A millennial rivalry is nearing its end

 “ I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and her offspring; this offspring will bruise her head, and you will strike her heel" - Genesis 3:15

 

There is a deep and ancient texture in God's word that has been hidden, confused, or covered up for thousands of years.

Evidently someone had an interest in confusing this plot.

Understanding the terms of this plot is definitely important for anyone who truly desires to get closer to God.

The terms of this plot are reported, through a highly symbolic language, in Genesis 3:15 and concern the enmity between two parties, two antagonists: two seeds. 

We read… “ I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her seed; this offspring will bruise her head and you will strike her heel.'

The scripture here clearly speaks of two antagonists, two lineages if we want to say so, even two seeds (see footnote) … but someone told us that the seeds are not really seeds and that this scripture indicates good versus evil or even the true religion against the false religion (the woman would be the religious organization of belonging, the Madonna or other). 

To prove that we are not really talking about seeds or offspring, some will quote scriptures such as John 8:44 which says, "You are children of the devil, who is your father, and you will do the lusts of your father." 

It is evident: Jesus was speaking to the scribes and Pharisees who had just claimed that their father was Abraham. 

Certainly they were not literally "seed of Satan", understood as offspring, or children of Satan, but it was their attitudes and their goals that further demonstrated that he was their father. 

On the same line of thought also John, in 1 John 3:10 wrote... “In this the children of God are distinguished from the children of the devil: whoever does not practice justice is not of God; as well as anyone who does not love his brother ”. 

From these scriptures one could therefore think that religions are right when they speak of this generic and absolutely impersonal battle between good and evil.

But… there is a but.

By carefully scrutinizing the Scriptures, we have clearly seen a seed emerge, a literal offspring. 

If we take for example Genesis 22:17-18 we will read… “I will fill you with blessings and multiply your offspring like the stars of the sky and like the sand that is on the seashore; and your descendants will take possession of the cities of their enemies. All the nations of the earth will be blessed in your offspring, because you have obeyed my voice."

Not only do we see that God pays special attention to a man, but he focuses especially on his offspring, his seed … 

In fact also in Genesis 17:19 we will read…” To this God said: “Sarah your wife is really about to give birth to you a son and you must call his name Isaac. And I will certainly establish my covenant with him as a covenant to time indefinite to the seed of him after him.” 

Already here we see something that clashes with the general interpretation: if the concept would simply have been the generic and impersonal battle between good and evil (or true religion against false)… what was the need to bless a specific lineage?

Isn't it that in the Garden of Eden God spoke of a seed, meaning just a seed? 

Was it the offspring of this man, Abraham, that seed that would crush the serpent and its seed?

Before simplifying the question by thinking "Yes because Jesus came from Abraham who would destroy the serpent and its seed" be careful... because if we accept that this seed is a seed , let us remember that if the prophecy reaches the moment in which the head of the serpent is crushed i.e. at the end of the millennium. 

Until that event there must also be the seed of this woman who is not only Jesus. 

Of course, it is mainly Jesus but not only him.

Is it therefore a seed, a literal offspring, or not? 

Even in Revelation, which speaks of the time of the end, this woman and her seed is mentioned and indeed the scripture says that satan went off to make war "with the remnant of her seed ..." - Revelation 12:17

Now if the matter would have ended with Jesus - that is, Jesus was born who would have eliminated the serpent and its seed - because in Revelation, a book that speaks of the time of the end and in any case a book written well after Jesus' coming on earth, do we continue to talk about the woman and her seed?

We will see this better later. For the moment, let's try to understand if we have really found a seed, a literal offspring, and if the Bible tells us precisely which one. 

 

Does the ancient rivalry involve a literal, genetic lineage?

 

If we look at the history of Israel, the answer seems obvious. 

God reiterates to Moses the promise made to Abraham and his descendants, frees them from Egypt with great signs and wonders and protects them in the face of enemy peoples much greater and more powerful than them.

However from the beginning there are problems; you will remember when the Israelites even made themselves the golden calf in the desert. This is one of many examples of infidelity that could be done.

