EVE: DID SHE OR DIDN’T SHE?
The Seedline Hypothesis Under Scrutiny

Printable version.

Part 3


Available for a suggested donation of $8.00.

The previous two installments of this treatise addressed the arguments employed by the seedliners from the Old Testament . Each of those arguments was systematically tackled and dismantled. In this final segment, the same will now be done with the seedliners' New Testament contentions.

Frankly, if the seedline theology can not be made to stand from the Old Testament, specifically from Genesis 3, then there is nothing in the New Testament that can make fly what could not even walk out of the garden. Nevertheless, for the purpose of being as exhaustive as possible, it is necessary for us to also look at the New Testament passages employed by the seedliners in their attempt to prove their hypothesis.

Generation of Vipers

The term "generation of vipers" is used in Matthew 3:7, 12:34, 23:33 and Luke 3:7. The seedliners correctly point out that the Greek word in this phrase translated generation could have also been translated offspring or brood, thus an offspring or brood of vipers. The seedliners would then point out that they were not literally children of snakes, but rather the sons of Satan or Satan's seed line. However, since the word "vipers" is obviously not meant to be taken literally, then there is also no reason why the words "generation," "offspring" or "brood" should have to be interpreted literally either.

The Bible often employs such terms as "children," "sons," "daughters," "offspring," et cetera, in a non-literal fashion. For example, the Bible speaks of children of light, children of the day, children of hell, children of promise, children of wrath, children of disobedience and children of God and none of those phrases are meant to be taken literally. In other words, no one concludes that any of those things had sexual relations and produced literal children. Consequently, there is no immediate reason why the phrase "generation" or "brood of vipers" should be taken literally either. After all, even the seedliners do not take this phrase literally since they do not take the word "vipers" to literally mean snakes. Thus, the passages in which the term "generation of vipers" is used must themselves determine the proper interpretation.

Matthew 3:7-8
But when he
[John the Baptist] saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees come to his baptism, he said unto them, O generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come? Bring forth therefore fruits meet for repentance: (Repeated in Luke 3:7-8)

Indeed, the term "generation of vipers" is employed in those two passages as an appellation for the Pharisees and Sadducees. But how are the Pharisees and Sadducees identified? They are not identified as sons of Satan, but rather as children of Abraham, that is, as Israelites:

And think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father: for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham. (Matthew 3:9)

John the Baptist did not address those Pharisees and Sadducees as being spurious sons of Abraham or of the Edomite lineage from Abraham as the seedliners would have this verse interpreted. Instead, it would appear that since the Pharisees and Sadducees were planning to claim right to the Kingdom because of their Israelite heritage (something, at that time, they would not have even considered doing if they were Cainites or Edomites), that is, because they were going to try to lay claim to salvation by race, John informs them that race alone would not cut it with God.

If those Pharisees and Sadducees were actually Cainites or Edomites, there is then no point to John's point. Otherwise, rather than telling them that they needed to repent; John would have just pointed out that as non-Israelites they had no racial claim to the kingdom. You can only repent of what you have done, not for who you are. Clearly the Pharisees, whom John the Baptist addressed, were not a physical seed line from Satan but were instead rebellious Israelite children of Abraham.

Matthew 12:34
[Yeshua to the Pharisees] O generation of vipers, how can ye, being evil, speak good things? For out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh.

In this instance, Yeshua labeled the Pharisees a generation of vipers because of what was in their hearts, not because of what was in their pedigree. They had bad hearts, not bad genes. And anyone wanting to claim they had bad hearts because they had bad genes had better think twice before doing so since by such a declaration he would convict himself of being of the supposed seed line of Satan if he had ever devised evil in his heart.

Matthew 23:33
Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?

In this instance, the Pharisees are not only labeled as a generation of vipers; they are also identified as serpents. This, of course, provides seedliners with "all the more reason" to hang their hat on this verse.

The seedliners declare that since the Pharisees were labeled serpents and a generation of vipers they must then be literal, physical sons of Satan, whereas non-seedliners declare that since that generation of vipers were Pharisees and thus Israelites they can not be of the seed of Satan; unless, of course, one is willing to say that all Israelites are Cainites.

To claim that the Pharisees were Israelites is tantamount to blasphemy to the seedliners and to some non-seedliners alike. That is simply because such people have always been taught that the Pharisees were either Cainites or Edomites. However, the Pharisees are clearly and undeniably identified in this passage as Israelites.

It is certainly true that in verse 33 the Pharisees were metaphorically identified as serpents and a generation of vipers, yet in verse 34 Yeshua furnishes us with a clue as to their genetic identity:

Wherefore, behold,I [Yeshua] send unto you [the Pharisees] prophets, and wise men, and scribes: and some of them ye shall kill and crucify; and some of them shall ye scourge in your synagogues, and persecute them from city to city. (Matthew 23:34)

In order for the claim regarding the Pharisees having a Cainite or Edomite heritage to be valid, the seedliners must furnish Scriptural evidence demonstrating that Yeshua sent prophets, wise men and scribes to the Cainites or the Edomites. Yeshua, of course, never gave such a commission. In contrast, consider what Yeshua did not authorize. Concerning his own limited mission he declared:

…I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel. (Matthew 15:24)

Yeshua also charged his disciples with the following commission:

…Go not into the way of the Gentiles [including the Cainites and the Edomites] … But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. (Matthew 10:5-6)

There were no prophets, scribes or wise men ever sent to Cainites or Edomites. Consequently the Pharisees in Matthew 23 must have been Judahite Israelites.

