Between You And The Woman

[Ben Masada]

Between You And The Woman

That's about Genesis 3:15, which Christians enjoy to erroneously attribute it to Mary and her offspring Jesus.

According to the allegory of Creation, God is addressing the Serpent, symbolized by the Adversary, which is the meaning of Satan, the enemy, as God speaks about the enmity between "You and the Woman."

According to Amos 5:2, the Woman here is the Virgin Israel, whose offspring is Judah, as we understand by reading Isaiah 7:14, 15, 22 and Isaiah 8:8.

In the statement "The Offspring will strike at your head," I can see from Jeremiah 46:28, that eventually God will make an end of all the nations. And in, "While you will strike at his heel," we have in the same quotation, that of Israel, God will only chastise as we deserve.

Part of the adversity between "You and the Woman" is well represented by the Pauline policy of Replacement Theology in Galatians 4:21-31, when he inverts the roles of "Your offspring" with the offspring of the bondwoman Hagar and set the Gentiles as offspring of Sarah. But this is only a strike at the heel.

According to the Essene Theology about the struggle between the sons of darkness and the sons of light, the "Sun" will rise again in the Morning and the adversary will be struck at his head, as the night vanishes at the the presence of a new day.

Ben

 

[Bick]

Between You And The Woman

That's about Genesis 3:15, which Christians enjoy to erroneously attribute it to Mary and her offspring Jesus.

According to the allegory of Creation, God is addressing the Serpent, symbolized by the Adversary, which is the meaning of Satan, the enemy, as God speaks about the enmity between "You and the Woman."

According to Amos 5:2, the Woman here is the Virgin Israel, whose offspring is Judah, as we understand by reading Isaiah 7:14, 15, 22 and Isaiah 8:8.

In the statement "The Offspring will strike at your head," I can see from Jeremiah 46:28, that eventually God will make an end of all the nations. And in, "While you will strike at his heel," we have in the same quotation, that of Israel, God will only chastise as we deserve.

Part of the adversity between "You and the Woman" is well represented by the Pauline policy of Replacement Theology in Galatians 4:21-31, when he inverts the roles of "Your offspring" with the offspring of the bondwoman Hagar and set the Gentiles as offspring of Sarah. But this is only a strike at the heel.

According to the Essene Theology about the struggle between the sons of darkness and the sons of light, the "Sun" will rise again in the Morning and the adversary will be struck at his head, as the night vanishes at the the presence of a new day.

Ben

MY COMMENTS: To make "the woman (EVE)" in Gen. 3:15 to be the "virgin" (damsel-ha-asmah) is Amos 5:2 is, IMO, really stretching it. I disagree.

I believe "virgin" here is a figure of speech for the house of Israel.

True, Isaiah 7:14 reads "Behold a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and call his name Immanuel." Correct me if I'm wrong, but "virgin" here is "ha-amah" in the Hebrew, which should read "damsel" or perhaps, "maiden."

You say her offspring was Judah. Was he ever called "Immanuel" that is, "with us God"?

Yes, In Jer. 46:28 we read, "O Jacob my servant, saith Jehovah; for I am with thee: for I will make a full end of all the nations whither I have driven thee."

But, Is that all nations on the earth now? or just the ones in which Jacob "Israel" has been driven?

I disagree that Paul is teaching "replacement theology", in Galatians 4:21-31.

This is an allegory Paul is using to illustrate that we believers in Christ Jesus are not under bondage of the law, Hagar and her sons answering to this, but we are children of promise, that is, children of the freewoman, Sarah.

Christians do not replace Israel and take her earthly blessings. Our blessings are in Christ Jesus.

I'm not familiar with Essene Theology. In my opinion, the Prophecy in Gen. 3:15 is foretelling that Satan, the Adversary, seemingly had victory over Jesus when He was crucified, thus "striking his heel", if you please.
While it was a death blow, God the Father raised Jesus Christ from the dead, and he is now at the right hand of the Father.

The serpents head will be chrushed when he is cast into the lake of fire.

 

[Ben Masada]

MY COMMENTS: To make "the woman (EVE)" in Gen. 3:15 to be the "virgin" (damsel-ha-asmah) is Amos 5:2 is, IMO, really stretching it. I disagree.

I believe "virgin" here is a figure of speech for the house of Israel.

That's exactly what Amos says above, and you have taken as a stretching.

True, Isaiah 7:14 reads "Behold a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and call his name Immanuel." Correct me if I'm wrong, but "virgin" here is "ha-amah" in the Hebrew, which should read "damsel" or perhaps, "maiden."

You are right; nothing to correct. Only that the term in Hebrew is "Almah" a young woman in her maturity to conceive.

You say her offspring was Judah. Was he ever called "Immanuel" that is, "with us God"?