Unfortunately, the history of Israel is studded with various transgressions, some of which are very serious. This went on for a while until a civil war broke out and the two kingdoms split up and were eventually deported (the northern kingdom in 722 BC and the southern one in 587 or 597 BC).

This could have been the right time to see if God had finally abandoned this seed: on the other hand, He would have had good reason to and yet… 

This could also be an opportunity to demonstrate that yes, perhaps initially he had focused his attention on a seed (literal, i.e. the descendants of Abraham) but that after all it was not the seed that was the important thing... the important thing was just listening to God , whoever it was, right?

If this diatribe, this ancient rivalry, was simply about good versus evil well… these have been disobedient, why not take another seed or random and different people?

This would have been the absolute opportunity to demonstrate that the lineage, after all, was not fundamental… it didn't count for much. 

If it were enough for anyone to do God's will… why fixate on a specific lineage, especially considering what it does? He could have taken other people.

Of the northern kingdom, apparently, all traces are lost (in fact, the Bible will no longer speak historically about them: the Ephraimites with all the other tribes of the northern kingdom disappear from biblical history. They will appear only sometimes in the prophetic part: this very important aspect we will come back to that later).

From that moment on we will only speak more of Judah, the tribes of the southern kingdom or Judah, Benjamin and Levi; all the rest of biblical history will focus on these tribes even during and after the exile in Babylon.

Indeed, the kingdom of Judah was able to re-establish itself at home after the period of discipline, rebuild the temple and re-establish pure worship - see Isaiah 44:24-28

In fact this is perfectly in harmony with the covenant that God made with Abraham reiterated in detail even to Moses - Deuteronomy 30:1-5

But the northern kingdom??

So let's get to the first century... the Jews (by now we know it: they are generically called Jews but they are only Jews, that is, a small part of the original Jews) in the majority, do not recognize the Messiah in the figure of Jesus of Nazareth.

So, according to what Christendom's religions tell us, God rejects them, right?

Strange… first because not all Jews rejected the Messiah .  

Were Christ's disciples Japanese perhaps? Were they Icelandic? Were they Aboriginal Australians? 

Messiah's disciples were Jews, right? 

Just the fact that there is someone who listens to the Messiah and how ... it is strange that God says "I reject you because the number is small ... you should have been more" ... but it is also strange because until the end the apostles of the Lord , after having been with Him for three and a half years (the Lord had trained and instructed them by word and example)... it seems that they themselves have not understood this thing. 

Think of the paradox! Christendom would have understood that Israel and the Jews were rejected but the apostles were not.

In fact in Acts 1:6 they ask him: " Lord, will you restore the kingdom to Israel at this time?".

If the religions of Christendom are right in asserting that Israel has been rejected… poor things and fools, the apostles, for not having understood anything.

This too could have been, had to be , an occasion for Jesus to tell him… “But in short… he didn't understand anything! You have been with me for three and a half years and the first thing you had to understand was that the kingdom of Israel no longer counts for anything, that it has been rejected, and that a symbolic Israel is being chosen in its place and that even being Abraham's seed does not count nothing more… ”.

Does Jesus say so to him? No!

He rebukes them about the times, not about the main issue, which is "it did not belong to them to know the times and seasons which the Father had placed in his own authority" - Acts 1:7

By so saying he, Jesus Christ, indirectly confirmed that their expectations were correct.

They were wrong to want to know the times ... but they knew, as all the prophets and servants of old knew,  that the kingdom of Israel was to be restored, not abandoned, not replaced.

Yet Christianity insists that Israel was rejected, meaning that they were God's people but since they proved unfaithful at some point God forsook them…

Do we clearly see how the concept of "seed", or literal offspring, is deliberately confused?

According to them… what is the value of being Abraham's seed today? How much does it matter?

Like the two of spades.

It doesn't matter at all that much... the important thing is to believe in Jesus!

Then that everyone has their very personal concept of Jesus (a hippy, a woman, a black man, an extraterrestrial, a revolutionary, a philosopher, etc…) is not important.

Do you believe in Jesus? Well! Don't ask yourself any more questions because that's okay.

Seed of Abraham? parentage? For charity! 

How important is it today to be that seed? Nothing, less than nothing.

