation (CFS class). Sometime later, Craig said that Eve had a lesbian relationship with the serpent who appeared to her as a beautiful woman, but I don't recall if he ever said anything about that producing fruit? I don't think so; I think that also was in the context of the original sin. The seed of the serpent teaching of VP (the unforgivable sin) was a person confessing satan as their god, thereby getting born again of the devil's seed, thereby making it impossible after that to get saved. That alone does contradict other scriptures and promises of God of what happens when people repent and ask God for forgiveness.
Yeah...Branham is was full of bullshonta..no doubt. VPW did teach the original sin was masturbation and Craiggers followed up with Eve having a lesbian relationship with the devil...however that works...no fruit produced...I think craig was just miffed over his exwifes lesbian relaionship with rosalie...I digress...
According to vpw and craig the unforgiveable sin was running Romans 10:9 in reverse as Chockfull noted......wierwille and martindale both likely gleaned what suited their purposes from Branham; plus Branham was a charismatic pentecostal type which certainly seemed to appeal to wierwille/craiggers. TWI has quieted down on all that seed of the serpent stuff...as well as the first sin of mankind....I don't think they really want this material out there the way wierwille and craig used it as a sideshow attraction for advanced class specials and all. Part of their whitewashing efforts to appear legitimate.
Yeah...Branham is was full of bullshonta..no doubt. VPW did teach the original sin was masturbation and Craiggers followed up with Eve having a lesbian relationship with the devil...however that works...no fruit produced...I think craig was just miffed over his exwifes lesbian relaionship with rosalie...I digress...
According to vpw and craig the unforgiveable sin was running Romans 10:9 in reverse as Chockfull noted......wierwille and martindale both likely gleaned what suited their purposes from Branham; plus Branham was a charismatic pentecostal type which certainly seemed to appeal to wierwille/craiggers. TWI has quieted down on all that seed of the serpent stuff...as well as the first sin of mankind....I don't think they really want this material out there the way wierwille and craig used it as a sideshow attraction for advanced class specials and all. Part of their whitewashing efforts to appear legitimate.
The TWI definition of it doesn't make sense to me anymore. What does make sense to me is that the unforgivable sin is self-inflicted, i.e., you come to a point that you never seek repentence, never ask God for forgiveness for your sins, so hardhearted that it's a self-imposed destiny.
What does make sense to me is that the unforgivable sin is self-inflicted, i.e., you come to a point that you never seek repentence, never ask God for forgiveness for your sins, so hardhearted that it's a self-imposed destiny.
Really good points. ... and yeah, the TWI version makes no sense.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
77
55
77
53
Popular Days
Dec 11
151
Dec 18
72
Dec 12
62
Dec 10
58
Top Posters In This Topic
Mike 77 posts
chockfull 55 posts
OldSkool 77 posts
Nathan_Jr 53 posts
Popular Days
Dec 11 2022
151 posts
Dec 18 2022
72 posts
Dec 12 2022
62 posts
Dec 10 2022
58 posts
Popular Posts
So_crates
Remember what I said about the length of the post directly correlated with the effort to con someone. And like you don't have an agenda? So shall we stop reading your post too? No
chockfull
Just out of curiosity Mike have you had a chance to read penworks book yet? You have a lot of speculation going on about a time period and people that are very well documented in her book. She was t
So_crates
Posted Images
Twinky
Who's Branham?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
Wow pretty wild. Branham is known as the father of the modern or second Pentecostal movement. Pentecostal church leader.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
https://www.gotquestions.org/Branhamism.html
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_M._Branham
OS I see from your link as well this is probably the origin of the idea of VPs that the heads of denominations had the mark of the beast. Branham taught membership in a denomination carried the mark of the beast.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
I'll check it out...thanks for digging in...I literally found the link I posted to begin with but haven't dived in just yet...cool.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Remarkable similarities with wierwille on a lot of stuff.
The little bit that I’ve looked into this serpent seed topic over the years since I left TWI – I’ve come across some variations – besides Branham’s and wierwille’s – in my opinion, that’s not surprising on such a nebulous idea – some Scripture can be very malleable and lends itself easily to a wide range of interpretations…Personally I understand passages like Jesus saying "you are of your father the devil", to be figurative – that Jesus’ enemies were children of the devil by imitation.
.
Offhand I note some differences on seed of the serpent between the two:
Branham’s teaching taught Cain was produced through sexual intercourse between Eve and the serpent in the garden.
Branham believed that the Serpent Seed was the missing link between man and monkey
~ ~ ~ ~
wierwille taught seed of the serpent was spiritual – though he never explained how the devil can create seed nor how a human can be born-again of the serpent’s seed – just spewed out vague pat answers like making Satan your lord.
wierwille followed the biblical narrative of humankind’s origin – did not believe in a missing link or conventional evolution.
Edited by T-Bonerevision
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
Here's Dr. Michael Heiser getting geeky with the granules of the text, as he does.
The first four minutes lay out the culty-cult bullshonta of serpent seed. If you want to skip the creepy cringe, Heiser swoops in at the 4:00 mark.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
Definately major differences too, as well as similarities, as you noted. With wierwille, considering he sort of gleaned what he could from whatever source tickled his fancy and/or sought after (and found) material he knew would appeal to his audience, all the time saying God just gave him the information by revelation....with Branham it's likely wierwille took what he liked, reworded it somewhat to seperate it from the source...that's my speculation anyway. What other sources have you come across on seed of the serpent? Ive searched around and havent found very much, which is why this Branham guy was significant to me in my search to figure out where this seed of the serpent doctrine originated.
In Genesis God does acknowledge the fact that Satan would have a seed...but....what the actual heck does that really mean. Ive read all sorts of information on the topic. Lot of people take it back to Edomites, or Idumeans as they were known in Greek.
