Vanguard News Network
VNN Media
VNN Digital Library
VNN Reader Mail
VNN Broadcasts


Go Back   Vanguard News Network Forum > News & Discussion > This Just In
Donate Register Multimedia Blogs Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Login

 
Thread Display Modes Share
Old May 15th, 2008 #1
ANSWP Commander
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 2,235
Default Christian Identity's Dual Seedline Theory Originates In The Kabbalah

"The Beasts of the Field are the offspring of the original Serpent who had sexual intercourse with Eve . . . From them came forth Cain who killed Abel. From Cain was descended Jethro, the father-in-law of Moses, as it is written, 'And the sons of the Kenite, the father-in-law of Moses' (Jud. 1, 16), and according to tradition he was called Kenite because he originated from Cain."

That's Zohar (I, 28b) for those playing along at home. To the Jews, the "beasts of the fields" are the Christian "idolators". But to the Christians who studied Rabbinical commentary, a Christian Identity spin emerged.

-----

I was planning, last night, to write an article praising Christian Identity's accidental discovery of some transcendent truths. Instead, while doing some quick research on the dual seedline theory that states that Cain is the spawn of Satan and Eve, not Adam and Eve, I discovered that it originates in the Zohar of the Kabbalah, and not in the Christian Bible.

I'm wondering if anyone would like to state a clear explantion of the translational theory that makes Genesis 4:1 something other than a clear explanation that the act of the creation of Cain was blessed by Yahweh.

-----

http://12.107.40.66/lsn/news.asp?articleID=10761

I recently finished reading "Religion and the Racist Right" by Michael Barkun. I presume he is a Jew. It is a book on Christian Identity and its theology, and while I am not a fan of anti-racist works, I purchased it, very cheap at an overstock sale, because it seemed to provide what the adherents of Christian Identity do not -- a clear explanation of their views. I find that Christian Identity adherents will gather in a room and spend a lot of time discussing thing like Edmoites and Canannites and Esau and Nod, and not tell anyone in the audience what exactly they are referring to. To remedy this, I had to find a Jew to translate, and the Jew I found was Mr Barkun and his book.
The book itself is written in that pseudo-academic style that suits Marxists who know little about their subject matter except that the subject of their matter is wrong. Mr Barkun clearly wrote his book without an understanding of normative views on the complex religious and historical matters he discusses; this is very typical of anti-racists who write about the "far right". As a result, we get a series of occassionally bizarre and ahistorical statements on his part that bring into doubt a lot of his conclusions; or would, if he wasn't writing for an audience that, by and large, is as ignorant as himself. After all, one does not "oppose racism" because one is smart or interesting in thinking freely about controversial topics. Regardless, though, Mr Barkun introduced me to some interesting ideas.

The most interesing idea, because it is new to me, is that of "pre-Adamic races", which is more interesting because it is based on an understanding of Creation that is sophisticated for a group of people who generally have little scholarly knowledge of the Bible. Try discussing the Priestly, Yahwehist, and Deutoronic texts with a Christian Identity adherent and you will get a blank stare; ask about Ezra's role in rewriting the Bible in the 4th Century, and they know few of the details. Barkun takes his subjects to task for misconstruing the philology of certain Hebrew words, but ignores the scholarship that would lead credence to the ideas of two Creations. Like much of Christian Identity, or the other modern Aryan faiths, the believers in pre- Adamic races have stumbled upon an argument more viable than they know it to be.

Also of interest I find the "dual seedline" approach, which Mr Barkun fails to deconstruct with a simple Bible reference, or discuss any of the approaches that Christian Identity has taken to rewrite the Bible to suit their fancy. Ironically, this argument, which is a classic Jewish racial argument reportedly dating back to the Midrash, and finding its modern origins in the Zohar of the Kabbalah, is probably something Barkun, for all his studying of it, probably doesn't want examined in depth.

There are two different accounts of Creation in the Bible. The first, in Genesis I, has the universe created in seven days, animals created before men, and man created in Elohim's image. The second, in Genesis II, has Adam and Eve, created before the animals, and with Yahweh making Eve from Adam's rib. The reason for this is that the two Creation stories were originally in two separate books, one used by Judah -- the Yahwehist text -- and one from Israel -- the Elohim or Priestly text. The Gods referred to are likely different Gods, and both stories are likely borrowings from different people. The fact that they are inconsistent and irreconciliable as a single act of Creation has been a problem of Christianity that the Catholic Church chose to suppress and many non-Catholics have only begun to deal with.

Julius Evola, in his discussion of anthropogenesis -- the origin of man -- in Revolt Against the Modern World, discusses the idea of Negroes as the product of degeneration. The Darwinist idea of Time as progress is reflective of a mentality peculiar to the modern age, and hardly universal; the science that has derived from it -- evolution in particular -- is a theory reflective of the cultural soul (or black void in substitute thereof) that defines modernism; such a notion would be unbelievable to a culture with a different perspective of Time and its meaning. To the Traditional view, in which Time is the Destroyer, and that the passage of Time brings degeneration, not evolution, lower forms of life, such as Negroes, are degenerations from human beings, and perhaps from Gods. Evola speaks of a Tradition of man as a pure spiritual being, whose materialization represents a degeneration from Godliness; in such a world view, Negroes represent degenerate human potentiality, if not the products of a separate Creation. They are white men whose intellect, physical ability, and emotional and spiritual existence never fully materialized, and has been permanently lost to them.

Barkun points out that some Christian Identity adherents have adopted the Mormon belief in inter-galactic warfare and Lucifer and Christ flying around in spaceships as a possible origin of man; this we can ignore, quoting Barkun's co-religionists, "Joseph Smith he was a propher, dumb dumb dumb dumb dumb".