From that moment on, always according to these "religious luminaries", the diatribe would have moved on to "religion" or the right religion against the wrong one.

“ It doesn't matter anymore if you are the seed of Abraham or of Piripicchio… the important thing is that you belong to the right religion”.

And obviously which one is the right one is always at the discretion of the speaker .

So the purpose of these religions, whether they have done it consciously or not, has been to make us forget the identity and the ancient rivalry of the two suits . 

All united, they have done everything to confuse us and make us forget the ancient question that arose in Eden, which is the most important and ancient question.

However, after Jesus' death and resurrection, for the first time in biblical history the God of Israel (note: the God of Israel) turns His attention to the people of the nations . It had never happened before.

This is an absolutely shocking, incomprehensible, new thing! 

This thing is so strange that Peter himself is perplexed and in fact he needs a dream of angelic origin before meeting the first gentile, Cornelius... and still it is not enough because when I am at the house of this man - who tell all that he has seen, the prayers he has done and the signs etc - they will also have to see the Holy Spirit at work before the baptism.

This fact - the descent of the Holy Spirit before baptism - is not a particular one. 

This is the only episode in the whole Bible , search all you want, there are no other precedents, it is the only episode in the whole Bible where the Holy Spirit descends before the baptism (since the baptism began, of course).

You will see that on all other occasions the Holy Spirit descended later .

This however is the only case in which the Holy Spirit descends first... but why?

Evidently because Peter and all those with him still could not understand this thing. How is it possible that the God of Israel accepts Gentile pagans???

Only after the Holy Spirit, at a certain point, Peter is forced to say "who can deny water for baptism?" - Acts 10:44-48

So we see it wasn't that easy, for a Jew, it wasn't that simple at all. 

It is too easy and presumptuous to limit the issue to "Jewish racism"...that was not the point.

The entrance of Gentiles into the Christian congregation is such a strange thing, creates such an uproar…because it seems to contradict God's promise.

God had made a covenant with Abraham and his seed, not with others!

He hadn't done it with the Egyptians, with the Ninevites, with the Babylonians… 

He had done it with Abraham and his descendants, full stop! God does not change his mind and the pact was eternal ! How then could God do this thing? How could he change his mind?

This "anomaly" (apparent, of course) would have brought problems further on as several Jews, versed in the law but who became Christians, certainly in good faith, concluded that perhaps God, perhaps, could have accepted these Gentiles on condition that they circumcised themselves , that they did not eat impure foods etc…

That poor Paul suffered a half-nervous breakdown trying to explain that they, as future rulers with Christ, were not required to respect the precepts of the Law and that, on the contrary... they would be wrong in doing so because first of all they would have demonstrated that they understand their superior privilege but they would also demean it, belittle it.

However it was a decidedly hard period: perhaps we, not having grown up as Jews, are unable to fully understand the situation that had arisen but in fact the entry of the Gentiles into the Christian congregation created an uproar and was not well understood. indeed, at least in the early days this thing was accepted (with difficulty) but was not understood at all.

However shortly after Paul, under inspiration, wrote a letter to the Romans and at a certain point he says... (Romans 11:25-27) "Indeed, brothers, I do not want you to be ignorant of this mystery, lest you be presumptuous: a hardening it is produced in one part of Israel, until all the foreigners have entered; and all Israel will be saved, just as it is written: " The deliverer will come from Zion." He will turn away ungodliness from Jacob; and this shall be my covenant with them, when I take away their sins .'

But let us reflect for a moment on these words. What is Paul saying??

This way all Israel will be saved??? But what do foreigners have to do with it ? 

 Will all of Israel be saved by letting in Gentile pagans ?

Try to imagine such a situation: I will give a trivial example but it will help us understand the point.

I promise the world to save dolphins from extinction by assuring everyone that I have the power to do so.

I assure and repeat several times and loudly that nothing and no one will be able to stop me from doing what I have proposed and that I have only one word... 

So even if these dolphins are actually on the verge of extinction, don't worry... I'm going to save them! 

A little time goes by… in the end the dolphins become completely extinct but I show up with a pack of seals and say “Here! Yes, ok they are seals… - let's not be fussy - but I call them dolphins! For me they are dolphins! I saved them! I kept my promise, see?”

