|
Author
|
Topic: The Serpent of Genesis is not the Dragon of Revelations
|
ramoss
Member (Idle past 631 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: 08-11-2004
|
|
Message 6 of 302 (292082)
03-04-2006 11:39 AM
|
Reply to: Message 5 by jaywill
03-04-2006 8:20 AM
|
|
Re: The ancient serpent -the Devil
Well, let us look at revelation 12.9. I noticed you used the KJV. 12:9 And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him. Now.. a dragon is considered a serpent.. but not all serpents are considered dragons. From the text of Revelation, and from the text of Genesis, it is only an assumption that the DRAGON is the serpent in genesis. Because it talks of "satan" as the 'Great dragon". That does not appear to even be the seperent in the garden. While the serpent in the garden did provide temptation, the seperent did not deceive. Adam and Eve did not die that day.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 5 by jaywill, posted 03-04-2006 8:20 AM | | jaywill has replied |
|
ramoss
Member (Idle past 631 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: 08-11-2004
|
|
|
Message 13 of 302 (292122)
03-04-2006 1:56 PM
|
Reply to: Message 8 by truthlover
03-04-2006 12:16 PM
|
|
Re: The ancient serpent -the Devil
Look at the passages in Revelation, and show me that "THe Great Serpent" and "Eve" are linked. The woman in the following passages can not be linked to Eve based on the verses itself. It would appear to be more of an allegory about Mary, Jesus' mother.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 8 by truthlover, posted 03-04-2006 12:16 PM | | truthlover has replied |
|
ramoss
Member (Idle past 631 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: 08-11-2004
|
|
|
Message 14 of 302 (292123)
03-04-2006 1:57 PM
|
Reply to: Message 12 by jaywill
03-04-2006 1:54 PM
|
|
Re: The ancient serpent -the Devil
How do you know you are not deceived now? How do you know you weren't deceived by those two big anti-christs "Watchman Nee and Witness Lee"??
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 12 by jaywill, posted 03-04-2006 1:54 PM | | jaywill has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 16 by jaywill, posted 03-04-2006 2:01 PM | | ramoss has not replied |
|
ramoss
Member (Idle past 631 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: 08-11-2004
|
|
|
Message 24 of 302 (292147)
03-04-2006 3:57 PM
|
Reply to: Message 19 by jaywill
03-04-2006 2:32 PM
|
|
Re: The ancient serpent -the Devil
The 'woman's seed', in the hebrew, just means her children. You are reading too much into Genesis. Except for that one colloqualism, none of the other descriptions of 'The woman' in revelation can corrospond to the story of Adam and Eve. There are numerous parrells to the Christian Jesus and the woman that is most associated with that imagery is Mary. That makes a much better parrell than Eve. On the other hand, I am quite certain that the person who redacted the two creations stories in Genesis did NOT think of the snake in the garden as Satan. Those stories predated the disporia, and it is through the disoporia into Persia that the dualistic concept of God and Shaitan (the accuser) entered Judaism.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 19 by jaywill, posted 03-04-2006 2:32 PM | | jaywill has not replied |
|
ramoss
Member (Idle past 631 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: 08-11-2004
|
|
|
Message 36 of 302 (292313)
03-05-2006 8:10 AM
|
Reply to: Message 35 by jaywill
03-05-2006 7:41 AM
|
|
Re: Cain was "of the evil one"
The thing is that the writer of Genesis did not think that there was an 'Evil' one that inspired Cain to kill his brother. The concepts of someone 700+ years later really don't have much impact on the person who originally wrote it.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 35 by jaywill, posted 03-05-2006 7:41 AM | | jaywill has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 37 by jaywill, posted 03-05-2006 8:42 AM | | ramoss has not replied |
|
ramoss
Member (Idle past 631 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: 08-11-2004
|
|
|
Message 149 of 302 (295585)
03-15-2006 2:47 PM
|
Reply to: Message 141 by jaywill
03-15-2006 6:00 AM
|
|
Re: A False Statement
The statement that the serpent in Genesis is not the Dragon of Revelation I regard as a false statement. The proposers of this theory that the serpent in Genesis is not the ancient serpent refered to in Revelation want to leave Revelation out of the discussion. Occasional references to it are okay as long as they support the theory. This is not that compicated. The serpent opposed God in Genesis. He is still opposing God in Revelation. He has grown more fierce and more murderous. He has become more desperate and more treacherous. That is the point that Revelation is trying to convey. The ancient serpent is still fighting against God and God's people. That is the simple bottom line of Revelation 12. It is the same personage. The title of this discussion is simply a false statement. I have listened and considered the arguments to support the discussion title and I find them not supportive of the theory. They are not strong enough.
