THE SEED-LINE ISSUE – ITS IMPACT ON ISRAEL
USA
When the opportunity arises, the “Seed-line” adherents among our Christian Identity, Covenant People, stridently inject their theoretical views into articles and commentary; most relying on one primary verse, Genesis 3:15 as confirmation …In most cases, their comments are simply an expression of personal views of other selected verses that can be misread to accommodate the theory, but the basic thought, the “doctrine” requires a rather discordant merging of three separate and distinct Biblical issues to foster the idea.
This view point, that a satanic seed-line first impregnated Eve, has to ignore Genesis 4:1, that states without equivocation, that “...Adam knew Eve his wife, and she conceived and bare  Cain…”
Three “Proofs” Validate the Seed-line Theory?
The “sons of God” were fallen angels
The first of their three “proofs” evolves from the idea that angels can manifest physical characteristics as “humans” and thus were the progenitors of a “race of men,” by virtue of a Biblical expression in Genesis 6:2, the “sons of God” that they consider as applicable to these beings as “angels,” other-worldly beings who visited or were cast to earth. No thought is given to the Lordly dictum of “Kind after Kind!”
Nor is concern expressed over the prior chapter 5, that introduces the physical line from Adam to Seth, both of whom are referred to as being in the likeness of God, while Seth was further identified as being in the “image” of his father, Adam, “a son of God,” confirmed by Luke 3:38, “…which was the son of God…”
 If Adam was not the exclusive “son of God,” how can any progeny of Adam be considered similarly, a status we all seek to confirm, both spiritually and physically: yet our seed-liners insist that our “Family” was corrupted from the outset, and later, even further corrupted by alien, space visitors they refer to as the “sons of God.” Paul exposed this fallacy in Romans 8:19: “For the earnest expectation of the creature waiteth for the manifestation (resurrection) of the sons of God…“
Then a misapplication of the translators word for the “nephilim,” or the “giants” of Genesis 6:4 also leads to fortifying this error of the Seed-line, in that the  Hebrew  word  “nephil” which  comes from another root word, “gibor,” actually means: powerful, tyrant, champion, mighty man.
This translators error of choice, then lends added credibility to their issue of “fallen angels” and a “giant” race of men. It ignores however, the genetic aspects of spirits having physical attributes incapable of reproduction. Is there some inherent guilt that resides within, that finds expression in some of our people, in what appears to be an internal conflict – like a dark secret – sulking there as seen from the questionable discipline of a child, whose “hurt” appears to “enjoy  itself?”
Seldom however, is this “seed-line doctrine” associated with its Judaic source, the Babylonian Talmud and associated Jewish materials, the principle instigators of this seed-line issue. Proof of this origin is clear, and some of it follows in subsequent paragraphs.
Trees always are symbolic of Humans
Secondly, the issue of Biblical “Trees” as being a symbolic reference to man, to races, must be brought into this issue of the physical corruption of Eve by Satan. This is necessary to the “cause of the seed liners” because it gets other, mysterious people on the scene in the Garden of Eden , adding to justification as we shall see, for the two seed-line theory that results from these equivocations.
Trees, however, when “associated” with humans are so identified in the Bible: Ezekiel 31: “Behold the Assyrian was a Cedar in Lebanon.” In Psalms 1:3, the righteous man “…shall be like a tree…” a most revealing comparison is being made here between this man and the ungodly, which confirms that the “ungodly shall not stand in judgment, nor sinners in the congregation of the righteous…”
 So there is no valid Biblical reason to seek justification for making “Trees” into humans when not so designated . Otherwise, they are just plain wood!
Consider the first reference to Trees in Genesis: “…and out of the ground, Yahweh made to grow every Tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food …” No other reason for their “being.”
If the other tree in the Garden, not the well known “Tree of Knowledge,” but, the “Tree of Life” was not denied to Adam, what was its significance? Well, Adam apparently did eat of this Tree of Life, because his progeny became its “fruit.” For the Tree of Life is defined in Proverbs 11:30 as follows: “The fruit of the righteous is a tree of life; and he that winneth souls is wise..” If this Tree of Life began in the Garden, its fruit is still being offered. Proverbs again, attributes Trees to “Wisdom,” “She is a tree of life to them that lay hold upon her: and happy is every one that retaineth her..” (Proverbs 3:18) The “she” in this case being wisdom.