Well…that is roughly what the religions of Christendom teach.

Maybe there will be more or less soft versions but this is roughly what they say, they teach.

What do Christendom's religions say?

They say "Yes... these have nothing to do with Abraham's seed because in fact they are not his offspring - which no longer counts precisely - ... yes the covenant was eternal and God does not change his mind... but in fact these are symbolic Israelites . That is, they have absolutely nothing to do with Israel or with the seed of Abraham but we call them Israelites all the same and so God has kept his promise!"

Does that really sound like a reasonable explanation?

Does it really seem to you that God could have reasoned like this?

Could this be the meaning of Paul's words?

But God is the Rock, Scripture says, he is Almighty and All-wise, he has only one word and always keeps his promises. Man plays with words, God doesn't.

However, there is a detail in this letter that has helped us to shed light on the matter.

At some point Paul writes to these Romans… “you were once disobedient but now mercy has been shown to you" - Romans 11:30

And here too do you see that there is something strange?

There are at least two or three points in this letter which, if read with a little attention, are no more profound than they appear and are not immediately understandable.

Until recently we had not given weight to this word, although we had read and re-read it hundreds of times, but right here is the key to understanding the fundamental point.

In what sense were they disobedient?

How could these be disobedient? Disobedient to what or to whom? They were Romans! And they were heathens!

How can you disobey if there is no Law to obey?

There is a huge difference from saying "you once were sinners" to saying "you once were disobedient." 

Now these, like the Jews themselves, might as well have been sinners, right?

In fact, in various scriptures we read of those who had been thieves, greedy, rapacious etc ... but who were then forgiven, washed and sanctified - 1 Corinthians 6:9-11

But Paul is not saying that here. He's not saying "you were once sinners" .... it would have been like repeating that the water was wet. 

 He clearly wrote " you were disobedient "... but disobedient to what?

If they believed in Jupiter, in Mars, in Diana, in Apollo… how could they be disobedient? 

And to whom?

They could and were disobedient because they were none other than the descendants of the men of those ancient tribes dispersed in 720 BC

Those tribes of the northern kingdom of which, as we wrote at the beginning, traces were lost but be careful… 

Historical traces were lost, and only from a human point of view, but they continued to appear in the prophetic part.

Indeed, in the Bible we will speak of Oola and Ooliba or of the stick of Judah and Ephraim who return to being one, of the drunkards of Ephraim who are judged in the desert etc - Ezekiel chapters 23 and 37; Isaiah chapter 28 and others

Despite what some have taught, Oola and Ooliba are the northern and southern kingdoms of Israel and Epharim is Ephraim: it does not mean Christianity or Catholicism or any other nonsense.

And they were disobedient regardless of whether they knew of their origins: they probably didn't even know them .

They were considered disobedient because the covenant that God made with Abraham and his seed - Scripture says it, we don't say it - was for “all their generations” .

And therefore, consciously or not, because of the terms of the covenant they could and were disobedient.

Do we clearly see how Paul's words acquire a new and deeper meaning and does the concept of "seed", or literal offspring, come back predominantly?

So is it more likely that God told them “You are not Israelites but I will call you Israelites anyway and this way I will keep my promise to save all Israel” or would He have called them Israelites because they were Israelites ?

It is more likely that God, Almighty and All-wise, failed to foresee the disobedience of the people and therefore to keep his promise to save all of Israel ( so much so that he had to invent some non-Israelites of Israel) , or that he had foreseen it and how would he fulfill that promise in an unexpected and exceptional way? 

 

However, some might argue that if this famous rivalry was really about a literal seed, we would have seen it clearly throughout history, right?

If the world is ruled by Satan, and Satan would be one of the actors in this controversy - by the way the one who will have the worst - we should have at least seen this enmity throughout the ages, shouldn't we?

At this point even the restoration of pure worship, in this context, would be of marginal importance.

Pure worship or not…just being part of that seed would have been cause for hatred and persecution by the serpent and its seed, right?

