Serpent Seed

[mark kennedy]

Are we really going to take any of this racial nonsense seriously enough to even debate it? It's a rotting pile of pestilent fecal matter and nothing more.

-CryptoLutheran

Racial stuff? I'm not clear what is being discussed but it sounds like he said that Cain of an offspring of Satan. If I'm going to argue with theistic evolutionists about Adam not having ape ancestors I think I can argue with a creationist that Satan did not have sex with Eve. While it's one of the stranger arguments I have encountered I intend to get to the bottom of it.

 

[mark kennedy]

Even if adam was the father of white people I believe that he would still be the father of all people alive today.

At the risk of being reported for a flame I just have to say....duh!

No offense intended, that was not aimed at you personally.

 

[granpa]

At the risk of being reported for a flame I just have to say....duh!

No offense intended, that was not aimed at you personally.

there were people long before adam
and consider what I was responding to.

 

[mark kennedy]

The Hebrew word translated as man is adam. It does not relate to the whole of mankind - only the Adamites. How do we know this? Throughout scripture adam is rarely ever translated in the generic, but instead only relating to one race or people of specific descent:​

Ok, that's all I needed, CryptoLutheran was right, this is some kind of racist nonsense. I don't care what the Babylonians had to say about race and lineage, the Scriptures explicitly teach that Adam is the first parent of all mankind.

Cain, Abel, and Seth were all children of Adam (Gen. 5:4). God "hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth" (Acts 17:26. Comp. Rom. 5:12-12; 1Cor. 15:22-49). The fact is that this doctrine of the serpent's seed is a gnostic heresy condemned by Protestant and Catholics alike:

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

This is just a modern version of a gnostic heresy with no Scriptural basis whatsoever. This has to be the worst heresy I have seen promoted in the origins theology forum, creationist or otherwise.​

 

[mark kennedy]

there were people long before adam

No there were not, I happen to have studied the fossils and it's rather curious. The chimpanzees are not represented in the fossil record except for three teeth. There is a good reason for that, every time a chimpanzee ancestor is dug up it's celebrated as one of our ancestors.

Now take away all of the hominid skulls under 600cc and tell me what you have left. Let me clue you in, most of the fossils represented in your chart are over 1000 cc and under 600 cc. I've been through this so many times I finally put together a webpage to save me from having to write of copy all this repeatedly.

LS4C Science

 

[Research3]

I'm just curious, ban you from where and your position on what exactly? I think I should tell you I'm a young earth creationist and I have spent a great deal of time discussing and debating human/chimpanzee common ancestry from both a Scriptural and scientific frame of reference. So rest assured I have no great love for Liberal Theology.

I was just wondering if your work was available online.

Grace and peace,
Mark

You can find me on various websites. Basically i was the only prominent non-evolutionist on wikipedia who created a whole tun of alternitive viewpoints to evolution (many still remain) over the last couple of years. Wikipedia sadly is biased and controlled by evolutionists on the origin related articles. About a month ago they topic-banned me. Despite wikipedia being an 'open' encylopedia apparently they don't want ''fringe'' articles to gain as much support or credit as the ''mainstream'' ones. So if you are a creationist or someone who isn't a mainstream evolutionist you find yourself being stalked and attacked, and then banned from further posting ''fringe'' origin related articles.

I will later set up a website later and post all my stuff online. However right now i'm working on a degree. None of my accounts here are permament as i only use this forums or similar ones for research for papers i write. This thread has been no help whatsoever though on the dual seedline doctrine, instead its the same Liberal Christians who come here and post their personal abuse.

 

[Research3]

the Scriptures explicitly teach that Adam is the first parent of all mankind.

They don't though. Nowhere does the Bible say everyone sprung from Adam only the Adamites (Gen. 5: 1) descended from Adam. The Bible was written in an ANE context with a limited scope of ethnography. The authors certianly didn't know of the eskimos, australian aborigines etc.

The idea everyone came from Adam has been one of the greatest blows to Christianity. Though i don't really wish to get into that here, maybe i'll create another thread to debate this.

Cain, Abel, and Seth were all children of Adam (Gen. 5:4). God "hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth" (Acts 17:26. Comp. Rom. 5:12-12; 1Cor. 15:22-49).

Again, ANE context. The 'earth' at that time was only a small segment of geography. Check Luke 2: 1 - the 'world' = Roman Empire. In Assyrian inscriptions, their rulers thought they ruled over the '4 corners of the earth'. But do you really think the Assyrians made it to Antarctica, the North Pole or Japan? Sadly i met a YEC who took this insane view, back to reality though...