At this point, some seedliner is likely to fire back: "Yeah, but what about the very next verse?":

That upon you [the Pharisees] may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye [by way of their forefathers] slew between the temple and the altar. (Matthew 23:35)

Regarding this verse, one seedliner wrote:

"The Incarnation of Satan into a literal Seed Line, a Seed of the Serpent, brought forth a COUNTERFEIT BASTARD SEEDLINE which would seek to thwart every purpose and plan of God. This evil [Cainite] seedline would kill Abel, and all the Prophets, and would slay the righteous of every generation."1

Seedliners claim that since the Pharisees and their progenitors were charged with the murders of all the righteous from Abel to Zacharias that they can not be Israelites, and must instead be Cainites and thus the seed of Satan. However, the truth is that since those Pharisees and their forefathers were indicted as being responsible for the murder of those righteous martyrs they can not be Cainites and must instead be Israelites.

Seedline adherents will obviously balk at such a notion. However, in order for the seedliners' hypothesis regarding the Pharisees in Matthew 23 to be validated, it is incumbent upon them to identify one other Cainite (other than Cain himself) who was responsible for murdering any of the prophets or righteous men in the Old Testament. It was not the Cainites who killed the prophets sent to the Israelites. In every instance, it was the Israelites themselves who were responsible for those crimes. Consider the testimony of the following Old and New Testament passages:

…O Judah. …ye all have transgressed against me, saith YHWH. In vain have I smitten your children; they received no correction: your own sword hath devoured your prophets, like a destroying lion. …my people have forgotten me days without number. …therefore hast thou also taught the wicked ones thy ways. Also in thy skirts is found the blood of the souls of the poor innocents…. (Jeremiah 2:28-34)

Thou art YHWH the God, who didst choose Abram, and broughtest him forth out of Ur of the Chaldees, and gavest him the name of AbrahamBut they [Abraham's Israelite descendants] and our fathers dealt proudly, and hardened their necks, and hearkened not to thy commandments…. Nevertheless they [the Israelites] were disobedient, and rebelled against thee, and cast thy law behind their backs, and slew thy prophets which testified against them to turn them to thee, and they wrought great provocations. (Nehemiah 9:7-26)

And he [Stephen] said, Men, brethren, and fathers, hearken; The God of glory appeared unto our father Abraham, when he was in Mesopotamia, before he dwelt in Charran…. Our [Israelite] fathers had the tabernacle of witness in the wilderness…. Which also our fathers that came after brought in with Joshua … unto the days of David…. Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers did, so do ye. Which of the prophets have not your [Israelite] fathers persecuted? And they have slain them which shewed before of the coming of the Just One; of whom ye have been now the betrayers and murderers. (Acts 7:2-52)

…ye [the Thessalonican Christians] also have suffered like things of your own countrymen, even as they have of the Jews [Judahites]: Who both killed the Lord Yeshua, and their own prophets…. (1 Thessalonians 2:14-15)

Those four witnesses - two Old Testament and two New Testament - verify that it was Israelites, not Cainites, who killed the prophets and righteous men. Matthew 23 adds another witness to the testimony of those four passages:

O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I [Yeshua] have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not! (Matthew 23:37)

If the seedliners want to pervert the term "Jerusalem" to somehow represent the Cainites, then they must also be prepared to declare that it was the children of the Cainites whom Yeshua was intending to gather unto himself.

The prophets had been sent to Jerusalem, not the land of Nod, and the prophets sent to her were slain by Jerusalem, that is, Judahite Israelites, not by Nod, that is, Edomite Cainites. Those Pharisees whom Yeshua labeled as a generation of vipers were unquestionably, undeniably Judahite Israelites, yours and my progenitors, that is, if you are a Celto-Saxon Israelite.2

Consequently, there is nothing in the term "generation of vipers" that can be made to validate a literal, physical seed line from Satan.

In addition, if the Pharisees in Matthew 23 represent Cainites and not Israelites, then the seedliners must admit that non-racial converts to the religion of the so-called seedline of Satan are twice as evil as are Satan's actual children:

Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves. (Matthew 23:15; compare Jeremiah 2:28-33)

I doubt that the seedliners are prepared to make such an admission; so what is this verse really declaring? The Pharisees, as Israelites, had at least a trace of God's law still written on their hearts (Isaiah 51:7), whereas today's Edomite Khazars who adopted Judaism, the religion of the Pharisees, do not have God's law on their hearts at all since they are not racial Israelites but instead simply converts to Talmudism. Thus, void of any innate moral restraints from God's law whatsoever, the proselytes, such as today's Khazar Jews, are therefore twice the sons of hell as were the Judahite Pharisees of Yeshua's day.

The Parable of the Wheat and the Tares

[Yeshua's] …disciples came unto him, saying, Declare unto us the parable of the tares of the field. He … said unto them, He that soweth the good seed is the Son of man; the field is the world; the good seed are the children of the kingdom; but the tares are the children of the wicked one; the enemy that sowed them is the devil…. (Matthew 13:36-43)

One seedliner interpreted this parable in the following manner:

"In Matthew 13:24-30 and 37-43 we find … one of the most important parables revealed by Jesus Christ. Here in this Parable Jesus Christ plainly declared … that while men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat, and went his way.… Later Jesus Christ confirmed … that the good seed, the Wheat, the Seed of the Woman, was sowed in this earth by Jesus Christ and that the tares, the seed of the wicked one, were sown in this field (the world) by the Devil.… Here is a parable that takes you right back to Genesis and the Garden of Eden. Satan sowed his wicked seed in this earth and this seed has been at enmity with the good seed of the woman that 'The Son of Man' sowed in this earth when He formed Adam and placed him in the Garden eastward from Eden. You cannot spiritualize this Parable away."3

If this parable should not be spiritualized, why then do seedliners do just that? Seedliners accuse non-seedliners of inconsistently literalizing one seed line in Genesis 3:15 and spiritualizing the other; when in fact, it is the seedliners who are actually guilty of this incongruity. Consistency demands that if the tares sown by the devil in this parable represent literal, physical sons and daughters of Satan then the wheat sown by the son of Man (identified as Yeshua) must represent literal, physical sons and daughters of Yeshua from sexual liaisons with an untold number of women. Absurd? Of course it is. This parable is instead simply contrasting righteous Israelites with wicked Israelites, much the same as is found with the good and evil figs of Jeremiah 24.4