Instead, in a moment of clarity, Christian Identity preaches that the pre- Adamic creation was the creation of the Negroes and Asiatics, and that the Adamic creation was that of the Aryan race, the "true Israel", which they place as having come into existence on the plateaus of Central Asia. While probably misjudging the ultimate origin of Hyperborean man, in this, they in accordance with the medieval view of Paradise, based upon the location of the Oxus, and are not far from a normative interpretation of Bible doctrine. (Of course, given that learned opinion of the the rivers of Paradise include among them every river from the Nile to the Oxus to the Ganges, Paradise itself becomes, in such a context, a meaningless notion comprising the entirety of what is now the Arab and Persian world, from Egypt to Afghanistan, and thus all such interpretation are clearly wrong, unless some people prior to the Timurid Empire and the Mongolia of the Great Khan can be shown to have governed such an expanse.)

But regardless of Creation, two Creations, from two separate races that one people, the Jews, borrowed form, is codified in the Bible, and to claim otherwise is a bit foolish. The second creation, from the Yahwehist text, goes on to discuss Cain, who becomes the basis of the second bit of Christian Identity doctrine.

Here we go into some of the Talmudic deviations from Christian doctrine that, ironically, define much of Christian Identity belief. Whether true or not, or correct interpretations or not, they parallel or find their origins in Talmudic stories which many link to Cromwell and his involvement of Rabbinical authorities in the formulation of seventeenth century British Protestantism. The first of these deviations is the seduction of Eve in the Garden of Eden; the second is the meaning of the Mark of Cain.

The Talmud has Lillith seducing Adam in the Garden of Eden, and producing from the emission of his semen, perhaps in a mastubatory act, "ghosts and male demons and female demons", with an explanation in typical convoluted Jewish "logic" that "for it is said in Scripture, And Adam lived a hundred and thirty years and begot a son in own likeness, after his own image, from which it follows that until that time he did not beget after his own image." In Aryan logic that's called a non sequitur, but to the Jews, its the truth. Ironically, Lillith's only appearance in the Bible, where she has been translated away as a "screech owl", is in reference to the destruction of Edom, Isaiah 34:14 "And met have Ziim with Aiim, And the goat for its companion calleth, Only there rested hath Lillith, And hath found for herself a place of rest."

But more important to Christian Identity is the much later 12th Century AD Zohar of the Jewish Kabbalah, where the story about the beasts of the field originating in the Seduction of Eve began:

"The Beasts of the Field are the offspring of the original Serpent who had sexual intercourse with Eve . . . From them came forth Cain who killed Abel. From Cain was descended Jethro, the father-in-law of Moses, as it is written, 'And the sons of the Kenite, the father-in-law of Moses' (Jud. 1, 16), and according to tradition he was called Kenite because he originated from Cain."

That's Zohar (I, 28b) for those playing along at home. To the Jews, the "beasts of the fields" are the Christian "idolators". But to the Christians who studied Rabbinical commentary, a Christian Identity spin emerged.

Unfortunately, this event does not occur in the Biblical text, which reads:

"And the man knew Eve his wife, and she conceiveth and beareth Cain, and saith, 'I have gotten a man by Jehovah;'"

That does not imply Cain is the seed of Satan. To correct this, Christian Identity adherents have done what generations of Jewish Rabbis did when they encountere something Biblical they didn't like -- they rewrote it to read:

"Adam returned to Eve his wife; after she had conceived and given birth to Cain, and said, I have brought forth a male in violation of Yahweh."

Now why do they argue this is the correct translation? It involves a lot of yelling about how King James was a homosexual and inappopriate references to "Chaldean" originals, which do not actually exist. In reality, the Christian Identity preachers have simply made a mistake out of ignorance of Hebrew, and they have done it to cover up the fact they have borrowed a belief from the Kabblah nearly whole cloth. What makes it worse is that much of the dual seedline argument which follows, with its anlaysis of figures such as Shelah, child of the union of Judah and a Canaanite, follows from the same Kabbalistic scriptures.

This kind of logic is what prevents Christian Identity from growing; its adherents rewrite the Bible in an incorrect manner, with no reasonable basis, then wonder why their followers convert.

The much better argument for the dual seedline is from Genesis 3:15:

"And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel."

Which many Rabbis have taught, for thousands of years, refers to the division between the Jews and the Gentiles, though often with convulted assertions about the creation of two Adams and other nonsense thrown in.

So the "dual seedline" argument has to be rejected as a-Biblical, as the actual Bible says that Cain was a son of Adam, blessed by Yahweh, and not by the Devil, unless you believe Yahweh is the demon-God Typhon (see National Socialist March 2008), which casts everything in an entirely different light.

Barkun's book is an interesting investigation of Christian Identity, though his perspective is that of an outsider and his references and efforts to contextualize modern figures, like Tom Metzger, as players in such a movement are off base, and show the limits of the general knowledge he would have needed to understand the "movement" he was discussing. His review of Christian Identity doctrines is superficial, though his discussion of the politics behind the idea that Germans are "Assyrians" in British Israelism is enlightening. He writes on a subject in which I have deep interest, if not least of all because my conversations with CI adherents often end with "I believe only in the text of the Bible and all that history and stuff outside of it I don't even bother to study." For years, I've known these people must believe something that is not completely irrational -- but yet I've been in the dark as to what it was.