This mysterious Tree of Life thus is the promise, an inherited right that began with Adam and his genetic “seed” that was passed along through the Adamites to the Hebrews, to the Israelites to Christians and then to the reward: “Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates of the city…” (Revelation 22:14)
Eve’s being “beguiled” by Satan led to Cain’s Fatherhood
The Third aspect of proof offered by Seed-liners is tied to the events associated with Eve’s discussions with the “serpent,” otherwise identified as “more subtil then any beast of the field which the Lord God had made…”
From that single statement we can draw two inferences. One that this “serpent” was the most subtil or smartest of these “beasts of the field,” and two, we can conclude that he appeared in a “human” form, talking, reasoning, walking and observant – confirming to Eve just what the Lord had said, but then injecting in subtilty, the words, “Ye shall not surely  die.”
 Later, Eve understood what this “serpent” had done to her, telling the Lord that “it” had “beguiled” her. An analysis of this word “beguiled” from Strongs Concordance shows that its first meaning, its first definition, applies to being lead astray, to being mentally deluded, and secondarily, morally to seduce, deceive.
So when Eve states that she was beguiled by this “most subtil beast,” it was her Mind and not her Body that submitted to the invitation – the mind must always first submit and acquiesce, regardless of the act – sexual activity included when applicable, but not here!
Thus, Eve’s sin was disobedience, a fact that appeared to be justified in Adam’s mind also, as the results of ongoing events seemed to confirm – for Adam – those comments of that most “subtil beast,” that Eve would not die after eating the forbidden fruit..
For Eve’s sin to have been sex, then what was Adam’s guilt? In his failure to control Eve and his acquiescing and participating in Eve’s actions,  he became an accessory after the fact, a willing collaborator. Guilt by association. He committed no sexual act as there were no other females mentioned, thus instigating the seed-liners need for “Trees” to be made into humans, so that a female Nachash or serpent, or female “beast of the field” can be conjured up for Adam. Oh the foolishness of some.
Now, for his subtilty, his stretching of the truth, this “serpent,” the most subtil beast, was punished along with Adam and Eve. Punished as a “creation,” for that is what he was; formed as a beast of the field (Genesis 2:19) and separate: as opposed to those other beasts of Genesis 1 :24 – “beast of the earth.”
Creation Differences:
The Significance of being Word Specific!
Here again, there are differences in the two Creations that become apparent by use of the word “field.” The words, “beast of the earth” are used in the first creation in Genesis 1, and the words “beast of the field” occurs in Genesis 2, the second creation, but after Adam’s having been “Formed.” A field is a result of the labors of men or in the case of Eden, of God, but the implication is that this beast in the second creation is one that has a specific function, tending the cultivated fields.
Other important differences in the two distinctly separate creations derive from the separate words used to describe their creation: – the First being “created” in the Image of Elohim (Plural) and the Second creation by the “forming” of Adam by Yahweh God, (singular). Clearly a separate process was applied to Adam than the process applied by the Elohim in the first creation.
This “forming” of man by God (even before his birth), is confirmed in His comments about Jeremiah, when God states: “Before I formed  thee in the belly, I knew thee…” (Jeremiah 1:4)
Just how far back does the Lord go in these, His exclusive selections of His Chosen? Such awesome considerations certainly should awaken our People to consider these most finite details to which He does go in His choices, putting an immeasurable value on all life for this Choosing!
It is of particular interest to note that the word image used in the first creation comes from the Hebrew word “tselem” meaning to “shade,” and further sourced from a Hebrew root word, “tsalal” meaning, “to be dark, shadowing. ” Is this racial? Other variations between the Creations, emerge from the fact that the second creation saw the breath of God blown into the nostrils of Adam: but, the first creation did not!
And we note also that the female of the Genesis 1 creation was created when the man was created, a simultaneous event and then they were simply told to procreate, to “replenish” the earth. (Implying existence of prior “humans”?)
Eve was “made” from Adam ‘s flesh long after his having been “formed,” after Adam had already been assigned tasks to perform and had been instructed by God.