Yes, if you read Isaiah 7:14, you will have the son who was born of the virgin and called Immanuel. Verse 15, that he will feed on butter and honey. Verse 22, that butter and honey will be the food of al those who remained in the Land. That's the Land of Israel. Who remained in the Land of Israel after the Ten Tribes were removed? Judah. That's Immanuel feeding on butter and honey. Then, Isaiah 8:8 talks about the Assyrians flooding all over Judah with the intent to conquer it. Here, Isaiah says, they have come all over thy Land Immanuel. The Land was of Judah, and Isaiah identifies the People of Judah with Immanuel.

Yes, In Jer. 46:28 we read, "O Jacob my servant, saith Jehovah; for I am with thee: for I will make a full end of all the nations whither I have driven thee."
But, Is that all nations on the earth now? or just the ones in which Jacob "Israel" has been driven?

For the first exile Israel had been driven to Egypt. About a thousand years later there was the split among the Tribes, when the Kingdom of the North was formed into becoming Israel, and the Kingdom of the South into becoming Judah. For the second exile Israel was driven to Assyria and about 100 years later, Judah was driven to Babylon.
For the third exile the Jews were driven to the four corners of the Earth. It means "all nations" indeed.

I disagree that Paul is teaching "replacement theology", in Galatians 4:21-31.
This is an allegory Paul is using to illustrate that we believers in Christ Jesus are not under bondage of the law, Hagar and her sons answering to this, but we are children of promise, that is, children of the freewoman, Sarah.

Remember whom was the Sinaitic Covenant made with? Israel. Paul compares that Covenant with the bondwoman Hagar, and Israel with her offspring. Then, he compares the Christian New Covenant to the free woman Sarah, and Christians to Sara's offspring. Then, at the end of his allegory, he warns Christianity to cast out the bondwoman with her child. One does not have to have a degree in allegories to understand that Judaism has been replaced by Christianity in the allegory of Paul, who established his policy of Replacement Theology.

Christians do not replace Israel and take her earthly blessings. Our blessings are in Christ Jesus.

Now, it's too late. Paul is long gone to hear your words.

I'm not familiar with Essene Theology. In my opinion, the Prophecy in Gen. 3:15 is foretelling that Satan, the Adversary, seemingly had victory over Jesus when He was crucified, thus "striking his heel", if you please.

A strike to cause death is not a strike at the heel, but at the head. If Jesus died on the cross, the strike was at the head. If he didn't, the strike was at the heel. What do you pick?

While it was a death blow, God the Father raised Jesus Christ from the dead, and he is now at the right hand of the Father.

Now, all you need to make a Christian out of this Jew is to open your own NT and show me who was an eyewtiness to the resurrection of Jesus. If you can't, you might want to review your set of beliefs.

The serpents head will be chrushed when he is cast into the lake of fire.

Well, you have been waiting for that day for a few thousand years. You might want to get your hourses out of the rain because you might have to wait for another few thousands.

 

[Arkholt]

I always saw that passage about the enmity between Satan and the "seed of the woman" a bit differently. I never even heard the interpretation that it had anything to do with Christ or Israel until fairly recently. I always thought "the seed of the woman" meant the human family, and that even though we were fallen, Satan's punishment for his involvement in it would be that we would have power over him.

 

[Ben Masada]

I always saw that passage about the enmity between Satan and the "seed of the woman" a bit differently. I never even heard the interpretation that it had anything to do with Christ or Israel until fairly recently. I always thought "the seed of the woman" meant the human family, and that even though we were fallen, Satan's punishment for his involvement in it would be that we would have power over him.

How can you have power over what you cannot see? Better put, why would you need power over what does not exist? Satan does not exist as a being. Satan is only a concept to illustrate the evil inclination in man. Satan as a being is a fabrication of religious crooks to play with People's feelings, with the purpose to make a living out of the naives of this world.

 

[Arkholt]

Well, okay. If you see it as not necessarily having power over a being, then humans are then being shown that the have an inherent power over their evil inclinations, and that they do not control us. I was basically just saying that I never understood why there was supposed to be a deeper, farther reaching meaning than that.

 

[Zardoz]

How can you have power over what you cannot see? Better put, why would you need power over what does not exist? Satan does not exist as a being. Satan is only a concept to illustrate the evil inclination in man. Satan as a being is a fabrication of religious crooks to play with People's feelings, with the purpose to make a living out of the naives of this world.

I prefer to think of Satan as the angel tasked with maintaining the balance of free choice. Separate from the Evil Inclination but working with it to allow us free will. Not at all the 'fallen angel' of some mythologies, there never was a rebellion among the angels. They can't, they don't have free will. The Jewish Satan can best be seen in Job. Even then, you need the oral traditions to explain what's happening.

 

[TruthTeller]

The Jewish Satan can best be seen in Job. Even then, you need the oral traditions to explain what's happening.