"A seed of evil doers" is a term very similar to what is found in the parable of the wheat and the tares and by itself would be interpreted by seedliners as representative of the seed of Satan. But the Prophet Isaiah attributes this term to Judahite Israelites as well:

The vision of Isaiah … which he saw concerning Judah and Jerusalem…. Hear, O heavens, and give ear, O earth: for YHWH hath spoken, I have nourished and brought up children, and they have rebelled against me. The ox knoweth his owner, and the ass his master's crib: but Israel doth not know, my people doth not consider. Ah sinful nation, a people laden with iniquity, a seed of evildoers, children that are corrupters: they have forsaken YHWH, they have provoked the Holy One of Israel unto anger, they are gone away backward. (Isaiah 1:1-4)

If seedliners insist on attributing such terms to a literal seed line of Satan, then they are also forced to proclaim that all sinful Judahite Israelites are also Satan's seed, which would then also indict many seedliners who are descended themselves from Judah. Of course, today's seedliners are not of a seed line of Satan, nor were the Judahites of Isaiah's and Jeremiah's days and neither were the tares of Yeshua's kingdom parable.

Even more consequential, if the seedliners' interpretation of the parable of the wheat and the tares is accurate, and if the tares in Matthew 13 represent all the supposed seed line of Satan through Cain's lineage, then there is no alternative but to accept that the wheat represents all the physical seed line of Eve through Seth's line. The wheat, in this parable, depicts the sons of the kingdom, and thus by such an interpretation they would automatically be sons of the kingdom by their heritage, that is, saved by race. If that is true, then Yeshua's death, burial and resurrection were in vain.

That flies, of course, in the face of the entire Bible. Not all Israelites, just because they are Israelites or because they are of the seed of the woman, will be saved. Romans 9:27 and 11:5 (two verses out of a host of passages, Old and New Testaments alike) declare that only a remnant out of all Israel will be saved.

In addition, seedliners are also known to take Yeshua's statement in John 10 and attempt to force a seedline interpretation out of it:

But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you. My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me. (John 10:26-27)

This passage is not declaring that those who do not hear and respond to the shepherd's voice are false Jews, the seed of Satan, as seedliners insist. Instead it is contrasting the remnant of Israel who hear and respond to the shepherd's call to the Israelites who spurn their shepherd's beckoning. Otherwise it has to be conceded that all white men who do not follow Yeshua are the "seed of Satan."

In such passages, Yeshua was speaking of a spiritual seed out of the physical seed line of Israel, that is, the remnant of Israel saved not by race but by grace through the blood of Yeshua the Messiah.

Your Father the Devil

John 8 is most assuredly the seedliners favorite New Testament proof text. In this chapter Yeshua is, once again, addressing Pharisees; and, of course, anytime a seedliner comes across the Pharisees they immediately jump to the conclusion that they are not Israelites, but are instead Cainites from the seed line of Satan. However, some of the previous passages clearly demonstrate that such a conclusion can not automatically be drawn.

Unless proven by a specific context that the Pharisees are non-Israelites, it is safe to conclude that they are Judahite Israelites. In fact, I do not know of a single passage that proves that certain Pharisees are either Edomites or Cainites. According to the seedliners John 8 is such a passage, so let us examine it to see if this is true:

Then said Yeshua again unto them, I go my way, and ye shall seek me, and shall die in your sins: whither I go, ye cannot come. Then said the [Pharisee] Jews, Will he kill himself? Because he saith, Whither I go, ye cannot come. And he said unto them, Ye are from beneath; I am from above: ye are of this world; I am not of this world. (John 8:21-23)

One seedliner advanced the following concerning verse 23:

"In St. John 8:22, we find Jesus talking to some Jews and in verse 23 we read, 'And he said unto them, 'Ye are from beneath; I am from above.…' Jesus here declared His origin and theirs to be the same only if one is able to reconcile beneath and above as being the same place. … Therefore Jesus could have said, Ye are from hell, I am from heaven."5

That is supposed to begin to demonstrate that the Pharisees whom Yeshua was addressing were actually of the seed of Satan. But who in their right mind would claim that anyone's origin is the same as Yeshua's? From the very fact that Yeshua was virgin born from above, whereas the rest of us (the so-called seed of Satan and all the rest of us alike) are all born through natural means here below demonstrates that no one's origin is the same as Yeshua's.

In addition, the seedliners' interpretation ignores the context. Yeshua's answer had nothing to do with genetics but rather with location. Consider verse 23 again, specifically the latter part of it: "…ye are of this world, I am not of this world." Everyone, non-Israelites and Israelites alike are of this world until they too are born (again) from above. In other words, Yeshua was not identifying Cainites in this verse. The very next verse demonstrates that he was instead contrasting Israelites of the flesh nature first with himself and then also with those others who would be born of the Spirit:

I [Yeshua] said therefore unto you, that ye [Judahite Israelites] shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins. (John 8:24)

If it had been Cainite Pharisees of the seed of Satan whom Yeshua had been addressing, this last statement of Yeshua would be pointless since it would be a foregone conclusion that such sons of Satan would die in their sins. Otherwise, the seedliners will have to accept that such so-called sons of Satan can believe in Yeshua and as a result will not die in their sins and are a part of the ecclesia, the body of Christ.