For those unfamiliar with Christian Identity, Barkun's book is a good beginning. For those familiar, its inadequate. Such can be said about most Jew-Marxist efforts to understand "the movement" from the outside, and we can only hope that one day the "movement" will produce objective observes to write similar studies of ourselves from a perspective more pleasing and informative.
 
Old May 15th, 2008 #2
richyrichard
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Southeast Texas
Posts: 933
Default

Unfortunately, CI adherents seem to accept the bizarre writings of Dr. Wesley Swift which I find to be most repugnant: the pre-Adamic race nonsense, and the vulgar assertion that Lucifer impregnated Eve with Cain. Ugh!

Since there is nothing in the Bible to support any concept or claim to any pre-Adamic people, I shall not waste time and effort refuting it.

As for the origin of Cain: I think the KJV is as clear as anything could be that both Abel and Cain were conceived by, and born of, Adam and Eve. Adam "knew" his wife and she bare Cain, end of story. It is also clear, I think, that the law of tithing was implemented and that such a law demands payment of the first fruits. It says that Abel offered the "firstlings of his flock". Cain, however, apparently gave Jehovah the left-overs, not the first fruits. His offering was thus rejected. God then cursed Cain by putting a "mark" on him which I believe, as many do, was the negro features. Hence the origin of Cain is explained there. Due to inter-breeding, the Mongolian race later developed as essentially freaks of nature. The fact that the names of three rivers are mentioned there only indicates that the account was written later by someone else, allegedly Moses who refered to the rivers by the names used at the time he wrote the books.

As for the two creations: to get right to the point, one is spiritual and the other temporal. As it says in the 5th verse of Chapter 2, following the creation detailed in the 1st Chapter,"...and every plant of the field before it grew, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the Lord God had not caused it to rain upon the earth and there was not a man to till the ground." From an ancient papyrus that was found in a mummy somewhere, and translated by Joseph Smith, the same verse reads a little differently, specifically referring to the first creation as a spiritual creation and the second one as the physical creation. Obviously, none of this is CI.

The forbidden fruit refers to the knowledge of "good and evil", not sex as Swift repulsively asserts.

After having waded through so many writings on British Israelism and the writings of Pastor Sheldon Emry, I got perplexed and decided to write a simple booklet that refers to all the Biblical scriptures used to identify the tribes of Israel but without all the long-winded lah-de-dah that fills seemingly endless pages of repetitive quotes of scriptures usually written in bold type. I quote the one scripture in the Apocrypha that alludes to the escape of Israel from Assyria and then insert some revelations from Raymond Capt. I then conclude with the affirmation that the Aryan tribes are Israel and that the "jews" are Edomites, quoting the usual scriptures to support that claim as well. My booklet is not CI as such. It simply uses the Bible and secular history to identiy Israel today and to expose the Jews as imposters. I titled it, "The Secret of the Great White Race". I'll mail a copy to you.

The Mormon belief in the "war in heaven" is simply a reference to the pre-earth life when we existed spiritually. Satan and 1/3 of God's children rebelled and were cast down without the privilege of obtaining bodies. They exist as spirits to tempt man and lead him astray. Satan is a spirit-being who, therefore, could not have had sex with Eve. He "spoke" to her through the mouth of a dragon.

Last edited by richyrichard; May 16th, 2008 at 08:39 PM.
 
Old May 16th, 2008 #3
Pathogen
Junior Member
 
Pathogen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Asheville NC
Posts: 100
Pathogen
Default

Honestly, I don't think that Biblical genealogies provide a very useful source for understanding worldwide racial variety. What about the Aborigines? Neanderthal etc? Is it all in the Bible?

I'm not a Biblical scholar but I can read the passages in Genesis and there are two creation stories and thus two different creations for Man. Is it possible the second creation story is just a telescoping of the first? It seems hard to justify.

Without the testimony in the Bible we know that blacks are ignorant, that Jews are malicious, and that Whites are the most beautiful, so this obsession with Biblical genealogies isn't going to tell us something we already didn't know.

That said, trying to discern the origin of the Hebrew people is interesting and important. When did the Jew first start to come into existence? I've always been skeptical of the Khazar origin for modern Ashkenazic Jewry, but it's a subject worth looking into.
__________________
Dies irae, dies illa,
solvet saeclum in favilla,
 
Old May 16th, 2008 #4
Charles Martel
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: The origins of jewish egalitarianism lies within the precepts of christianity itself.
Posts: 1,533
Angry

The rotten jews filthy concepts were stolen from earlier pagan sects, some of which the jew was subservient to, some not. Its all lies. Book of Psalms from Ankhenatons Hymn to the Sun, The 10 commandments from the Egyptian Book of the dead, Countless other Zoroastrian and Sumerian ideological thefts...Most folks on this board that are not jews have no idea.
We come from our own tribal backgrounds that have been all but destroyed by the jew. Look the fuck around you! How many of you reading this can even recall any of your racially historical belief systems (pre 700 AD). Those are a part of you whether you like it or not.
And you don't even know what I am talking about as you read this. This jew indoctrination we've been led to believe is "our faith" is fucking bullshit. All of it. A cult of weakness and "bending over for the kike".
We've been jewed so fucking badly we don't even know who the fuck we are anymore. And I've had enough of it.

Last edited by Charles Martel; May 16th, 2008 at 04:14 AM.
 