The fact is that this doctrine of the serpent's seed is a gnostic heresy condemned by Protestant and Catholics alike:

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

These authorities are irrelevant, they did not write the Bible. It was the catholics who burnt 'heretics' like Bruno for merely proposing the pural existance on other planets or worlds. Now 500 or so years on and now Catholics have their own astronomers and investigations into extraterrestial life which they strongly consider it a possibility.

This is just a modern version of a gnostic heresy with no Scriptural basis whatsoever. This has to be the worst heresy I have seen promoted in the origins theology forum, creationist or otherwise.

No what has no scriptural basis is the crackpot notion eskimos, australian aborigines, polynesians and everyone else came from Adam in mesopotamia...And the only reason this idea exists is for socio-political reasons. Liberal Christians use it to justify multiculturalism etc.

 

[Research3]

lol, again...

Note how Acts 17: 26 is never quoted in full (see marks post above).

here is the rest of the quote -

''and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation;''

I wonder why??

 

[granpa]

This thread has been no help whatsoever though on the dual seedline doctrine, instead its the same Liberal Christians who come here and post their personal abuse.

I am sorry to hear that.

 

[Research3]

I'm a young earth creationist and I have spent a great deal of time discussing and debating human/chimpanzee common ancestry from both a Scriptural and scientific frame of reference. So rest assured I have no great love for Liberal Theology.

I was just wondering if your work was available online.

Grace and peace,
Mark

Please explain your view, it sounds interesting. One thing i've never recently understood is that there are YEC's who now believe in common descent and even macroevolution (e.g. Todd Wood, sp?).

How can you believe the world is only 6,000 years old, but that we evolved from apes or whatever in such a short time?

 

[granpa]

As I pointed out before, I think you underestimate how long ago adam lived.
This seems especially strange since you put so much emphasis on the sumerian king list.

there has been plenty of time for his descendants to cover the globe.

 

[Research3]

^ Just to correct, Granpa's posts have been of use to me and have helped the convo.

Granpa if you want to explain your views on who existed before Adam you can here. Although i was going to create another thread on this topic later.

 

[granpa]

as I said before, there have been a lot of adams.

 

[mark kennedy]

They don't though. Nowhere does the Bible say everyone sprung from Adam only the Adamites (Gen. 5: 1) descended from Adam. The Bible was written in an ANE context with a limited scope of ethnography. The authors certianly didn't know of the eskimos, australian aborigines etc.

That sounds strangely similar to what I have been hearing from theistic evolutionists. The genealogy of man in the Scriptures end with Adam for good reason, God created Adam from the dust and Eve from his rib.

The idea everyone came from Adam has been one of the greatest blows to Christianity. Though i don't really wish to get into that here, maybe i'll create another thread to debate this.

Sounds good, I'll be happy to start one some time this weekend.

Again, ANE context. The 'earth' at that time was only a small segment of geography. Check Luke 2: 1 - the 'world' = Roman Empire. In Assyrian inscriptions, their rulers thought they ruled over the '4 corners of the earth'. But do you really think the Assyrians made it to Antarctica, the North Pole or Japan? Sadly i met a YEC who took this insane view, back to reality though...

I have no idea where you are getting this but I consider myself a patient man, I'll give it some time to work out the details.

These authorities are irrelevant, they did not write the Bible. It was the catholics who burnt 'heretics' like Bruno for merely proposing the pural existance on other planets or worlds. Now 500 or so years on and now Catholics have their own astronomers and investigations into extraterrestial life which they strongly consider it a possibility.

Catholics regarded Bruno's philosophy as an incoherent materialistic pantheism. From what I have seen of his quotes, I tend to agree:

Animals and plants are living effects of Nature; this Nature . . . is none other than God in things . . . Whence all of God is in all things . . . Think thus, of the sun in the crocus, in the narcissus, in the heliotrope, in the rooster, in the lion. . . . To the extent that one communicates with Nature, so one ascends to Divinity through Nature. [Expulsion pp 235-6]

Those wise men knew God to be in things, and Divinity to be latent in Nature, working and glowing differently in different subjects and succeeding through diverse physical forms, in certain arrangements, in making them participants in her, I say, in her being, in her life and intellect. [Expulsion p 237]​

No what has no scriptural basis is the crackpot notion eskimos, australian aborigines, polynesians and everyone else came from Adam in mesopotamia...And the only reason this idea exists is for socio-political reasons. Liberal Christians use it to justify multiculturalism etc.

Like I said, I am not Liberal and I have yet to see a Liberal that accepts Adam as anything more then a myth or metaphor. There isn't a dimes worth of difference between any two humans on this planet genetically. The Scriptures teach explicitly that Adam was created and that all of us, Eskimos, aborigines, Polynesians and even pasty faced Caucasians like myself are all descendents of Adam.