Ignoring the context of this passage, which the seedliners repeatedly do in an attempt to sustain their doctrine, they avoid what is stated in order to declare what is not. They eisegete the passage, that is, their doctrine is read into it, rather than exegeting it, that is, extracting God's intent and purpose from the passage:

Then said they [the Pharisees] unto him [Yeshua], Who art thou? And Yeshua saith unto them, Even the same that I said unto you from the beginning. … Then said Yeshua unto them, When ye have lifted up the Son of man, then shall ye know that I am he…. (John 8:25-28)

The lifting up mentioned in these verses is referring to Yeshua's crucifixion. Who was truly responsible for the crucifixion of Christ? One prominent seedliner wrote:

"The seed of the woman then constituted a seed line through which Jesus Christ would ultimately come. Genesis 3:15 was a Prophetic-Judgment from God that there would be enmity or hatred between the seed of the serpent and the seed of the woman and this enmity first surfaced when Cain, the seed of the serpent, rose up to kill Abel. The blood flowed between these two seed lines for four thousand years unto the shedding of the blood of Jesus Christ at the hands of the wicked seed line of the [Cainite] Jews upon the cross of Calvary."6

This seedliner (representing the opinion of all seedliners) demands that Cainite Jews of the seed line of Satan murdered Yeshua; but whom do the Scriptures indict as being responsible for this most infamous of all crimes?

Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Yeshua, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ. Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do? Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Yeshua [the] Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call. And with many other words did he testify and exhort, saying, Save yourselves from this untoward generation. Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls. (Acts 2:26-42)

The Apostle Peter clearly lays the blame for the death of Christ squarely on the shoulders of those to whom he was preaching, among whom were the three thousand Judahites whom he baptized into Yeshua on the day of Pentecost. It is time for us to cease and desist from always blaming someone else for our own sins and for the sins of our forefathers. We killed our own prophets and Yeshua the Messiah, and if we will not acknowledge that then we must also be prepared to admit that Yeshua began his New Covenant church with three thousand Cainite Edomites.

The next five chapters in the book of Acts provide us with second, third, fourth and fifth witnesses as to whom was truly responsible for crucifying our Messiah:

And when [the Apostle] Peter saw it, he answered unto the people, Ye men of Israel … The God of Abraham, and of Isaac, and of Jacob, the God of our fathers, hath glorified his Son Yeshua; whom ye delivered up, and denied him in the presence of Pilate…. But ye denied the Holy One and the Just …[and] killed the Prince of life, whom God hath raised from the dead; whereof we are witnesses…. And now, brethren, I wot that through ignorance ye did it, as did also your rulers. (Acts 3:12-17)

And it came to pass on the morrow, that their rulers, and elders, and scribes, and Annas the high priest, and Caiaphas, and John, and Alexander, and as many as were of the kindred of the high priest, were gathered together at Jerusalem. … Then Peter, filled with the Holy Ghost, said unto them, Ye rulers of the people, and elders of Israel … be it known unto you all, and to all the people of Israel, that … Yeshua [the] Christ of Nazareth, whom ye crucified, whom God raised from the dead…. (Acts 4:5-10))

[Peter speaking to the chief priests] …The God of our fathers raised up Yeshua, whom ye ["men of Israel," verse 35] slew and hanged on a tree…. (Acts 5:24-35)

Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost: as your [Hebrew and Israelite], fathers [verses 2-50] did, so do ye. Which of the prophets have not your fathers persecuted? And they have slain them which shewed before of the coming of the Just One; of whom ye have been now the betrayers and murderers. (Acts 7:51-52)

In six chapters, God informs us five times that it was not Cainite Jews who murdered Yeshua, but instead Israelite Judahites. There is not one passage in the entire Bible that indictes the Cainites or Edomites for Yeshua's assassination. So, whom are you going to believe - the seedliners or Yahweh God Almighty? If the seedliners insist that today's Jewish imposters and their forefathers are the real perpetrators of that most villainous of crimes, and since it was Israelites who are blamed in the Scriptures for the crucifixion of Yeshua, then the seedliners are forced to admit that today's Israelites, rather than being found in today's Celto-Saxons, are to be found instead in today's Jews.

When one gets right down to it, the seedline hypothesis is just an escape mechanism for the seedliners' own consciences so that they will not have to confess their own sins and the sins of their forefathers. Essentially, it is just a twist to the devil made me do it excuse. With the seedliners it is the sons of the devil made us do it. Wrong! You and I and our forefathers are to blame, not some imaginary seedline of Satan.

John 8, continued
… Then said Yeshua to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed; And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free. They [the Jewish Pharisees] answered him, We be Abraham's seed…. (John 8:29-33)

The Pharisees, in this passage, do not claim to be either Satan's or Cain's seed, but rather the seed of Abraham.

They [the Jewish Pharisees] answered him, We be Abraham's seed, and were never in bondage to any man: how sayest thou, Ye shall be made free? Yeshua answered them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin. And the servant abideth not in the house for ever: but the Son abideth ever. If the Son therefore shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed. I [Yeshua] know that ye are Abraham's seed; but ye seek to kill me, because my word hath no place in you. (John 8:33-37)

Yeshua, himself, confirmed that the Pharisees whom he was addressing were descended from Abraham. Nevertheless, it is correctly pointed out by the seedliners that that does not necessarily mean that those Pharisees were Israelites since only Jacob/Israel's genetic line from Abraham were and are Israelites. All other lines from Abraham would be Abraham's descendants, but they would not be Israelites. Consequently the seedliners also point out that those Pharisees could have been Cainite/Canaanite/Edomite descendants of Abraham through Esau/Edom, and thus that would then make them of the seed line of Satan. The seedliners claim that those Pharisees, by their own testimony, demonstrated that they were not Israelites. One seedliner teacher claimed:

"He [Yeshua] says to them (and you can just hear the ring of sarcasm in His voice), 'If ye continue in my doctrines indeed, then you shall be my disciples; and you shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free.' And immediately they bristle up at this and ask, 'What do you mean - make us free?' They say, 'We are Abraham's seed and we have never been in bondage to any man.' And He says, 'I know your [sic] Abraham's seed.' … Who was it who could say that he was descended from Abraham and had never been in bondage to any man?