Old May 16th, 2008 #5
6KILLER
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Somewhere between lost & found traveling @ a high rate of speed.
Posts: 1,256
Default

THE PROBLEM WITH
GENESIS 4:1
Many may reply, "I didn’t know there was a question concerning that verse." Unless one understands that the Hebrew is badly corrupted on this passage, he will, like most everyone else who has ever read it, arrive at a mistaken conclusion. Before we start an evaluation to discover the ramifications, let’s read it according to the KJV: "And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the Lord."
Most people will respond upon reading this, "That’s perfectly clear, Adam was the father of Cain." If that’s also been your interpretation, I hate to rain on your parade! Unless one can fathom the true significance of Genesis 4:1, much of the balance of Scripture will remain a mystery. To show you that the Hebrew at Genesis 4:1 is indeed corrupted, I will use the following two witnesses:
The Interpreter’s Bible, a twelve volume collaborative work of 36 ‘consulting editors’, plus 124 other ‘contributors’, makes the following observation on this verse, volume 1, page 517: "Cain seems originally to have been the ancestor of the Kenites ... The meaning of the name is ‘metalworker’ or ‘smith’; here, however, it is represented as a derivation of a word meaning ‘acquire’, ‘get’ — one of the popular etymologies frequent in Genesis — hence the mother’s words I have gotten a man. [period] From the Lord (KJV) is a rendering, following the LXX and Vulg., of ’eth Yahweh, which is literally, ‘with Yahweh’, and so unintelligible here (the help of [RSV] is not in the Hebrew). It seems probable that ’eth should be ’oth — so, ‘the mark of Yahweh’ — and that the words are a gloss ..."
Secondly, The Interpreter’s One-Volume Commentary On The Bible, edited by Charles M. Laymon, makes the following comment on this passage, on page 6: "... under circumstances which are obscure (vs. 1b can scarcely be translated, still less understood). His younger brother was named Abel, which suggests the Hebrew word for breath."
Therefore, if Genesis 4:1 is "unintelligible" and "can scarcely be translated, still less understood", how can one prove anything by quoting it? Additionally, if the words are a gloss, where is the foundation for such a premise? It should then be quite obvious that we need to look somewhere else for the answer. Fortunately, we do have other sources, but there are those who refuse to allow them in spite of the corrupted Hebrew.
At this point, I will quote a few passages which most of the anti-seedliners claim are "Jewish" sources, and according to them should be discredited along with and including the Talmud. Inasmuch as the Torah & Old Testament are the first volume of the Talmud, then by their perverted line-of-reasoning we would have to discard the entire Old Testament from our Bibles. (How absurd!) First, in the Aramaic Targum (Aramaic was merely one of the languages which Messiah and his disciples knew),called pseudo-Jonathan, on Genesis 3:6, which is unique inasmuch as it identifies the angel Sammael as the "serpent":
"And the woman saw Sammael, the angel of death, and she was afraid and knew that the tree was good for food, and that it was a remedy for the enlightenment of the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise. She took of its fruit and ate and also gave (it) to her husband and he ate."
Again, they will also condemn the Aramaic Targum pseudo-Jonathan, on Genesis 4:1: "And Adam knew that his wife Eve had conceived from Sammael the Angel (of death) and she became pregnant and bore Cain. And he was like those on high and not like those below. And she said: ‘I have got a man from the angel of the LORD.’"
This rendition of Genesis 4:1 is interesting, for it speaks of the "angel of death" plus "like those on high" and "like those below." This seems to accord with John 8:23, where Yahshua told the Canaanite variety of "Jews": "... Ye are from beneath; and I am from above: ye are of this world; I am not of this world." Satan was on high until his fall, when he fell like lightning; Luke 10:18.
The Palestinian Targum to Genesis 4:1: "And Adam knew his wife Eve, who had desired the Angel; and she conceived, and bare Cain; and she said, I have acquired a man, the angel of the Lord ..."
In another Rabbinic work: Pirke de Rabbi Eliezer, 21: "And she saw that his likeness was not of earthly beings, but of the heavenly beings, and she prophesied and said: I have gotten a man from the Lord."
It would appear from those references that the problem with Genesis 4:1 is an omission of some of the words of the Hebrew text. I will now quote Genesis 4:1 from the King James Version and I will add the potentially needed words in italics from the Targum of Jonathan so it will make some sense:
"And Adam knew his wife Eve, who was pregnant by Sammael, and she conceived and bare Cain, and he was like the heavenly beings, and not like earthly beings, and she said, I have gotten a man from the angel of the Lord."
While one might not like the source of the Aramaic Targums, still he must concede that this evidence brings the Scriptures into context, and many Hebrew scholars recognize this.
One such scholar is Clarke’s Commentary, volume 1, page 58, and he suggests a contextual problem with Genesis 4:1 as opposed to 1st John 3:12, and being aware that the meaning of the Greek word "wicked" in this instance means "Satan" says the following: "... Unless she had been under Divine inspiration she could not have called her son (even supposing him to be the promised seed) Jehovah; and that she was not under such an influence her mistake sufficiently proves, for Cain, so far [remote] from being the Messiah, was of the wicked one; 1st John 3:12 ..."
THE GENESIS 3:15 & 4:1 CONNECTION
Unless Genesis 4:1 is properly comprehended, one simply will not be able to grasp Genesis 3:14-15. Before delving into this second passage, let’s take a look at it in the KJV: "14 And Yahweh said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life: 15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel."