I also think this point of view could have real merit as well, especially considering all the other figurative languange in Genesis...and maybe that's my error...trying to read a literal seed into a section of scripture that likely never contained a literal garden or literal trees in said garden.
To be clear too, my searches have been mostly limited to the term seed of serpent or variations that are similar. Accordingly I havent come across anything as blatant in termininology as Branham used and wierwille likely copied. Im going to spend some time later this morning on the internet and see what else I can come across.
Edited by OldSkoolLink to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
Literal versus figurative sure get jumbled up in Fundamentalism
I think VP on the serpent seed how to just reversed Ron 19:9,10 and said that they performed that with Satan instead of Jesus Christ.
The king of partial logic. An expert in research who plagiarized.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Twinky
Can't say that I'm tremendously interested in this, because I think anything VPW said is nonsense. The truth of it is God's business and God alone decides who's his and who isn't.
There was, however, this Roman business of adoption. The choosing of the heirs. The adoption in to a family, whether one was "blood" or naturally a part of the family ("born again"), or whether one was an outsider. For those who are interested in pondering this, could it be that "seed of the serpent" is a figurative expression denoting not a "new birth/born again" as a physical thing, but more like a rite of adoption?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
For years Oakspear had a question here:
How come the devil was able to come up with seed for humans before God did?
Has anyone worked that question?
Is Oakspear still hanging out once in a while here?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
Upon reflection that is probably years longer than VP himself thought about it or “worked it”
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
I think you are on the right track here to answering Oakspear's question.
It looks to me that the serpent's seed is counterfeit, and only resembles what God was planning.
My answer to Oakspear is that with lots of close fellowshipping with the adversary, a human's mind-goals and buttons and triggers become well known to the adversary. With such detailed info the adversary can possess the man's mind and muscles to do exactly what is desired, and whenever it is wanted. It is a breakdown of all the biological protections against possession that God built into our DNA.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
It looks to me like you are making things up as you go. That’s not what VP taught in PFAL he taught that it was confessing Satan as Lord, not close fellowshipping with the adversary.
BTW how exactly does one go about this close fellowshipping with the adversary? Does he run a twig? Or do you just randomly go out Satan witnessing and see who you can convince to do a goat sacrifice?
Logical minds want the breakdown not more fabricated bullshonta.
Also, what biological protections are you referring to against possession? Didn’t hear that one in PFAL series either?
So you dedicate yourself to PLAF logic until it fails, then make up something plausible on the fly?
I know we could do dueling revelation battles about who is possessed like they did in John Lynn’s spin-off.
“ I saw a snake with your head in it” “I saw a black cat and it reminded me of you”
Hocus to the pocus.
Edited by chockfullLink to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Grammatical markers: A concept not widely understood by English speakers, yet oh so critical in some other languages. Just one reason why word studies and interlinear translations can result in pretzel logic. Thinking we could substitute this word for that word and arrive at a meaning. It can be all the difference between going TO the store and coming FROM the store. I think back on images of little kids putting on Mommy and Daddy's clothes and pretending to be grown-ups. That's what we were, kids pretending to understand the nuances of linguistics and translation.
Lambano, laballo, ball, throw the ball, throw it out....Lo shanta.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
Ummmmm how about “idea whose origin is the crafty serpent” ?
seed as a figure of speech.
Why do the people who so teach figures of speech so durn bad at seeing the most basic ones in scripture?
Edit: rhetorical question men in tights is the answer
Edited by chockfullLink to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
"And so it came to pass that the serpent planted his seed in the garden and the snake plant sprung forth."
Hallelujah!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
And the snake plant had fellowship with Lucifer and it was good. Until it wasn’t lol.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
The scripture itself above refutes Branham's belief. What I remember: the original sin as taught by VPW was masterbation (CFS class). Sometime later, Craig said that Eve had a lesbian relationship with the serpent who appeared to her as a beautiful woman, but I don't recall if he ever said anything about that producing fruit? I don't think so; I think that also was in the context of the original sin. The seed of the serpent teaching of VP (the unforgivable sin) was a person confessing satan as their god, thereby getting born again of the devil's seed, thereby making it impossible after that to get saved. That alone does contradict other scriptures and promises of God of what happens when people repent and ask God for forgiveness.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
This is what I remember, as well.
edit: Spoken as guy who sometimes remembers stuff.
Edited by waysiderLink to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
Really? How does that work when what God was planning was a mystery that God kept to himself until Jesus Christ revealed it.
1 Corinthians 2:7,8
But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory:
8 Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
Yeah...Branham is was full of bullshonta..no doubt. VPW did teach the original sin was masturbation and Craiggers followed up with Eve having a lesbian relationship with the devil...however that works...no fruit produced...I think craig was just miffed over his exwifes lesbian relaionship with rosalie...I digress...
According to vpw and craig the unforgiveable sin was running Romans 10:9 in reverse as Chockfull noted......wierwille and martindale both likely gleaned what suited their purposes from Branham; plus Branham was a charismatic pentecostal type which certainly seemed to appeal to wierwille/craiggers. TWI has quieted down on all that seed of the serpent stuff...as well as the first sin of mankind....I don't think they really want this material out there the way wierwille and craig used it as a sideshow attraction for advanced class specials and all. Part of their whitewashing efforts to appear legitimate.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
The TWI definition of it doesn't make sense to me anymore. What does make sense to me is that the unforgivable sin is self-inflicted, i.e., you come to a point that you never seek repentence, never ask God for forgiveness for your sins, so hardhearted that it's a self-imposed destiny.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
Really good points. ... and yeah, the TWI version makes no sense.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.