"If these Jews were of any of the twelve tribes at all, they would have been in bondage the first time in Egypt, wouldn't they? If they belonged to the ten tribed northerly kingdom of Israel, they would have been in bondage a second time in Assyria, wouldn't they? And if they belonged to the two tribed southern kingdom of Judah, they would have been in bondage for the second time, in Babylon, wouldn't they? And they said, 'We have never been in bondage to any man,' and Jesus Christ admitted the truth of that. He didn't deny that. So they [the Pharisees whom Yeshua was addressing] were not of any tribe of Israel whatsoever. Now who could say that … Esau? [sic] Remember Esau and Jacob were twins, born with (presumably7) the same blood line: but Esau married two Canaanite women in violation of God's law. Now he [Esau] couldn't leave anything but mongrelized half-Satanic descendants, because among these Hittite Canaanites you had the satanic blood line."8

"So here were these Jews, these Edomite Jews, who said to Jesus Christ, 'We are descendants of Abraham.' They were illegitimate descendants of Abraham but, nevertheless, descendants of Abraham, and they said, 'We've never been in bondage to any man.'"9

This argument initially appears to make sense, however for the following reason it has no teeth: the Edomites were also a people who, like the Israelites, on different occasions, had also been in captivity/bondage.10 Consequently, even if those Pharisees had been Abraham's Edomite descendants, and if that is the kind of bondage that Yeshua had in mind, they still could not have said what they said; Israelite or Edomite, both nations had been in bondage.

Moreover, why would those Pharisees jump from a discussion about present spiritual freedom to past political bondage, and why would they answer for their forefathers when Yeshua was clearly speaking to and about them personally? There is absolutely nothing in the context or in what Yeshua said to validate that he was talking to and about anyone or anything but those in his presence at the time. Thus, to declare that Yeshua and the Pharisees were discussing something different is just another assumption on the part of the seedliners; and, keep in mind, nothing can be proven by such speculation. Consequently, there is nothing in the Pharisees' statement in verse 33 that would indicate that they were anything but stiff necked, hard hearted, arrogant Judahite Israelites.

John 8, continued
I [Yeshua] speak that which I have seen with my Father: and ye [the Jewish Pharisees] do that which ye have seen with your father. They answered and said unto him, Abraham is our father. Yeshua saith unto them, If ye were Abraham's children, ye would do the works of Abraham. But now ye seek to kill me, a man that hath told you the truth…. Ye do the deeds of your father. Then said they to him, We be not born of fornication; we have one Father, even God. Yeshua said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God…. Why do ye not understand my speech? Even because ye cannot hear my word. Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it. (John 8:38-44)

With this portion of the dialogue between Yeshua and the Pharisees, the seedliners declare that this clinches their seedline contentions since Yeshua proclaimed that God was not the Pharisees' father, but instead the devil was. The seedliners would then also point out that if we believe the word of God for what it says that we then have no choice but to accept that there was and is a literal physical seed line originating from Satan.

Regrettably, a number of people have been pressured into doing just that by such reasoning, believing that they have no other alternative. However, is it a foregone conclusion that the word "father" used in John 8 has to be understood in a literal and physical sense? The seedliners declare, "Absolutely!" If this is true, then once again consistency demands that if the phrase "your father the devil" in verse 44 means that some demon of darkness had sexual relations with Eve and fathered a physical seed line, then the phrase "if God were your father" in verse 42 must also be taken to mean that Yahweh had sexual relations with Eve or someone else and also fathered a physical seed line.

Regarding verse 47, one prominent seedliner went so far as to declare:

"He that is of God heareth God's word. Now, did you read that? 'Of' means progeny."11

Another seedliner put it in the following fashion:

"Now the child of a cat is another cat, isn't it? The child of a Negro is a Negro; and a child of God is what?"12

The implications of such statements are quite serious. But, of course, we hope the seedliners do not mean what those kind of declarations imply.

The seedliners are not consistent with the term "father" used in John 8 nor anywhere else in the Scriptures where we find the term "father," "son" or "children" employed. For example, the seedliners admit that the term "Belial" is just another designation for Satan:

Satan is called Belial as in II Cor. 6:15…."13

With that being true, and since the seedliners demand that the phrase "your father the devil" in John 8:44 be taken literally, consistency then requires that they also take the phrase "sons" or "children of Belial" just as literally. Why then do the seedliners not do so? If they did so they would then also have to admit that Eli and his sons (all of them Levitical priests) were also of the supposed seed line of Satan since the sons of Eli are labeled as sons of Belial - 1 Samuel 2:12.

A study of the term "sons of Belial" reveals that it is just an idiom for worthless or wicked people, as it is translated in the New American Standard Bible. It was never meant to be taken genetically, but instead as a metaphor to imply the moral or spiritual state of someone. An example is Nabal who in 1 Samuel 25 was identified by Abigail, his wife, as also being a son of Belial, that is, a wicked man. It is also the epithet that Shemei cursed David with in 2 Samuel 16.

Phrases such as "the children of Belial," "the sons of the devil," "the sons of hell," and "your father the devil" are all metaphors or idioms that are used not to describe someone's genetic state but rather their spiritual state.

The seedliners would have us believe that all those identified in John 8 as being "of God" are not of the seed line of Satan, whereas all those identified as being "not of God" are of the seed line of Satan. If that were the case, then John 8:47 which says, "He that is of God heareth God's words: ye therefore hear them not, because ye are not of God." demands that everyone, Jew and non-Jew alike, who refuses to hear and respond to the word of God are also of the Satanic seed line. This would then mean that the majority of the descendants of Jacob/Israel over the last 1,900 plus years must in fact be of the seed line of Satan since only a remnant of Israelites have ever heard and responded to the word of God. The seedliners, of course, do not believe this, nevertheless that conclusion is inescapable when their reasoning is taken to its logical conclusion.