The Wycliffe Bible Commentary has a better than average interpretation of Genesis 3:14-15: "14. Cursed(<aµruĆr) art thou. The Lord singled out the originator and instigator of the temptation for special condemnation and degradation. From that moment he must crawl in the dust and even feed on it. He would slither his way along in disgrace, and hatred would be directed against him from all directions. Man would always regard him as a symbol of the degradation of the one who had slandered God (cf. Isaiah 65:25). He was to represent not merely the serpent race, but the power of the evil kingdom. As long as life continued, men would hate him and seek to destroy him. 15. I will put enmity. The word <eĆbaĆ denotes the blood-feud that runs deepest in the heart of man (cf. Numbers 35:19, 20; Ezekiel 25:15-17; 35:5, 6). Thou shalt bruise(shuĆp). A prophecy of a continuing struggle between the descendants of the woman and of the serpent to destroy each other. The verb shuĆpis rare (cf. Job 9:17; Psalms 139:11). It is the same in both clauses. When translated crush, it seems appropriate to the reference concerning the head of the serpent, but not quite so accurate in describing the attack of the serpent on man’s heel. It is also rendered lie in wait for, aim at, or (LXX) watch for. The Vulgate renders it conteret, ‘bruise,’ in the first instance and insidiaberis, ‘lie in wait,’ in the other clause. Thus, we have in this famous passage, called the protevangelium, ‘first gospel,’ the announcement of a prolonged struggle, perpetual antagonism, wounds on both sides, and eventual victory for the seed of woman. God’s promise that the head of the serpent was to be crushed pointed forward to the coming of Messiah and guaranteed victory. This assurance fell upon the ears of God’s earliest creatures as a blessed hope of redemption."
Notice Wycliffe on verse 14, where he comments: "From that moment he must crawl in the dust and even feed on it."This became a literal fulfillment in history when the "Jews" rummaged through city dumps throughout Europe to find anything that could be repaired and peddled again to others. Not only that, but they are famous for their involvement in junkyards and landfills. Literally, they have made a business living off the refuse, filthiness and immorality of this world.
Further, Wycliffe adds: "He would slither his way along in disgrace, and hatred would be directed against him from all directions. Man would always regard him as a symbol of the degradation of the one who had slandered God ... He was to represent not merely the serpent race, but the power of the evil kingdom." [emphasis mine] Indeed, this is a very exemplary portrayal of the descendants of Cain.
Also notice Wycliffe’s comment in verse 15, "It is also rendered lie in wait for, aim at, or (LXX) watch for." This is interesting for, when Yahweh spoke to Cain in Genesis 4:6-7 and said to him: "6 And Yahweh said unto Cain, Why art thou wroth? and why is thy countenance fallen? 7 If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door ..." The words "sin", "lieth" and "door" describe Cain’s natural genetic demeanor, and have nothing to do with a personal decision as so many claim. For instance, the meaning of the word "lieth" is described by Strong’s as follows:
Lieth — #7257 râbats, raw-bats’: a primitive root; to crouch (on all four legs folded, like a recumbent animal); by implication to recline, repose, brood, lurk, imbed: — crouch (down), fall down, make a fold, lay, (cause to, make to) lie (down), make to rest, sit.
Inasmuch as Genesis 3:15 speaks of a war between the seed (descendants) of the woman and the seed (descendants) of the serpent, this portrayal of the "seed of the serpent" is very fitting, and is manifested in the children of Cain, or the Canaanite variety of the "Jews." Notice how Wycliffe depicts this Two Seedline war: "... the announcement of a prolonged struggle, perpetual antagonism, wounds on both sides, and eventual victory for the seed of woman." That war has been going on now for about 7,500 years. The major agenda of the "serpent" descendants of Cain is to totally destroy the "seed of the woman." Anyone who doesn’t understand the protevangelium simply hasn’t the slightest idea what is going on in the world today!
With this enlightenment on Genesis 4:1, everything else falls into its proper place, and all the supporting Scriptures for Two Seedline doctrine fit together very nicely. There can be little reasonable doubt as to the correct meaning of all the interlocking passages to Genesis 3:15. The Protevangelion 10:1-7 now squares with the Bible when it says (Mary’s Joseph speaking); The Lost Books of The Bible and The Forgotten books of Eden:
"1 And when her sixth month was come, Joseph returned from his building houses abroad, which was his trade, and entering into the house, found the Virgin grown big: 2 Then smiting upon his face, he said, With what face can I look up to the Lord my God? or, what shall I say concerning this young woman? 3 For I received her a Virgin out of the temple of the Lord my God! and have not preserved her such! 4 Who has thus deceived me? Who has committed this evil in my house, and seducing the Virgin from me, hath defiled her? 5 Is not the history of Adam exactly accomplished in me? 6 For in the very instant of his glory, the serpent came and found Eve alone, and seduced her. 7 Just after the same manner it has happened to me ..." [emphasis mine]
John 8:44 now becomes quite comprehensible. There can be little logical question, then, that Messiah was speaking of the scribes and Pharisees as being the literal genetic descendants of Satan through Cain. The Smith & Goodspeed translation renders John 8:44 like this:
"The devil is the father you are sprung from, and you want to carry out your father’s wishes. He was a murderer from the first, and he has nothing to do with truth, for there is no truth in him. When he tells a lie, he speaks in his true character, for he is a liar and the father of them."
This leaves little reasonable doubt that when Messiah identified the scribes and Pharisees as being guilty of all the blood from Abel to Zacharias, then they could be none other than the literal lineage of Cain, Luke 11:49-51.
Also, Josephus Wars 2:8:2 becomes clear: "For there are three philosophical sects among the Judeans. The followers of the first of whom are the Pharisees; of the second the Sadducees; and the third sect, who pretends to a severer discipline, are called Essen[e]s. These last are Judah by birth, and seem to have a greater affection for one another than the other sects have."
From this, it would appear that of these three sects mentioned; only the Essenes could essentially claim to be pure blooded Israelites of the Tribe of Judah. Why didn’t Josephus mention the Pharisees and Sadducees as being Jews by birth? Is it possible the Bible is correct when it says at Revelation 2:9 and 3:9: "... and I know the blasphemy of them which say they are Jews [Judah], and are not, but are the synagogue of Satan ... Behold, I will make them of the synagogue of Satan, which say they are Jews [Judah], and are not, but do lie ..."?
Not only did Yahshua the Messiah accuse the scribe and Pharisee "Jews" of lying about their lineage, but He also told them in plain, unadulterated language they were not of his sheepfold; John 10:26-27: "26 But ye believe not, because ye are not my sheep, as I said unto you. 27 My sheep hear my voice and I know them, and they follow me."
Context means the entire Bible, not just a small passage. Disagreement with the entire context suggests scribal or translation problems. Sometimes, context must take precedence over the Hebrew or Greek letter.
 