In addition, when the instructions, or purposes to and for the two separate creations were given, the first were not instructed or levied with any law nor offered any firm admonitions about behavior. They were given free rein geographically and simply expected to live off the land so to speak, eating the nuts and fruit , and told only to procreate. No mandatory tasks or stipulations for living were levied on them.
Now, before the second creation, that of Adam, it appears that a considerable lapse of time had occurred following the creation of the first man and woman, as the verses of Genesis 2:1-6 appear to offer an evaluation or a review of this first creation, as we note in these verses, that it states “Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them…” Then a reference in verse 4 states that “these are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when “they” were created …”
But now, in evaluating these six odd verses of Genesis 2 , it seems that God was not satisfied with what had been done, and had decided to modify “man” upon the earth. This time, recognizing that there was “no man to till the ground ,” and rather than granting him uninhibited free-rein, God set geographic boundaries, and established an agrarian basis for Adam’s survival in Eden.
Then, after having blown the spirit of God into Adam’s nostrils, God then assigned tasks to Adam for him to sort out the other more recent creations of the animals in Genesis 2, by “naming  them.”
Then, in a most telling of differences in the two creations, God gave Adam instructions that were to be followed – a Law that would test his obedience – a law that would bring to the surface, the inherent weaknesses of the “flesh,” for that is what Eve was “made” of, sinful flesh, while Adam, made of the sinless earth, could not be induced to Sin! “Thou shall not eat of the  Tree…”
Thus, it was that Eve became the trigger that induced and introduced “death” to the world, and to both creations it appears, as death apparently had not yet been introduced to the world.
Why? Was it a purpose of God to introduce death to the world and use His Chosen, His specially “formed” creature, one exclusively “formed” to insure that untold millions of His Chosen would be introduced to life and then become eternal companions for God, who on one occasion stated that He was lonely?
Were the first created, procreating and increasing to beyond supportability? Were there too many of these “creations” in existence for the Earth to handle? Answers to these questions await the resurrection.
An interesting note for Christian Identity and Israel is appropriate to mention here, and it may confirm the significance to the use of the word “forming” of Adam in the second creation. When the word “formed” appears again we find God again doing the forming, it applies to Israel! “Remember these, O Jacob and Israel; for thou art my servant: I have “formed” thee; thou art my servant: O Israel, thou shall not be forgotten of me…” (That verse speaks volumes!)
Then, as if to cap the importance of this “forming” of His Chosen, God goes further to state just how important is this word “forming” that He has done, almost as if this shaping, this molding of Adam and Israel were the proudest work of His hands, a sculpturing of his Sons, when He further states unequivocally about Himself : “…before Me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after  me…”
Certainly, Israel’s forming, places these, His Chosen People in a most exclusive and unique status in the eyes of the Lord.
Genesis 3:1 This is the key verse that the Seedliners have chosen as their landmark, the basis of their doctrine of two seedlines. It reads as follows:
“Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the Lord God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?”
Well lets consider that verse. It appears to have two subjects and no verb, the “serpent” and the “subtil beast of the field “. From its sentence structure it would appear that this “serpent” was also a “beast of the field “
This “serpent” as depicted in Strong ‘s Bible concordance is #5175, “Nachash” where it is defined as being “a snake – from its hiss. A serpent.” But then Strong’s shifts its focus to an “original” root word for “serpent”, #5172, a primary root word that is also depicted and spelled , “Nachash”! But here its meaning is significantly different! It changes from being a noun to a verb, and is defined by Strong’s as “to hiss or whisper” – words that show action.
It becomes obvious that the translators saw confusion in this sentence structure for we can see from these two identical words that the wrong word was applied to the serpent, rather it was intended to be the word “whisper”, for that is exactly what this most subtil, the smartest of the beasts of the field did to Eve; H e whispered his comments that he understood had been made by the Lord … Likely fearful, but trying to be clever and to act intelligently in advising Eve .
It appears that the translators could not fathom a “beast” being capable of whispering or even hissing in any language nor did they believe that it possessed such abilities, but the Bible is filled with verses that do confirm the human qualities of the beasts of the field.