It is incontestable that the Pharisees in John 8 were not non-Israelite Cainites but were instead Judahite Israelites. Verse 28 identifies those Pharisees as being responsible for crucifying Yeshua, and then in verse 37 Yeshua declared:

I [Yeshua] know that ye [the Pharisees] are Abraham's seed; but ye seek to kill me, because my word hath no place in you. (John 8:37)

Certainly everyone, seedliners and non-seedliners alike, will concur that the Pharisees responsible for instigating the murder of Yeshua were one and the same with those to whom Judas returned the blood money with which he betrayed Yeshua. With that in mind, consider Matthew's testimony:

And the chief priests [of the Pharisees] took the silver pieces [returned by Judas], and said, It is not lawful for to put them into the treasury, because it is the price of blood. And they took counsel, and bought with them the potter's field…. Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremy [Jeremiah] the prophet, saying, And they took the thirty pieces of silver, the price of him [Yeshua] that was valued, whom they of the children of Israel did value; and gave them for the potter's field, as the Lord appointed me. (Matthew 27:6-10)

Jeremiah was either a false prophet or the Pharisees who valued Yeshua for thirty pieces of silver had to be Judahite Israelites. In addition, Yeshua himself declared that the same Pharisees who were at that time seeking to kill him were also those to whom Moses gave the law:

Did not Moses give you the law, and yet none of you keepeth the law? Why go ye about to kill me? (John 7:19)

Every seedliner knows who it was to whom Moses gave the law and it certainly was not given to Cainites or Edomites. Instead it was given exclusively to Israelites:

He [Yahweh] sheweth his word unto Jacob, his statutes and his judgments unto Israel. He hath not dealt so with any nation: and as for his judgments, they have not known them. Praise ye YHWH. (Psalm 147:19-20)

Whom shall we believe - the seedline teachers who declare that the Pharisees were Cainites, Satan's seed line, or Saint Matthew who was inspired by the Holy Spirit and Yeshua himself who identified the Pharisees as Judahite Israelites? The Pharisees in John 8 were Israelite sons of Abraham instead of Cainite, Canaanite, Edomite sons of Abraham. There is no alternative but to accept that the phrase "your father the devil" has nothing to do with a literal seed line of Satan, unless one is prepared to say that all Israelites (including any seedliner who is of Celto-Saxon descent) are children of Satan.

Cain, Who Was of That Wicked One

Next to John 8, 1 John 3 is probably the seedliners' next most favorite New Testament passage, specifically verse 12 that declares that "…Cain … was of that wicked one…." After referring to John 8:44, one seedline minister made the following comments concerning 1 John 3:12:

"Again Jesus Christ traced the Jews back to Cain … who was a murderer from the beginning. Let us also be mindful that the same St. John who wrote about the Jews in the Gospel of John also authored other New Testament books. In 1 John 3:11-12 we are told that '…Cain, who was of that wicked one…' Smith & Goodspeed translated that passage 'child of the evil one.' The New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures [a Jehovah's Witness version] translates this passage '…not like Cain, who originated with the wicked one…' If you will receive it the same St. John who recorded Jesus Christ as saying that the Jews' father was a murderer from the beginning … (John 8:44) also tells you in 1 John 3:11-12 that Cain was of that wicked one. You can spiritualize 1 John 3:11-12 until forever … but you will never change the weight of these words…."14

Another seedliner also addressed this passage in his book:

"It is indeed strange that one can read any pedigree or bill of sale and very readily and unmistakably understand what it means. Should one read the pedigree of a horse, and in it would be 'she is of Black Gold and Meadow Queen,' we would know immediately and without question that she was sired by Black Gold and born of Meadow Queen. But God, the author of all languages and wisdom, can state that 'Cain was of that wicked one' or 'ye are of your father the devil;' but for us to intimate or teach that God declares Cain, and those to whom Jesus was talking, as being the begotten progeny of the devil, makes the Bible libelous and God immoral."15

Essentially, those two seedliners were declaring that if we are going to accept the Scriptures at face value then we have no choice but to believe that the devil fathered Cain who in turn fathered a wicked satanic seed line. But the word of God can not always be taken at face value. If it is always to be taken literally then Yahweh is a bird since in Psalm 91 he is described as having wings and feathers. Yeshua is then a literal lamb, or is he a lion or a door or a number of other things that he is described as being in the New Testament? Of course neither Yahweh nor Yeshua are any of those things since those statements were never meant to be taken literally.

Not only can the Bible be made to say anything you want it to by literalizing the non-literal, but the same can be accomplished by simply ignoring the context which is exactly what the seedliners do with 1 John 3. Does the context prove that Cain was a literal, physical son of some demon of darkness or does it demonstrate that we are, once again, dealing with another metaphor?

Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God: therefore the world knoweth us not, because it knew him not. (1 John 3:1)

Is the phrase "sons of God" meant to be taken literally and physically or as a metaphor? Was the Apostle John implying that Yahweh had fathered literal, physical children? Of course not; the seedliners do not even believe such nonsense! Yet, when it comes to the statement about Cain being of the wicked one they inconsistently demand that that phrase be literalized. When one finds that kind of theological inconsistency, especially within the same passage of Scripture, it is indicative of a preacher, teacher or author who is determining the Scriptures by their doctrine rather than deciding their doctrine by the Scriptures.

If the phrase "of that wicked one" (in verse 12) must be literalized then one must also take verse 8 at face value as well:

He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil. (1 John 3:8)

If I were a seedliner, I would be reluctant about identifying myself as a sinner since if one makes such an admission they have just condemned themselves as being of the seed line of Satan, a child of the devil, at least according to seedline doctrine. On the other hand, declaring one self as sinless flies in the face of such scriptures as Romans 3:23 "For all have sinned…." and 1 John 1:8 "If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.". Of course that very lie would then make such a person a sinner and thus a son or daughter of Satan. How many potential converts to the seedline position are ever told about this consequence? "Accept the seedline hypothesis as true, and guess what? You also get to admit that you yourself are one of Satan's children!"

The seedline position forces one to either declare that all sinners are of the seed line of Satan or that only Satan's children sin!