Pure worship restored or not restored…the fact remains that if there is this seed the ruler of the world will do anything, regardless of the period, to eliminate this seed.

Well… what does history tell us?

From the very beginning of Israel's history we see that different peoples and individuals try to kill them or even blend in with each other. We can remember as individuals Balaam, Jezebel, Atalia but also peoples such as the Hittites , the Girgasei , the Amorites , the Canaanites , the Perezei , the Hivites and the Jebusites ...

The Assyrians and Babylonians will also be confused with them etc etc.

According to what the Bible tells us, Israel, from the very beginning, was surrounded by hostile peoples for much of its history.

They did everything , absolutely everything, to eliminate them.

However people who don't believe in God, don't believe in the Bible or in the divine inspiration of the Bible might say … “Oh well… you're talking about a book written by the Jews, about the Jews, for the Jews. It can be biased, biased… there can be a conflict of interest.”

Well… then let's step outside biblical history temporarily and see what secular history tells us.

In fact, all the theologians and church fathers of the first centuries wrote at least one work against Israel: Dialogue with Tryphon by Justin martyr (100-165 AD), Epistle of Barnabas (130-140 AD), Against the Jews by Tertullian (160-225AD), Expository treatise against the Jews by Hippolytus of Rome (170-236AD), ​​three books of testimony against the Jews by Cyprian (205-258 AD), Eight homilies against the Jews by Chrysostom (347-407AD), Treaty against the Jews by Augustine (354-430AD) etc.
The thesis, solemnized at the Council of Nicaea (325 AD), has always been only one: because of the killing of Christ, the Jewish people was worthy of eternal contempt and condemned by God forever ( obviously they forgot a small detail and that is that the disciples of the Lord were all Jews).

The ruthless persecutions during the Middle Ages… 

Tortures, burnings, forced conversions, changes of name and surname, division of families, misappropriation of their property...

The entire Middle Ages, sometimes more, sometimes less, was characterized by Jewish persecution.

Persecutions in prgroms not only in Russia…

Here we are still very distant from the Nazi persecution because many immediately think of that, as a little more recent.

But where do we put all the previous history?

A partial list follows (I have deliberately interrupted this list in order not to make the article too heavy).

Granada massacre. Year: 1066. Place: Granada. 1500 Jewish families and over 4000 people exterminated.

Pogrom first crusade. Year: 1096. Location: Rhine Valley. Approximately 12,000 dead.

Coronation of Richard I of England. Year: 1189. Place: England. About 150 dead in York Castle alone.

Rintfleisch massacres. Year: 1298. Place: Germany. About 20,000 dead.

Persecutions in Spain and France. Year: 1320. 120 communities destroyed.

The list goes on...

The Jewish people are the most persecuted in history. Is there a reason?

And of course let's not forget the persecutions in Arab Muslim countries .

Only at the end of this roundup, an endless roundup of horrors, do we get to Hitler with the concentration camps etc.

Obviously one could argue that various peoples and ethnic minorities have suffered persecutions, even ruthless like the Native Americans and many others: some have even been wiped off the face of the earth!

This is absolutely true: Satan's world has never made great distinctions.

If he could hurt, he did.

However it should seem strange that this people , or this specific seed, has suffered violent persecution in all ages and by all peoples .

In theory Russian communism and German Nazism have always been enemies and yet both agreed to persecute and exterminate the Jews.

Even Catholicism and Islam, in theory, have nothing in common and have always been enemies... in fact they exterminated each other for centuries in the Middle Ages and on several occasions... yet both were great friends from this point of view. 

Both agreed to persecute and exterminate the Jews. 

Don't we notice that there is something different about this people, this specific seed , than all the others?

Let's open a parenthesis on Hitler .

Attempts to exterminate the Jews become more and more refined.

For the first time in history there was an alliance with the so-called medical science ( in fact those who were considered as guilty as much and more than the SS were precisely them, the so-called doctors, the Nazi doctors condemned in Nuremberg . 

Even though this story is really heavy and ugly, it is interesting in that it could give us a key to understanding modern times .

During WWII, an elaborate and refined plan to exterminate the Jews once and for all came to light.

But this plan fails… or is only postponed.