Really not trying to sway this thread off topic but It would be most interesting to know how the Sadducees, as well as all the other sects of judaism, viewed Helel when they didn't use such traditions. Those who observed such traditions were a minority at one time and to be able to look into the understandings of the others might be most edifying. Have you any knowledge of this or have any good links to point to?

 

[Ben Masada]

Well, okay. If you see it as not necessarily having power over a being, then humans are then being shown that the have an inherent power over their evil inclinations, and that they do not control us. I was basically just saying that I never understood why there was supposed to be a deeper, farther reaching meaning than that.

Something very interesting you said above: "Human are beings with an inherent power over their evil inclinations." And they do control them if they want. They have the power. They lack the will.

 

[Ben Masada]

I prefer to think of Satan as the angel tasked with maintaining the balance of free choice. Separate from the Evil Inclination but working with it to allow us free will. Not at all the 'fallen angel' of some mythologies, there never was a rebellion among the angels. They can't, they don't have free will. The Jewish Satan can best be seen in Job. Even then, you need the oral traditions to explain what's happening.

We need no Satan to define for us when we should use God's granted attribute of freewill. The admitance of Satan whatever or how ever, only messes up with God's absolute Unity. And the book of Job is a Jewish novel with the purpose to teach about the position of Israel in the Counsel of God. Moses Maimonides says that Job never existed. And the book was written as a fiction with a moral/religious purpose. That's in his book "Guide for the Perplexed."

 

[elisheba]

MY COMMENTS: To make "the woman (EVE)" in Gen. 3:15 to be the "virgin" (damsel-ha-asmah) is Amos 5:2 is, IMO, really stretching it. I disagree.



That's exactly what Amos says above, and you have taken as a stretching.



You are right; nothing to correct. Only that the term in Hebrew is "Almah" a young woman in her maturity to conceive.



Yes, if you read Isaiah 7:14, you will have the son who was born of the virgin and called Immanuel. Verse 15, that he will feed on butter and honey. Verse 22, that butter and honey will be the food of al those who remained in the Land. That's the Land of Israel. Who remained in the Land of Israel after the Ten Tribes were removed? Judah. That's Immanuel feeding on butter and honey. Then, Isaiah 8:8 talks about the Assyrians flooding all over Judah with the intent to conquer it. Here, Isaiah says, they have come all over thy Land Immanuel. The Land was of Judah, and Isaiah identifies the People of Judah with Immanuel.



For the first exile Israel had been driven to Egypt. About a thousand years later there was the split among the Tribes, when the Kingdom of the North was formed into becoming Israel, and the Kingdom of the South into becoming Judah. For the second exile Israel was driven to Assyria and about 100 years later, Judah was driven to Babylon.
For the third exile the Jews were driven to the four corners of the Earth. It means "all nations" indeed.



Remember whom was the Sinaitic Covenant made with? Israel. Paul compares that Covenant with the bondwoman Hagar, and Israel with her offspring. Then, he compares the Christian New Covenant to the free woman Sarah, and Christians to Sara's offspring. Then, at the end of his allegory, he warns Christianity to cast out the bondwoman with her child. One does not have to have a degree in allegories to understand that Judaism has been replaced by Christianity in the allegory of Paul, who established his policy of Replacement Theology.



Now, it's too late. Paul is long gone to hear your words.



A strike to cause death is not a strike at the heel, but at the head. If Jesus died on the cross, the strike was at the head. If he didn't, the strike was at the heel. What do you pick?



Now, all you need to make a Christian out of this Jew is to open your own NT and show me who was an eyewtiness to the resurrection of Jesus. If you can't, you might want to review your set of beliefs.



Well, you have been waiting for that day for a few thousand years. You might want to get your hourses out of the rain because you might have to wait for another few thousands.

Abraham was not obeying Torah ( oral predating written ) as he did not give Hagar her freedom when she became a wife instead of a servant...she was doing double duty - wife and servant. This is why that sacrifice was ordered ( Yitshak ). Hagar being sent away was a blessing to her - she finally gained her freedom and Abraham visited her as Yehudi historians recount. No woman in the Tanakh was ever given the type of blessing that Hagar was given. She was an example of patient suffering and Elohim's reward. Regarding replacement theology...maybe it's not the Christians - maybe it's the Muslims. They seem to be obeying the Bible better than anyone else.

 

[Ben Masada]

Abraham was not obeying Torah ( oral predating written ) as he did not give Hagar her freedom when she became a wife instead of a servant...she was doing double duty - wife and servant. This is why that sacrifice was ordered ( Yitshak ). Hagar being sent away was a blessing to her - she finally gained her freedom and Abraham visited her as Yehudi historians recount. No woman in the Tanakh was ever given the type of blessing that Hagar was given. She was an example of patient suffering and Elohim's reward. Regarding replacement theology...maybe it's not the Christians - maybe it's the Muslims. They seem to be obeying the Bible better than anyone else.