But using a rationale that they only understood, they considered the issue of addressing Eve to be a hiss, and the only creature that they saw as capable of hissing, was a snake, or serpent.
From that one error has come centuries of mistaken views about the corruption of Eve. It has led to such confusion that subsequent faiths and their spin-offs, developed that need for an all-powerful Satan and other nonsensical issues and doctrines.
Was there an ulterior reason for such deviant changes, such mistaken interpretation? Most likely, as the Catholic Church adopted these Pharisaical views – they are not found in Hebrewism.
The Impact of Seed-line theory on Israel
Its Talmudic Origins
The internal doctrinal differences on this issue of the Seed-line will continue as long as the Common Enemy remains in control, in power, those possessing a proclivity towards being the antichrist.
Esau/Edom now sits in the Dominion seat, as was predicted in Genesis 27:40, the last line of Isaac’s comments , but they are yet behaving very surreptitiously, fearful of that Saxon wrath, that in one overwhelming instant, could destroy centuries of calculated deceit and deception that has garnered them such unbelievable levels of power and control.
Are they the anticipated Assyrians, fearful of having their Plans exposed before achieving total dominion? Will this last opportunity again result in the banishment from nations, as over the centuries? Or will it conclude in that cataclysmic event that Jesus stated would occur before His return, when He sends in His angels to “cut, bundle and burn the Tares, before the harvest”? (Matthew 13:39) Does this imply that Jacob cannot resolve this issue on his own and must seek this support from the LORD? Most  surely, as God has told us that “I will have to do it for you.” Thus our reliance on Him is restored, for if we were capable of resolving our troubles, would we then “need” Him?
See what God has to say about this point in Jeremiah 30:3 and His words that provide details of coming events in Jeremiah 30:7-8. There he advises us that our troubles are emerging, but that “Jacob is saved out of it”. In verse 8 are the three things which He does to remove our captors.
Today, the power and control achieved by Esau/Edom stems from being clever and organized, from working in collusion, with a single-mindedness of purpose, following an outline that was conceived in Babylon and persists yet today in the content and intent of their ancient Talmud. The guidelines for their success that quietly remains in the background, as “subtil” as that beast of the Field , never mentioned or noted by Christian Shepherds as the antithesis to the Bible Word, in reality however, the real “antichrist” seen by John – a system rather then a powerful figure. Could it be Gog of Revelation?
It seems that the Talmud is always avoided in sermons, as the age-old “fear of the Jews” appears to be drilled into the Shepherds in Seminary: and if not, comments contrary, antithetical to the Talmud, will subject a recalcitrant Shepherd to censure, even by blinded and duped fellow Christians, the “church goers,” now steeped in blindness from the massive hoax of the ages.
Many have succumbed to these Talmudic influences and clever deceit. Shepherds have been induced to adjust Christian concerns and life-styles so subtly, that these changes emerge as doctrines, when in some cases they are in direct opposition to doctrines of the past – changes accommodating abortion, miscegenation, and sodomy – three current examples of this deception now being “accepted” by misled Churchianity.
It is the same trap into which our Seed-liners have also fallen – fallen for a doctrine that ascribes the genetic seed-line of today ‘s Jews to a Satan by assigning this “Satan”, physical attributes capable of reproduction. Satan they consider to be a spirit but ‘spirits’ cannot manifest such physical attributes, for if they could, then a Satan would be capable of “creating,” a capability never granted to it.
But the question of a Satan/Devil even existing stems from mistaken translations …The Hebrew word “Sawtawn” meaning “Adversary,” was transliterated into the proper noun, “Satan” as was the Greek word “Diabolos” meaning “False Accuser/Adversary”, and to be consistent, the translators “transliterated” this Greek word into another proper noun, “Devil”! Under whose authority did these translators act!
But for sure, there have been other mental delusions over history that have corrupted our people, unorthodox doctrines that in themselves, have “beguiled” our Israelites down avenues of confusion, following as blindly as did Adam, culpable and accessories after the  fact.
Yes, the Talmud of Judaism and other Rabbinic literature the Kabballah and Targums as well, do offer confirmation as being the sources of the doctrine of seed-line. Some confirmation of this Talmudic involvement follows.