Reading the story for what it is… what do we deduce?

Is the age-old rivalry mentioned at the beginning about a seed, a literal lineage, or a creed, a religion, an impersonal battle between good and evil?

It is evident that the more time passes the closer the moment in which the woman's seed will crush the serpent and its seed approaches.

What are we to assume happens in the meantime ?

As time goes by they will certainly not become more likeable and good-natured!

We can imagine that the Serpent and his seed will become more and more nervous, mean. 

Let's try to imagine a prisoner sentenced to death with a timer always in front of his eyes. This will become more and more irascible, more violent... he will go completely crazy ... he will want to try everything and everything to save his life or at the limit, becoming aware of the fact that he cannot save himself anyway, he will try to take as many people with him as possible, It is not true?

We mentioned earlier about a “sacred secret” that Paul mentioned in chapter 1 1 of the letter he wrote to the Romans.

He addresses them by saying that by bringing in this fulness of nations , these foreigners, "all Israel would be saved."

But how was it possible to save Israel by allowing pagans to enter?

We have already explained it but it is important to reiterate it because the whole fulcrum of the article concerns here.

It is important to understand this sacred secret because if it weren't for this, Satan probably would have managed to do much more evil than he has managed to do in the last 2 millennia.

Do we remember Ephraim and the other tribes of the northern kingdom?

They were dispersed in 7 22 BC and apparently disappeared from history and from the covenant with God but... wait!

The covenant made with Abraham's seed was eternal and unbreakable, right?

Are the seed of Abraham only the Jews?

Did Jacob have only Judah, Benjamin and Levi as sons?

Obviously not. 

Jacob had 12 sons and two more, grandchildren, who were adopted as sons. 

Could God really abandon Ephraim and all the northern tribes?

Obviously not: exactly as happened for the southern kingdom, they too would have been forgiven and brought back to their homeland.

When would this happen?

We had a preview right in the first century.

The God of Isr a ele addresses “the Gentiles”… but were they truly Gentiles?

As we have clearly seen, no.

They were the descendants of those ancient tribes. God had not changed the terms of the covenant.

If the Christians of the first century had understood this sacred secret , all these discussions, quarrels, quarrels, confusions would not have arisen…

Even that poor Paolo would have saved himself a nervous breakdown trying to get them to agree.

But clearly it was a secret and they couldn't figure it out. Not right away at least.

The prophecy in fact said that he would take back the missing . … 

But the missing were Ephraim and the other northern tribes, not Judah since it was there.

In this way all of Israel would have been saved: not because every single Jew would have been saved as some evangelical religions believe.

We know that several will be unrepentant to the end and perish, if not sooner, during the exodus in the desert.

But all of Israel would have been saved because all of Israel's representation (i.e. both the tribes of the southern kingdom as well as the tribes of the northern kingdom) would have been saved!

The video “ Awaiting the Revelation of the Virgin Daughter of Zion” explains part of this point.

 

Now some might rightly ask…

“ If so – we talked about a literal seed and the Ephraimites are part of this sacred secret – why didn't Satan kill the northern kingdom's captives at the time? Why didn't he kill them at the time, i.e. when they were a relatively small number and circumscribed in a relatively small and well-defined territory?”

Evidently because this remained a secret even from him.

The scripture clearly states that “ angels desire to peer into prophecy ” but they are not allowed - 1 Peter 1:12 … and Satan is an angel.

Sometimes we fix ourselves with the definitions "cherub, seraphim, angel..."... but "angel" is a generic word that indicates spiritual creatures.

Satan and his demons are angels.

Evidently he, like other spirit creatures, failed to understand this sacred secret until at least a certain point in history.

Can we infer that Satan understood this secret today ?

In all probability yes.

If so, we can therefore imagine that now he will be even more nervous and will do everything possible to run for cover.

What shelters?

It's obvious... to eliminate Abraham's seed, all Abraham's seed , not just the Jews , or those he has focused on all these years being deceived himself.

But now... how do you do it?

While it is true that Satan did not understand this secret at the time, it has now been 2700 years.

By now the Ephraimites are an X number, unknowable… they are too many and they are everywhere .