I am not a liberal and like I said, I have yet to see one argue that Adam was anything more then a myth or a metaphor.

Your admire a pantheist, embrace a gnostic heresy and reject the clear testimony of Scripture because it's 'crackpot' and ANE folklore. I really don't know what a Liberal would think of your ideas but I can assure you that conservative evangelical Christians would like them even less.

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

Just to clarify, are you saying you believe Caucasians are descended from people in the Middle East based on the DNA evidence?

Genetics is not my area, but as far as the anthropological evidence is concernced that is the geographical place of origin.

I'm glad you mentioned that, because according to DNA evidence a sub-group of haplogroup U (known as haplogroup U2) is found mostly among South Asians. I guess that makes them Adamites too.

Your arguments come from articles ... you wrote?

Articles which cite peer-reviewed academic jounals, quotes from scholars and well founded sources.

Perhaps, but you still wrote them didn't you?

You claim something is true, link to the source, and then write / edit the source itself. All this time I thought you were merely picking the evidence you personally disagreed with, now it seems you're just making it up.

{Anglopyramidologist's user contributions}

-White Amazonian Indians
-White Aeothiopians
-Pyramidology
​

The Amazon, Ethiopia, Egypt, and of course the Middle East ... Gee, white people are all over the place. Except Britain, ironically.

Such a retarded post, i don't need to waste my time with.

I didn't see you deny whether your wikipedia username is Anglopyramidologist though.

The Liberal Christians have attempted to ban me for about 5 years but its never worked, so usually they post lies that distort my position. If that doesn't work they stalk or vandalise my email or (oddly) my Amazon account. And these people think they are Christians
...
Wikipedia sadly is biased and controlled by evolutionists on the origin related articles. About a month ago they topic-banned me.

If CF and wikipedia are so bad why do you keep coming back?

Both sites probably banned you because your arguments are racist and nonsensical. Also, I don't think anyone who denies Jesus was the son of God, that God is only concerned with the welfare of white people, and that there may be multiple gods has any right to whine about how 'un-Christian' people are.

Incidently if you keep evading bans here on CF you'll eventually be banned for good.

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

Once again you have no idea what you are typing.

Speak for yourself sir.

There are numerous Gods (plural) in the Bible. In fact you even in an earlier post admitted this, but according to you they never existed (?). The fact is the Bible throughout references the multiple existance of Gods. In my view these Gods all existed at some stage as mortal men (or women) which as i said has been a main view by scholars for hundreds of years (called euhemerism). My taking on religion/myth is ancestor worship or veneration of the dead. I have repeatedly explained this, and months ago claimed that i believe God was a literal 'man'.
...
If other Gods don't exist, why are they referenced in scripture?

Also note the early Church claimed that the 'other Gods' were mortal men i.e who became venerated through apotheosis (exaltation to devine level after death). Exactly what i believe. However they never applied the same origin to their own 'God' which has always been an error. They also lost out on whole identity of Gods in scripture - we all become them.

Your argument on 'ancestor worship' reminds me of a similar argument Freud used to try and disprove religion, especially Christianity. You claim to be some kind of scholar but you clearly cannot see the difference between ancient pagan religions and modern Abrahamic ones.

Other gods may have been mentioned (such as the gods of ancient Egyptian) but the Bible explicitly state the God of Abraham is the only god which actually exists. I don't know why you find this difficult to understand. It also state he is a supernatural, immortal being, not a human. The only time God made himself into human form was through Jesus Christ.

And no Research3, you will never be a god.

Because as i noted they were the same race. Last i knew on genetics, Oxford scholars were saying the Mesolithic inhabitants of Britain were Caucasoid Basques.

So let me get this straight: God created all the races seperately. He forbids marriage between races. He created two groups of caucasians, the chosen (Adamic) and unchosen He allows marriage between the two groups of caucasians.
How does this make the slightest bit of sense?

--------------

Let's review, correct me if I've made a mistake:

There are no actual, supernatural gods. The only gods were mortal humans who are revered through 'ancestor worship.' Because there are many races there are many of these gods. All the other races evolved from lower hominids, except Caucasian Adamites who were created ex nihilo. I find this last part very confusing - if white people did not evolve and the god of the Bible himself is a white man, then who or what created them?

You've also mentioned that "As a Christianity Identity/British Israelite proponent my religious views are race based." Do you literally worship your race?

Your argument seems to be a bizarre mixture of atheism (there are no gods, only revered humans), polytheism (there are many actual gods) and pseudochristianity (Adam and Jesus were both white men). And what of these other gods? If the god of the Bible is the 'White god' does that make Allah the 'Arabic god'?