Old May 16th, 2008 #6
Klaliffia
Old School Klansman
 
Klaliffia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Iowa
Posts: 212
Klaliffia
Default

Nice research 6killer. You ever study any of Pastor Eli's work? I just finished reading the Great Impersonation, excellant work.
__________________
"As revolutionary instruments (when nothing but revolution will cure the evils of the State) [secret societies] are necessary and indispensable, and the right to use them is inalienable by the people." --Thomas Jefferson to William Duane, 1803. FE 8:256
 
Old May 16th, 2008 #7
Klaliffia
Old School Klansman
 
Klaliffia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Iowa
Posts: 212
Klaliffia
Default

By the way, shouldnt this thread be moved to opposing veiws?
__________________
"As revolutionary instruments (when nothing but revolution will cure the evils of the State) [secret societies] are necessary and indispensable, and the right to use them is inalienable by the people." --Thomas Jefferson to William Duane, 1803. FE 8:256
 
Old May 16th, 2008 #8
ANSWP Commander
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 2,235
Default

Very nice essay, but simply incorrect, incomplete, and, most ironically, derived entirely from the Talmud.

The correct way to challenge the interpretation of the verse would be to look up the original, which is eighth century north kingdom Hebrew, and translate it.

Instread, the author here looks up Talmudic commentaries on the verse, and, worse, Kabbalic commentaries on the verse, which are, to say the least, notoriously inaccurate, then, without checking their assertions against the original, uses their interpolations to rewrite the verse to say the opposite of what it says in plain English.

In short, the version of dual seedline Christian Identity that says Cain is descended from the Devil is a form of Talmudic Jewry. Really, its Kabbalism, but the Kabbalah did buils on the Midrashic interpretations.

The method beind used means that Christian Identity, if it was being consistant, would have to accept a variety of other interpretations of the Bible as well, from accepting that Jesus was the bastard son of a raped Mary to believing it is okay to rape three year old girls. While some of that may come out here on VNN, its incorrect.

Why do no Christian Identity people ever just translate Bible verses from the Hebrew, if they really want to rewrite the book? Is it because the scholarship just isn't there?

I don't know if, at this point, a debate on the authority of the targum in Jewry is appropriate, because I'm startig to feel like a Rabbi. If Christian Identity is based on post-Christian, eleventh to thirteenth century Rabbinical commentaries, is it still Christian?

Last edited by ANSWP Commander; May 16th, 2008 at 09:04 AM.
 
Old May 16th, 2008 #9
ANSWP Commander
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 2,235
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Klaliffia View Post
By the way, shouldnt this thread be moved to opposing veiws?
I think the vast majority of VNNers oppose Christianity. I do not join them in that.

However, pointing out that a major trend of "white" nationalism is actually Jeiwsh Kabbalism is not an opposing view. Once we recognize that Christian Identity Klansmen are actually practicing Jewish Kabbalism, it explains why they spend so much time denouncing Hitler, National Socialism and white racialism.

Its amazing you guys survived the Holocaust. You should start your own museum.
 
Old May 16th, 2008 #10
ANSWP Commander
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 2,235
Default

Here's Genesis 4:1 in the original Hebrew:

http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0104.htm

וְהָאָדָם, יָדַע אֶת-חַוָּה אִשְׁתּוֹ; וַתַּהַר, וַתֵּלֶד אֶת-קַיִן, וַתֹּאמֶר, קָנִיתִי אִישׁ אֶת-יְהוָה.

I don't know that I have time right now, but I will grab some of my books and translate it if it will help this debate, though it may be this evening before I can do so.

However, since you are an expert on Bible translations, Klaliff, I'm sure you'll be able to just point out where

Last edited by ANSWP Commander; May 16th, 2008 at 09:33 AM.
 
Old May 16th, 2008 #11
ANSWP Commander
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 2,235
Default

So:

This אֶת-חַוָּה 'ak-ave' is "Eve," and this אֶת-קַיִן 'ak-kin' is "Cain", and this אֶת-יְהוָה 'ak-ava' is "Yahweh".

Just translating the letters, I get something like:

Zhakm, ha "Eve" asho; ohhr, ohld "Cain", oh amr, "khihi ais "Yahweh"'

So, the question is, what do the words in the middle mean?

There are no other proper names in the verse, as the proper names all have that "ak" in front of them.

Anyone want to tackle the rest of it? I think it got butchered when I copied and pasted, but I think intelligent folk can figure this out.

I also don't see any word in there that looks like "oth" or "eth", unless its this little "אֶת" before each proper name.

Last edited by ANSWP Commander; May 16th, 2008 at 09:39 AM.
 
Old May 16th, 2008 #12
WernerS
Junior Member
 
WernerS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: California
Posts: 49
WernerS
Default

This thread should be in the Theology section. Except VNN doesn't have a Theology section, just a history and religion section which is something else.