Yes, I am sure that you associate the Great dragon in revelation to the clever beast in Genesis. In my opinion , you have not made a very good case. You have not countered the arguemetns about the 'great dragon' in revelation being the leviatian. You have repeated your assertions you don't believe that. Nor, have you countered the arguements that Genesis specifically says 'The snake was the most cleaver of the beasts'. Are you saying that Satan is a 'beast', and not an angel? You did not properly address that issue either. Now, you also have to address that is Job, satan was walking over the earth. In genesis, the serpent was cursed, and had to crawl on his belly forever. How can someone who has to crawl on his belly walk?
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 141 by jaywill, posted 03-15-2006 6:00 AM | | jaywill has not replied |
|
ramoss
Member (Idle past 631 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: 08-11-2004
|
|
|
Message 150 of 302 (295592)
03-15-2006 2:55 PM
|
Reply to: Message 147 by jaywill
03-15-2006 1:45 PM
|
|
Re: Satan
"Satan" is a different concept in Judasm than it is in Christianity. Satan, in Judiasm, is more like the 'imp of the perverse', whose job it is to provide bad choices, so people can 'learn to live a sanctified life' by choosing good choices. Angels in Judiasm do not have 'free will', so you don't have the concept of a rebellion by angels, with Satan ruling hell. If you read the Jewish commentary on Job, it will explain it in better detail. A source that discusses the first half of job in detail, including explaining jewish concepts, is at http://www.torah.org/learning/iyov/
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 147 by jaywill, posted 03-15-2006 1:45 PM | | jaywill has not replied |
|
ramoss
Member (Idle past 631 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: 08-11-2004
|
Re: what is a satan?
figuratively, the snake *IS* satan. in a manner of speaking. the snake is the figure in the story that provides an alternative choice, and who attempts to lead man astray from god. he is the tempting and testing force -- and that makes him satan.
I will accept this distinction. The difference between 'an' adversary and 'The adversary'
i can't actually find anything about fallen angels anywhere in the ot. can you? there's the nephilim (who's name comes from the word for "fall") but they are at best half-angelic, not angels themselves.
You won't. The term 'angel' comes from the greek of 'messanger'. There is no 'fallen angels' in judaism. Angels were merely the messanger from god. The concept of 'archangels' happened probalby in the disporia, and was adopted from the zoarastorian religion. I believe they are mentioned in the Kabbalah. I think Gabrial is mentioned in the Book of Daniel as an angel, but Gabrial also is hebrew for 'Man of God', or 'God has shown himself to be mighty'.
|
ramoss
Member (Idle past 631 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: 08-11-2004
|
Re: satanim
But the Israelites did have a tradition of ascribing bad behavior to unclean spirits.
While that does seem to enter the consideration is 1st century christians, where is your support that it was traditional amoung the isrealites?
|
ramoss
Member (Idle past 631 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: 08-11-2004
|
Re: My apologies if I sound harsh...
While a 'plain text reading' of the text mght not give the full Jewish thought, there is no tradition that the snake is Genesis is Ha-Shaitain. He might represent the "urge to do evil", but I don't believe you will find a Jewish source that will assocaite the snake in Genesis as 'Ha-shaitain" (or THE accusor).
|
™ Version 4.2