Verses 9 and 10 of 1 John 3 explain what John is actually teaching:

Whosoever is born [again] of God doth not commit sin; for his seed [the word of God, 1 Peter 1:23] remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God. (1 John 3:9)

The Apostle John was clearly writing about spiritual birth not physical birth in this passage:

In this the children of God are manifest, and the children of the devil: whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of God, neither he that loveth not his brother. (1 John 3:10)

John was not addressing two physical seed lines but rather one physical Israelite seed line consisting of two spiritual persuasions, one righteous and one unrighteous. Consider the following: If John had been addressing two physical seed lines made up of Israelites and Cainites, as the seedliners demand, then John would not have been having a discussion with them concerning loving your brother:

We know that we have passed from death unto life, because we love the brethren. He that loveth not his brother abideth in death. Whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer: and ye know that no murderer hath eternal life abiding in him. (1 John 3:14-15)

If you are of the seedline persuasion you must interpret verses 10-14 to mean that all Israelites are to love the Cainites or all Israelites who do not love their brethren are of the offspring of Satan. What utter nonsense! The Apostle John was simply distinguishing between two different spiritual seed lines within the physical seed line of Israel: those born again in Christ, that is, born of God practicing righteousness who love the brethren and those not born again, those (metaphorically) of the devil who, like Cain, practice unrighteousness and who hate the brethren. Both groups exist among Israel today: children of righteousness and children of wickedness depending upon their relationship with God.

Conclusion

Repeatedly throughout this series, I have pointed out the numerous consequences that the seedliners are forced to accept when the tenets of the seedline hypothesis are taken to their logical conclusions. In closing, let me provide one more logical consequence. If Eve gave birth to Cain who was spawned by Satan, then as a result of telegony 16 all of Eve's progeny, including Seth, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and yes, Yeshua himself would have subsequently been tainted with the supposed seed of Satan. This one complication alone should be sufficient to convince seedliners to abandon their current position, and it should prevent prospective seedliners from converting to this perverted and dangerous schism.

In every single case and in every passage when the seedline doctrine is put under the test of scriptural scrutiny the Bible demonstrates it to be a spurious, non-Biblically based hypothesis. This dogma of the seedliners that initially appeared to have the Scriptures' backing, when actually tested by those same Scriptures disappears, a phantom doctrine nowhere to be found in the Bible.

When you get right down to the brass tacks of the issue, it is the facts of Scripture versus the assumptions of men. As pointed out in the first installment of this series, nearly everything about the seedline doctrine is based upon speculation, that is, nearly all of the major tenets of the seedline teaching simply can not be found stated anywhere in the Bible. In other words, the seedliners have built their theology upon what is not stated in direct contradiction to that which is stated in the Scriptures. Following is a short list of such contrasts:

  • Whereas the seedliners demand that Cain was the offspring of Eve and Satan, scripture (Genesis 4:1) declares that Cain was the offspring of Eve and Adam.

  • Whereas the seedliners demand that the beguiling of Eve was physical in nature, scripture (2 Corinthians 11:3) declares that the beguiling of Eve was mental in nature.

  • Whereas the seedliners demand that Cain, as the mongrelized son of Satan, could never be accepted by Yahweh, scripture (Genesis 4:7) declares that Cain, as Adam's son, would have been approved by Yahweh if he would have done right, that is, behaved righteously.

  • Whereas the seedliners demand that the Pharisees were Cainites of the seed line of Satan, scripture (Matthew 3:7-8, 27:6-10, John 7:19, 8:28-37, Acts 4:5-10, 24-35, 7:2-52) declare that the Pharisees were Judahites of the seed line of Jacob/Israel.

In other words, the seedliners go out of their way to avoid what the Scriptures do state in order to advance what the Scriptures do not say.

The Origin of the Seedline Theology

Since it has been clearly and quite decisively demonstrated that the seedline hypothesis does not originate in the Scriptures, the next logical question is: "From where then is the seedline doctrine derived?" In contemplating that question, one should ask himself the following: "Who gains the most from the seedline perversion?"

Everything in the Scriptures can be interpreted accurately without the seedline theology. For example, today's true Israelites are identified without it, and today's imposters, the two-fold sons of hell, are also identified without having to embrace the seedline doctrine. Is it our people then who benefit from the teaching of the seedline doctrine? On the contrary, the enemies of Christ, Christianity and true Israel employ it quite effectively in their smear campaign against the Christian Israel message. As a result, there are multitudes of people who are familiar enough with the Scriptures to recognize the seedline hypothesis for the perversion of scripture that it really is, and who, as a consequence, are turned off to the truth regarding their own Israelite identity because of it.

So who benefits the most and where might you then expect to find this seedline doctrine taught? The seedline hypothesis is not God inspired and thus can not be found in the Scriptures. On the other hand, being that it is a Jewish inspired tradition it is very prominently taught in the Talmud and related Jewish writings:

"For when the serpent came upon Eve he injected lust into her." (Shabbath 146a, The Jewish Talmud)

"When the serpent copulated with Eve, he infused her with lust." (Yebamoth 103b, The Jewish Talmud)

"Now the serpent was more subtle than any beast of the field, etc." (Genes. III, 1.) 'More subtle' that is towards evil; 'than all the beasts' that is, the idolatrous people of the earth. For they are the children of the ancient serpent which seduced Eve…." (Zohar I, 28b, The Jewish Cabala)

Does that sound familiar? It does not sound like anything found in the Bible, but it sounds very similar to what the seedliners postulate. Or more accurately, what the seedliners declare sounds a whole lot like what rabbinical literature teaches. Nevertheless, the seedliners accurately point out that just because something can be found stated in the Talmud does not necessarily dictate that it is an unscriptural doctrine:

"Now, for those who may feel that the two seed lines, that of the serpent, and that of the woman Eve, cannot be valid because it is a teaching that is preserved in the Mystery Religions of Babylon please take note. The Mystery Religions of Ancient Babylon have taken nearly every Bible Truth, including that of the Seed Lines, and have corrupted this [sic] TRUTH to fit their own particular purposes. If you would reject the teaching that Satan produced offspring, if you deny the literal announcement of Your God in Genesis 3:15 simply because it is something that is found in the ancient religions of Babylon, then you must also reject such fundamental truths as the Virgin Birth, the Resurrection, the Godhead, Astronomy, the Holy Laws of God, and numerous other SOUND BIBLE TRUTHS, because all of these and more, have been borrowed and perverted, distorted and corrupted by the Ancient Religions of Babylon."17

That is a valid point, that is, if the doctrine appearing in the Talmud or the Cabala has been demonstrated to be a "sound Bible truth" in the first place. However, that is the precise point where the seedline hypothesis and the Biblical doctrines of the virgin birth, the resurrection and the Godhead, etc. diverge from one another. The latter doctrines have all been demonstrated from the Scriptures themselves to be valid Bible tenets, whereas the seedline hypothesis is foreign to the Bible.