You guys need to learn from Stormfront. We found that, what with the Catholics, Orthodox, Protestants, Christian Identity, Odinists, atheists, even Buddhists and Vedantists, Scientologists - the list goes on and on, that having religious discussions (read raging contentious arguments) outside of the Theology section is very divisive and counter-productive. The arguments will only end up being non-ending, unresolvable battles between two utterly tenacious sides. Doesn't help the cause!

Believe me, there is little or no upside to religious arguments on a White Nationalist board that are not in a Theology area.

(Don't mind me. I'm just a visiting Stormfronter who adds his two cents from time to time)
 
Old May 16th, 2008 #13
ANSWP Commander
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 2,235
Default

Well, first, you're a Stormfronter, which may answer this question, but:

Doesn't it bother you that a major and majorly hostile and anti-social element of the white-ish movement is preaching the Talmud as a "white" doctrine?

There is a certain segment of these Christian Identity Klansmen who are radically opposed to National Socialism, demonize Hitler and generally support, well, exactly what Stormfront stands for -- anti-racist philo-Semitism masquerading as white nationalism.

Why do they do this?

Its because their ideology is Talmudic Jewry, and they are, in a more fundamental way than they know, the "children of Israel", as they work directly for the agenda of the Zionist Occupation of Palestine. We should call them "children of ZOG".

Any "white" nationalist that teaches a Jewish ideology or that teaches any opposition to National Socialism-- whether Don Black and Jared Taylor, or the anti-Hitler CI types (which are not all CI types) -- is not part of "the movement", and should be considered as and treated as a Jew.

Quote:
Originally Posted by WernerS View Post
This thread should be in the Theology section. Except VNN doesn't have a Theology section, just a history and religion section which is something else.
 
Old May 16th, 2008 #14
Klaliffia
Old School Klansman
 
Klaliffia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Iowa
Posts: 212
Klaliffia
Default

So bw takes the written word of a (supposed joo) over the decades of study by devoted Pastors of CI? Why would you come on here to make your statement instead of to a CI forum where you know your questions could be answered by a knowledgable Pastor? Easy, to continue to tear the movement apart in any and every way you can. You know that about 85% of vnners are not into religion except maybe pagan or odinism.



Who are the Enemies of Christendom?
Nah 1:2
God [is] jealous, and the LORD revengeth; the LORD revengeth, and [is] furious; the LORD will take vengeance on his adversaries, and he reserveth [wrath] for his enemies.

This would seem to be a difficult question for many supposed "Christians" to be able to answer, but a "True" Israelite would have no problem elaborating using Scripture to prove the facts!

2Sa 22:41 Thou hast also given me the necks of mine enemies, that I might destroy them that hate me.

The Bible very definently sets a precedent for Lawbreakers, or just the generally hateful.

But who would YHWH consider to be hateful?
or more importantly...

What constitutes an "Enemy" of YHWH or Yahshua (Christ)?
(Referenced verses in parenthesis are only examplatory of many available within the confines of Inspired Scripture)

Those who would attempt to rise against His glory, and fulfill their demonic lusts, and carnal nature are the Enemies of Christ!
Rom 8:7, 1Cr 10:6, Jam 1:15

Those who preach hatred of His Word, and hatred of Yahshua (Christ) are the enemies of Christ!
Jdg 2:13, Rev 18:5, Lev 18:21

Those born of the Cain-Satanic seedline are the enemies of Christ! (Those called Jews today)
Gen 3:15, John 8:44, Mat 3:7, Mat 12:34, Mat 23:33, Luk 3:7, 1Jo 3:12, Jud 1:11

Those who take advantage of their Brethren, and are deceitful in their words are the enemies of Christ!
Jer 9:5, Jer 29:8, Mat 24:4, Mat 24:5, Mat 24:11, Rom 16:18

Those who violate His "Unchanging Laws" are the enemies of Christ!
Mat 5:18 , Luk 16:17

Those who attempt to "water down" his message to make it more acceptable to others are the enemies of Christ!
Mat 7:15, Mat 24:11, Mat 24:24, Mar 13:22, Luk 6:26, 2Pe 2:1, 1Jo 4:1

Those who take up refuge within a believer's household, yet have lied to gain favor with them, or attempt to usurp
authority within their household are in direct violation of YHWH's Laws. This is an enemy of Christ!
Jer 32:34,

Those who seek to put things out of their Natural Order, and raise chaos within the confines of polite society are the enemies of Christ!
Num 14:9, Jos 1:18, Lev 18:21

Those who choose willingly to remain in the "darkness", and never accept the "Truth" of YHWH's Word, are the enemies of Christ!
Jhn 1:5, Rev 3:16
__________________
"As revolutionary instruments (when nothing but revolution will cure the evils of the State) [secret societies] are necessary and indispensable, and the right to use them is inalienable by the people." --Thomas Jefferson to William Duane, 1803. FE 8:256
 
Old May 16th, 2008 #15
ANSWP Commander
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 2,235
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Klaliffia View Post
So bw takes the written word of a (supposed joo) over the decades of study by devoted Pastors of CI? Jhn 1:5, Rev 3:16
Excuse me, you're the one quoting the Talmud and commentaries on the Talmud.

The Hebrew I posted below is the text of the Bible, as of the latest compendium of it circa 400 BC. Do you not believe the Bible was written in Hebrew? Was language was it written in? What words are your pastors interpreting?

What you posted was a commentary on the Talmud published in Yemen by a Rabbi circa 1100 AD.