Hagar never became a wife to Abraham. Sara was a little more intelligent than that. As you mention above, he was just having a great time with a younger woman.

 

[elisheba]

The Tanakh calls her wife..second wives did not have the same legal rights as first wives - but they had wifely rights. In the commentary of synagogue Torahs ( Etz Chayim ) it speaks of Sarah's unfair treatment of Hagar.

 

[Ben Masada]

The Tanakh calls her wife..second wives did not have the same legal rights as first wives - but they had wifely rights. In the commentary of synagogue Torahs ( Etz Chayim ) it speaks of Sarah's unfair treatment of Hagar.

How about a quotation to that effect that the Torah calls Hagar Abraham's wife?

 

[sojourner]

Between You And The Woman

That's about Genesis 3:15, which Christians enjoy to erroneously attribute it to Mary and her offspring Jesus.

According to the allegory of Creation, God is addressing the Serpent, symbolized by the Adversary, which is the meaning of Satan, the enemy, as God speaks about the enmity between "You and the Woman."

According to Amos 5:2, the Woman here is the Virgin Israel, whose offspring is Judah, as we understand by reading Isaiah 7:14, 15, 22 and Isaiah 8:8.

In the statement "The Offspring will strike at your head," I can see from Jeremiah 46:28, that eventually God will make an end of all the nations. And in, "While you will strike at his heel," we have in the same quotation, that of Israel, God will only chastise as we deserve.

Part of the adversity between "You and the Woman" is well represented by the Pauline policy of Replacement Theology in Galatians 4:21-31, when he inverts the roles of "Your offspring" with the offspring of the bondwoman Hagar and set the Gentiles as offspring of Sarah. But this is only a strike at the heel.

According to the Essene Theology about the struggle between the sons of darkness and the sons of light, the "Sun" will rise again in the Morning and the adversary will be struck at his head, as the night vanishes at the the presence of a new day.

Ben

I've been a mainstream Christian for almost 50 years, and I've never heard that we enjoy attributing it to Mary and her offspring, nor that it has anything to do with "replacement theology."

What any good scholar will tell you is that it, as do many other pericopae, is there to attempt to explain "why things are the way they are."

Your posts are annoyingly Quixotic.

 

[Ben Masada]

I've been a mainstream Christian for almost 50 years, and I've never heard that we enjoy attributing it to Mary and her offspring, nor that it has anything to do with "replacement theology."

What any good scholar will tell you is that it, as do many other pericopae, is there to attempt to explain "why things are the way they are."

Your posts are annoyingly Quixotic.

Have you ever been to a Catholic forum? That's all they say. And Replacement Theology it is to pick up anything Jewish from the Tanach and to attribute it to anything that Christians intend to.

 

[sojourner]

Have you ever been to a Catholic forum? That's all they say. And Replacement Theology it is to pick up anything Jewish from the Tanach and to attribute it to anything that Christians intend to.

There are different ways of looking at the First Testament. From a literary standpoint, there is nothing to suggest that the writers had Jesus in mind when they wrote. From a theological standpoint, saying that it's "prophecy fulfilled" is a completely different animal from saying that that's what the writers had in mind.

As for Replacement Theology, the practice is not that in the strictest sense, no matter what you believe.

Replacement theology attempts to replace Jewish status (hence the use of the word replacement). That's not what's at work here, IMO. ContinuationTheology might be a better term, since that recognizes, not a shift in paradigm, but a continuation of an existing paradigm. There is a difference.

 

[Ben Masada]

There are different ways of looking at the First Testament. From a literary standpoint, there is nothing to suggest that the writers had Jesus in mind when they wrote. From a theological standpoint, saying that it's "prophecy fulfilled" is a completely different animal from saying that that's what the writers had in mind.

As for Replacement Theology, the practice is not that in the strictest sense, no matter what you believe.

Replacement theology attempts to replace Jewish status (hence the use of the word replacement). That's not what's at work here, IMO. ContinuationTheology might be a better term, since that recognizes, not a shift in paradigm, but a continuation of an existing paradigm. There is a difference.

Explain Galatians 4:21-31. If that is not Replacement Theology, I rest my case.:yes:

 

[sojourner]

Explain Galatians 4:21-31. If that is not Replacement Theology, I rest my case.:yes:

It's not Replacement Theology, because "two covenants" implies a progression from one to the next, not a usurpation. Those Jews who accepted that moved on to the second covenant. Those who didn't stayed where they were, and did not continue on.

 

[Ben Masada]

It's not Replacement Theology, because "two covenants" implies a progression from one to the next, not a usurpation. Those Jews who accepted that moved on to the second covenant. Those who didn't stayed where they were, and did not continue on.

That's exactly what Paul meant: Replacement Theology. The term "progression" is a cop-out.