Quoting from Jewish Sources:
Found under the title, Sam(m)ael (Satanil, Samil, Satan, Seir, Salmael, etc) is a combination of “sam” meaning poison and “el” meaning angel. In rabinnic literature, Samael is chief of the Satans and the angel of death. In the Secrets of Enoch (Enoch II) he is the prince of demons and a magician. Samael has been regarded both as evil and good; as one of the greatest and as one of the foulest spirits operating in Heaven, on earth and in Hell.
On the one hand he is said to be chief ruler of the 5th Heaven (in Jewish legendary lore his residence is usually placed in the 7th Heaven), one of the seven regents of the world served by 2 million angels; on the other hand, he is “that great serpent with 12 wings that draws after him, in his fall, the solar system.” (Cf. Revelation 12)
Samael is also the angel of death (one of a number of such angels) whom God sent to fetch the soul of Moses when the Lawgiver’s days on earth had come to an end. Talmud Yalkut I, 110, speaks of Samael as Esau’s guardian angel. Sotah 10b speaks of Samael as Edom’s “sar” (angelic prince  guardian).
In the Sayings of Rabbi Eliezer, Samael is charged with being the one (in the guise of a serpent) who tempted Eve, seduced her, and became by her the father of Cain. In the Zohar (Vayishlah 170b), Samael is the dark angel who wrestled with Jacob at Peniel, although Michael, Uriel, Metatron, and others have been identified as this antagonist. Samael is also equated with the satan (i.e. the adversary) who tempted David to number Israel. (Rf. 1 Chronicles 21)
Targum, “Jonathan to the Prophets” renders Genesis 3:6 as: “And the woman saw Samael the angel of death.” This verse is translated in the Paraphrase of Job, 28:7, as: “the path of the Tree of Life” which Samael, who flies like a bird, did not know and which the eye of Eve did not perceive . In Waite, Samael is characterized as the “severity of God” and is listed as 5th of the archangels of the world. But the notion of Fallen angels is not found in the Old Testament. In books like Job, the God-appointed adversary is “ha satan” (meaning “the adversary,” and the title of an office, not the designation or name of an angel.)
The possible exceptions are I Chronicles 21 and II Samuel 24, where Satan seems to emerge as a distinct personality and is identified by name; but scholars are inclined to believe that in these two instances the definite article was inadvertently omitted in translation and that the original read “the satan,” i.e., the “adversary.”
In the New Testament specifically in Revelation 12, the notion of a fallen angel and of fallen angels is spelled out: ”And his (the dragon’s or Satan’s) tail drew the third part of the stars of heaven (angels) and did cast them to earth, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world; he was cast into the earth and his angels were cast out with  him.”
This source goes on to identify Lucifer (light giver) who is erroneously equated with the fallen angel (Satan) due to a misreading of Isaiah 14:12: “How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning,” an apostrophe which applied this verse to Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon. (and not to Satan as the son of the morning!)
Again, we should point out that the authors of the books of the Old Testament knew nothing of fallen or evil angels, and do not mention them, although, at times, as in Job 4:18, the Lord “put no trust” in his servants, and his angels, he “charged them with folly,” which should indicate that angels were not all that they should be.
The name Lucifer was applied by Jerome and other Church fathers, some 200 years after the time of Christ. It is a Latin word and has no original biblical derivation in either Greek or Hebrew.(Indicating that the early Catholic Church had reasons for embellishing Lucifer as well as promoting the doom implied from a created Hell. The biblically illiterate masses were simply more malleable and a more reliable source of economic support derived from induced “fears” of Lucifer and Hell.) (My Words)
(End Quoting From “Fallen Angels” Bibliotheque Nationale reproduced from Regamy, Anges. A Dictionary of Bible Terms.)
This issue of Satanic corruption of Eve is a common thread in the Talmud. Here is only one extract: from Yebamouth, 102a, 103b for what can be considered the foundation of the Seedline doctrine: “Rabbi Johanna said: The Serpent copulated with Eve to infuse her with sensual lust.”