What would any unscrupulous military strategist do knowing that his enemies are hiding among a large population but without knowing their identity?

He will do everything possible to destroy all that people or a good part of that people to have as much of a margin of safety as possible.

If then also people who have nothing to do with it end up inside, he will certainly not have many scruples.

We have seen what he did with the American Indians and many other peoples and ethnic groups. 

Didn't the question arise at the time, whether it will now that the time is closer?

The only important thing for him, according to Bible prophecy, is to eliminate the seed of Abraham.

 

We have learned from world news that there is a plan to exterminate or diminish a large part of humanity and to do this various strategies are implemented… including medical ones.

We don't take everything we hear at face value, but we certainly remember what happened in Hitler's time: it was the "doctors", the scientists who were personally involved in this project, i.e. the systematic elimination of Jews .

Obviously at the time there was no knowledge of the genetic code that there is today: science, for better but above all for worse, has made great strides in the field of genetics and nanotechnology. 

 This should prompt us to reflect and use our mental faculties.

We won't have debates about "Freemasonry", "global plans" or anything else: we don't want to get lost on these things because Satan's world can deceive us and we wouldn't be able to really understand what's true, what's exaggerated or airborne.

On the contrary, we will stick to the biblical boundaries and be on the safe side: we will leave everything else to others. However ... having learned that the seed of the woman described in Genesis is a literal seed and Satan is one of the protagonists of this millennial rivalry that arose in Eden ... what can we reasonably conclude?

At least some of what has been said by third parties who do not know the Bible or God, seems to be in harmony with what we do know.

Satan will do everything - everything - to eliminate the seed of Abraham, all the more as time is short, and the methods could be the most "creative" and unsuspected .

On the other hand we saw a similar thing in the article dedicated to the number of the beast (private article) which simply showed the unreasonableness in believing that it will not pass as something harmless, useful, even saving. 

If "666" or "this is the number of the beast" were clearly written on it, who would ever do that?

Having learned this profound truth, what can we do?

First of all , we will not be deceived by religions (their diatribes on doctrine are not simply useless but also distracting from the most important things ) but we will also keep our eyes open and not get carried away by people who place blind trust if not real adoration in this system, even in the so-called untouchable science , either care so much about the judgment of others that they always do what the "politically correct" - and extremely hypocritical - society requires.

War, before becoming hot and open, always begins quietly, behind the scenes.

Satan will hurt, he will certainly crush the woman's heel and we know that a difficult period awaits us, a period of great tribulation ... but he will not be able to eliminate it.

On the contrary, it will be precisely the seed of the Woman that eliminates him, through Jesus Christ, but also eliminating his seed .

Aware of what belongs to us, we don't tell each other fairy tales but we are also happy to know that this ancient rivalry will finally come to an end and it will end once and for all.

Fearless and determined to do God's will, we look forward to the day when all the world will be delivered from this wicked and abusive ruler.

By then, all the harm and pain it may have caused will be a dissociated memory that will no longer enter the heart; he will be a thing of the past like himself.

The day will come when God will wipe away all our tears, pamper and caress us in His infinite goodness.

Strength and courage!

The day will come when God will open His hand and satisfy the desire of every living thing.

 

Footnote.

What about the seed of Satan?

The most natural question that arises upon understanding that the woman's seed is a literal seed is whether the serpent's seed is also literal.

After all, if one is, why shouldn't the other be?

Obviously it is not possible that Satan has physical descendants here on earth (among other things, even God's people are not literally the seed of a single woman) but we cannot exclude that, exactly as God did with Abraham, Satan may have chosen specific people to further his goals - see Luke 4:5, 6

Considering what the Bible says about Babylon, as well as its religious history as opposed to the Bible, if indeed Satan had chosen a human seed as his seed , here on earth, these ancient people would be the most eligible.

In practice it is possible that the ancient Babylonians, or a part of them, today also confused among the seed of Abraham, are that people in antithesis to the people of God.

Of course we don't know, it's just a guess.

One thing is absolutely certain: the Bible identifies this seed in Abraham's descendants and all the religious effort aimed at making people forget the most important question does nothing but corroborate this interpretation.