I don't see how your strange beliefs are compatible with any form of Christianity. Either you give up these racist ideals and become a Christian or you give up being a Christian and follow your own race-based religion ...
Say I suggest Odinism? It's what all the cool white supremacists are following.

 

[Research3]

I'm glad you mentioned that, because according to DNA evidence a sub-group of haplogroup U (known as haplogroup U2) is found mostly among South Asians. I guess that makes them Adamites too.

Yes they were. I guess you've never researched the Aryan invasion of India. Still today you can see the genetic input and divide between the N. Indians and the South Indians (Dravidians).

The Rig-Veda, one of the oldest books in India describes this racial war.

Rig Veda praises the god who "destroyed the Dasyans and protected the Aryan colour." - Rg.V. III 34.9

It then goes on to thank the god who "bestowed on his white friends the fields, bestowed the sun, bestowed the waters." - Rg.V. I 100.18

Black skin is repeatedly referred to with abhorrence in the Rig Veda: starting with a description of the "black skin" (`Krishnam Vacham') in RgV. IX 41.1, Sam. V I.491 and II.242.

For example in RgV. IX 73 it is said that “stormy gods who rush on like furious bulls and scatter the black skin", and it claims that “the black skin, the hated of Indra" will be swept out of heaven - RgV. IX 73.5

Rg.V. I 130.8 tells of how the “black skin” was conquered:

"Indra protected in battle the Aryan worshipper, he subdued the lawless for Manu, he conquered the black skin."

The Rig Veda thanks god for "scattering the slave bands of black descent", and for stamping out "the vile Dasyan colour." - Rg.V. II.20.7, II 12.4

Indra is described as a blonde haired Aryan God -

Indra - 10.23.4 - "With him too is this rain of his that comes like herds: Indra throws drops of moisture on his yellow beard. When the sweet juice is shed he seeks the pleasant place, and stirs the worshipper as wind disturbs the wood."

Indra - 10.96.8 - "At the swift draught the Soma-drinker waxed in might, the Iron One with yellow beard and yellow hair. He, Lord of Tawny Coursers, Lord of fleet-foot Mares, will bear his Bay Steeds safely over all distress."

Indra - 1.9.3 - "O Lord of all men, fair of cheek, rejoice thee in the gladdening lauds, Present at these drink-offerings."

If CF and wikipedia are so bad why do you keep coming back?

Both sites probably banned you because your arguments are racist and nonsensical. Also, I don't think anyone who denies Jesus was the son of God, that God is only concerned with the welfare of white people, and that there may be multiple gods has any right to whine about how 'un-Christian' people are.

Incidently if you keep evading bans here on CF you'll eventually be banned for good.

- Never been banned here.
- Your general behaviour is anti-Christian. In the other thread you joined called people ''nutters'' who don't agree with your liberal Christianity and then left. I've personally seen better behaviour from Atheists.

 

[Research3]

Sounds good, I'll be happy to start one some time this weekend.

Please feel free to start one, and i'll debate the pre-adamite question/topic there. This thread was about serpent seed, but it's pretty much dead now.

 

[Research3]

Other gods may have been mentioned (such as the gods of ancient Egyptian) but the Bible explicitly state the God of Abraham is the only god which actually exists.

Other Gods are recognised, but the Israelites were only to worship one God (monolatrism). Read any work by a scholar on this topic. Ancient Israel was monolatrist.

Later the Church Fathers and earlier Christian writers claimed that the 'other gods' were deified mortals.

I don't know why you find this difficult to understand. It also state he is a supernatural, immortal being, not a human. The only time God made himself into human form was through Jesus Christ.

It says God is a spirit, but in Genesis God is described as a literal man ''walking''. Elsewhere God is physically described as having a nose and ears (see quotes i put up). In the geneaology lists throughout both the OT/NT God is also counted as a biological ancestor - a literal father who gave birth to Adam etc: ''Adam was the son of God'' (Luke 3: 38).

Nowhere does the Bible say Jesus was God (Yahweh) but you can debate this in other relevant sections. Many Christians on this forum don't believe Jesus was God incarnate and don't believe in the trinity.

So let me get this straight: God created all the races seperately. He forbids marriage between races. He created two groups of caucasians, the chosen (Adamic) and unchosen He allows marriage between the two groups of caucasians.
How does this make the slightest bit of sense?

- I never claimed God literally created. Only 'created' in an ANE context. I don't believe in mainstream Biblical creationism and never have. The only theory i have for a while embraced was P. J Wiseman's revelation theory, however i enterpet that also in an ANE context. Other scholars do, like David Rohl. They follow an ANE form of 'creationism'.

 

[Research3]

Either create the pre-adamite topic thread in the creationist section or in the general section of origins theology. If you posted it up, i'll get back to you in a few days. Or if you want i can start it.