The "pastors of CI" you are citing have been studying the Talmud and the Kabbalah -- which is why dual seedline Christian Identity is Pharisaic Judaism.

Other than showing the intellectual bankruptcy of Christian Identity, I don't see where you're going with this.
 
Old May 16th, 2008 #16
OTPTT
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 9,896
Default

The origin of the two seed lines: Adamic and Satanic originates in the book of Genesis.

And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Genesis 2:9

The tree of the knowledge of good and evil was the family tree or race tree. God commanded Adam and Eve not to mix with the other mongrel races that were on the earth long before they were created. God commanded them to keep their race pure but they disobeyed. One could say they were the original race mixers.

And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel. Genesis 3:15

The original meaning in the White Hebrew language, not the current day bastard language used by Jews and also known as "Hebrew" but in reality is Babylonian, of the term "seed" means is the same when identifying both the woman's seed and the serpent's seed. It literally means offspring, children.

Strong's Hebrew and Greek Dictionaries.
H2233
זרע
zera‛
zeh'-rah
From H2232; seed; figuratively fruit, plant, sowing time, posterity: - X carnally, child, fruitful, seed (-time), sowing-time.

This is the origin of the the Satanic seed line of the Jews. Cain was driven out from the land of the pure Adamic race and he and his progeny further mixed their blood lines with the other mongrel races that were present in the land in which he subsequently inhabited.

The existence of peoples and races before the creation of the White Adamic race is evidenced by the following Scripture.

And Cain said unto the LORD, My punishment is greater than I can bear. Behold, thou hast driven me out this day from the face of the earth; and from thy face shall I be hid; and I shall be a fugitive and a vagabond in the earth; and it shall come to pass, that every one that findeth me shall slay me. Genesis 4:13-14

Adam and Eve could not have born these other peoples ("every one that findeth me") as it would have been a physical impossibility.

The Bible, and a proper understanding of its truths, isn't complicated. YWHW made it very easy for even the most simple man or woman to understand it. Otherwise it would have defeated the purpose of coming to a correct and knowledgeable understanding of YWHW and his purpose for the White Adamic race.
 
Old May 16th, 2008 #17
ANSWP Commander
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 2,235
Default

What you're arguing is not actually Cain-ite dual seedline, but pre-Adamic races.

There are three major variants of Christian Identity racial theory:

1) Pre-Adamic Races

2) Dual Seedline

3) Edomite corruption

And then a minor variant on Cain which you are bringing forward.

Right now, I'm sticking with discussion of the Genesis 4:1 version of Dual Seedline-ism. Maybe we need another thread for the "corruption of Cain" variant.

Quote:
Originally Posted by OTPTT View Post
The origin of the two seed lines: Adamic and Satanic originates in the book of Genesis.

And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Genesis 2:9

The tree of the knowledge of good and evil was the family tree or race tree. God commanded Adam and Eve not to mix with the other mongrel races that were on the earth long before they were created. God commanded them to keep their race pure but they disobeyed. One could say they were the original race mixers.

And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel. Genesis 3:15

The original meaning in the White Hebrew language, not the current day bastard language used by Jews and also known as "Hebrew" but in reality is Babylonian, of the term "seed" means is the same when identifying both the woman's seed and the serpent's seed. It literally means offspring, children.

Strong's Hebrew and Greek Dictionaries.
H2233
זרע
zera‛
zeh'-rah
From H2232; seed; figuratively fruit, plant, sowing time, posterity: - X carnally, child, fruitful, seed (-time), sowing-time.

This is the origin of the the Satanic seed line of the Jews. Cain was driven out from the land of the pure Adamic race and he and his progeny further mixed their blood lines with the other mongrel races that were present in the land in which he subsequently inhabited.

The existence of peoples and races before the creation of the White Adamic race is evidenced by the following Scripture.

And Cain said unto the LORD, My punishment is greater than I can bear. Behold, thou hast driven me out this day from the face of the earth; and from thy face shall I be hid; and I shall be a fugitive and a vagabond in the earth; and it shall come to pass, that every one that findeth me shall slay me. Genesis 4:13-14

Adam and Eve could not have born these other peoples ("every one that findeth me") as it would have been a physical impossibility.

The Bible, and a proper understanding of its truths, isn't complicated. YWHW made it very easy for even the most simple man or woman to understand it. Otherwise it would have defeated the purpose of coming to a correct and knowledgeable understanding of YWHW and his purpose for the White Adamic race.
 
Old May 16th, 2008 #18
6KILLER
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Somewhere between lost & found traveling @ a high rate of speed.
Posts: 1,256
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ANSWP Commander View Post
Excuse me, you're the one quoting the Talmud and commentaries on the Talmud.
Damn Bill you sound like Pass-t-her fuzz Mark Downey, he uses the same argument when a DSL quotes the targums. Jews lie but to thine own selves they be true blue. Of course as a member of the tribe you're well aware of that.

Last edited by 6KILLER; May 16th, 2008 at 04:39 PM.
 
Old May 16th, 2008 #19
JayDee
92G7MPB-L6
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 368
JayDee
Default

Bill non-White is now trying to destroy Christian Identity.

Well placed bullets end lives.
 
Old May 16th, 2008 #20
Mark
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,219
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ANSWP Commander View Post
Any "white" nationalist that teaches a Jewish ideology or that teaches any opposition to National Socialism-- whether Don Black and Jared Taylor, or the anti-Hitler CI types (which are not all CI types) -- is not part of "the movement", and should be considered as and treated as a Jew.
That's absurd.
 
Reply

Share


Thread
Display Modes


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:04 AM.
Page generated in 0.22202 seconds.