Both Talmuds, the predominant  Babylonian Talmud and the “edited” and “scrubbed” Jerusalem Talmud, reflect the same verbiage. Note also, a characteristic trait that permeates the Talmud: it always states that Rabbi so-and-so, said! Never, does it open with God said, or the LORD said, as this humanist set of severely anti-Christian volumes always refers to some perverted Rabbi or Pharisee for its instructions.
Even later, more modern Jewish publications “recognize” the origin of Cain. The idea that Satan fathered Cain is recorded in The Encyclopedia Britannica on “Jewish Interpretations of Scripture”: “The birth of Cain is ascribed to a union of Satan with Eve.” Vol. VIII, (1910) p.122. Similarly, The Jewish Encyclopedia states as well: “Satan was the seducer and paramour of Eve,” Vol. XI (1905) p.69.
Jewish thought also has convoluted the biblical words of Eve, who announces on the birth of Cain: “I have gotten a man from the Lord.” (KJV) For a new Mother, a proud and satisfying comment! But, the Jewish, “Targum of Jonathan” rewrites this expression to say: “I have acquired a man, the Angel of the lord. And she added to bear from her husband Adam his twin, even Abel…“ Clearly this implies that Satan copulated with Eve producing Cain.
That proper historic biblical comment from Eve is however, characteristic of a woman, particularly after childbirth as this was a “creation” of a Man by herself, which placed her, in her mind, on a par with God. He, the Lord, had created a man and so had she! She was as proud of her accomplishment as God had been of Adam. She may have thought that this event was her redeeming solution for having been induced to disobey the Lord. But, then she was probably as disappointed in Cain as God had been with Adam for his failures.
Assessing the Impact of Seed-line Theory on “blinded in part” Israel
Clearly, it is essential that today’s awakening Israelites not be led into confusion by doctrines that are not firmly established as Christian in basis or acceptance: by doctrines whose sources come rather from enemies of the Faith, the enemies of the Truth of the Identity of Israelites in the world today.
That “blindness in part” of which St. Paul writes in Romans 11:25 is now being lifted, but for those “new” Israelites who are awakening to the truth of themselves, being faced with a confusion of doctrines, some of which are basically Talmudic, only deters and misleads these newly discovered Israelites from a firm recognition of just Who they are, and more importantly, Who they were in the past. Advising an Israelite that his progenitors were those Hebrews who were once “married” to the LORD and recognized as His people forever, His Chosen, and manifest in those nations now considered as ancient Israel.
But if he is then told that he must adopt a doctrine that violates nature, places Adam and Eve in a status that violates the dictum of kind after kind, and projects views that have no biblical proof, this is confusing and misleading to him.
Such theoretical views given to a newly found Israelite deplete the value and denigrate the impact of this new found Identity when asked to accept theoretical doctrines that emerge from sources that are known to be from enemies of the Faith.
It contains no redeeming qualities associated with Salvation, with the Gospel of the Kingdom, and it overlooks the power and planning of the LORD in His resolutions to our problems, as Jesus does seem to imply in Matthew 13, that these “Tares” can only be overcome by the angels, who will be sent in before the harvest to do their work.
Our navigation through this life is much like holding to a selected course for a long flight. Once the course has been measured and the compass course determined; following that compass heading is a prerequisite to reaching the final destination.
If the measured course is in error by only a single degree, or the anticipated winds change direction, or the planning was wrong, or applied in error during the flight, then, over time, the error expands, and the duress heightens until the destination cannot be found without applying a mid-course correction.
The same rationale applies to our personal life and our national progress and direction today – our moral compass is askew and a mid-course correction is necessary as the pressure being applied for change, for restoration, comes via Divine duress upon our People, and signals that the time of “Jacob’s” troubles may be appearing.
When the winds, or the doctrines change, from tail to head, or increase in velocity, when they change direction, when they buffet our flight path, they are like the troubles and confusion that influence this flight path through life. But if our planning and preparation has followed the Word, these headwinds are not reasons to abort the mission to our final destination.
We can make adjustments to accommodate those “changes”, wisdom is supplied when requested; the lessons learned and values earned along the way, provide the hope we have and carry along, the Hope that came from that one “breath of life” He gave to us in selecting His Chosen.
Ministry of the Virginia Christian Israelites, P. O. Box 109, Round Hill, VA 20142 USA