The previous seedliner pointed out that the Talmud distorts the doctrines of the virgin birth, the resurrection and the Godhead. But are the previous quotations from the Talmud and the Cabala perversions of the seedliners' doctrine or precisely what they teach? Under the heading "Eve - In Rabbinical Literature," The Jewish Encyclopedia declares:

"Eve became pregnant, and bore Cain and Abel on the very day of (her creation and) expulsion from Eden (Gen. R. xii.). … Cain's real father was not Adam, but one of the demons…." 18

Under the heading "Satan: In Talmud and Midrash," the same Jewish encyclopedia states:

"The chief functions of Satan are, as already noted, those of temptation, accusation, and punishment. He was an active agent in the fall of man (Pirke R. El. Xiii., beginning), and was the father of Cain (ib. xxi.)…."19

The seedline doctrine as found in the Talmud, the Cabala and The Jewish Encyclopedia is not a perversion of the seedliners' doctrine, but instead exactly what they teach. In other words, the seedline hypothesis is nothing but a Jewish fable and the tradition of men. The Apostle Paul warned us to beware of such Talmudic garbage:

For there are many unruly and vain talkers and deceivers, specially they of the circumcision: Whose mouths must be stopped, who subvert whole houses, teaching things which they ought notThis witness is true. Wherefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith; not giving heed to Jewish fables, and commandments of men, that turn from the truth. (Titus 1:10-14)

The seedline doctrine originates from Babylonian Jewish tradition rather than Biblical fact. With this being true, it should come as no surprise that this perversion was and is also taught by the Gnostics and the Freemasons. Consequently, today's seedliners need to understand that those antichrists (including the Talmudists and Cabalists) are those with whom they have aligned themselves and with whom they are keeping company.

One seedliner minister was so bold as to declare:

"[The seedline hypothesis] is the message that the Yehuda [the Jews] don't want in this land."20

If that were true then why is it promoted in the Talmud? The next time the media tries to attach this doctrine to us in Christian Israel, the media should be told to put the blame where the blame belongs: with the Jews, who are the real perpetrators of this perverted doctrine. The seedline doctrine comes from their religious book of faith not ours!

Endnotes

1. Charles Lee Mange a.k.a. Dan Gayman, The Two Seeds of Genesis 3:15 (1982) p. 6.

2. God's Covenant People: Yesterday, Today and Forever, a 465-page book written by Evangelist Ted R. Weiland, provides a documented dissertation regarding the identity of Israel with today's Anglo-Saxon, Germanic, Scandinavian, Celtic and kindred peoples.

3. Gayman, pp. 32-33.

4. There is a consensus that the good figs of Jeremiah 24 represent racial Judahites. However, the evil figs are likewise racial Judahites since Zedekiah, the last King over Judah from the line of David, and the other Judahites aligned with him are those whom the Prophet Jeremiah depicted as the evil figs - Jeremiah 24:8-10.

5. James Wise, The Seed of the Serpent (Englewood, Colorado: Pilgrim Torch) p. 7.

6. Gayman, p. 18.

7. Note how this author plants the idea in the minds of his readers that Esau, like Cain, might have also possibly been sired by Satan.

8. Bertrand L. Comparet, The Cain-Satanic Seed Line (San Diego, California: Your Heritage) pp. 19-20.

9. Comparet, p. 28.

10. "EDOMITES - …David conquered Edom, along with a number of other adjacent countries, and stationed troops in the land (2 Sam. 8:13-14). … During the time of the Divided Kingdom, a number of hostile encounters occurred between the nations of Judah or Israel and Edom. … During the reign of Joram, Edom freed herself of Judah's control (2 Kin. 8:20-22), but again came under Judah's control when Amaziah assaulted and captured Sela, their capital city. Edom became a vassal state of Assyria, beginning about 736 B.C. … During the period from about 400-100 B.C., Judas Maccabeus subdued the Edomites and John Hyrcanus forced them to be circumcised and then made them a part of the Jewish people…." "Edomites," The New Nelson's Illustrated Bible Dictionary (Nashville, Camden and New York: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1986) p. 321.

11. Dr. Arnold Murray, "Kenite" (Gravette, Arkansas) Cassette tape #436.

12. Comparet, p. 15.

13. Gayman, p. 63.

14. Gayman, p. 26.

15. Wise, p. 11.

16. Telegony, the carrying over of the genetic traits of a sire to the offspring of subsequent matings of the dam with other males.

17. Gayman, pp. 39-40.

18. "Eve - In Rabbinical Literature," The Jewish Encyclopedia (New York and London: Funk and Wagnalls, 1904) Vol. V, p. 275.

19. "Satan: In Talmud and Midrash," The Jewish Encyclopedia (New York and London: Funk and Wagnalls, 1904) Vol. XI, p. 70.

20. Murray, ibid.





















Most Recent Article

An Open Response to Martin Selbrede and Archie Jones’ ‘Book Review’ of Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution: The Christian Perspective


Most Recent Message


Important Books




Visit us on:



Visit us on:



Mission to Israel · P.O. Box 248 · Scottsbluff, NE 69363 · Email