Genesis 3

[Mister Emu]

then I was asked (forgive me, but for the life of me I cannot remember who asked it, and it's late, so I can't remember too well) why did God curse the serpent?

That was me

As for your explanation, I don't agree. I don't believe that the Lord would curse an innocent creature like that.

Here is another question. To me at least, it would seem quite strange to see a snake talking... Yet Eve gave no thought to it. This to me points out that man and animals once had a connection that the majority of us no longer share, what is everyones' thoughts on that?

 

[may]

That was me

As for your explanation, I don't agree. I don't believe that the Lord would curse an innocent creature like that.

Here is another question. To me at least, it would seem quite strange to see a snake talking... Yet Eve gave no thought to it. This to me points out that man and animals once had a connection that the majority of us no longer share, what is everyones' thoughts on that?

thats an interesting thought about man and animals having a connection i think the bible tells us that we will be brought back into harmony with the animals,and even the animals themselves will be peaceful
And the wolf will actually reside for a while with the male lamb, and with the kid the leopard itself will lie down, and the calf and the maned young lion and the well-fed animal all together; and a mere little boy will be leader over them. And the cow and the bear themselves will feed; together their young ones will lie down. And even the lion will eat straw just like the bull. And the sucking child will certainly play upon the hole of the cobra; and upon the light aperture of a poisonous snake will a weaned child actually put his own hand. They will not do any harm or cause any ruin in all my holy mountain; because the earth will certainly be filled with the knowledge of Jehovah as the waters are covering the very sea..Isaiah 11;6-9

 

[ThisShouldMakeSense]

Here. I thought of an idea for the serpent thing. As I said before, I believe that the serpent was the devil, not just a snake, and then I was asked (forgive me, but for the life of me I cannot remember who asked it, and it's late, so I can't remember too well) why did God curse the serpent? Here's how. The serpent can't really think on any sort of higher level or anything of that nature. So, it doesn't know it's being cursed, it doesn't feel bad about having to go around on its belling, and all that. It's just a snake. But, now that that has happened, the symbol of the serpent and of the man is a type of Jesus and Satan. Since Satan used a serpent to tempt Eve, God used this serpent imagery to set up a type of his plan of salvation from the very beginning.

congratulations! you are corrects. Genesis 3:15 is a messianic prophecy. like you say, his plan to 'fix it'.

 

[Aqualung]

That was me

sorry. I thought it was, but I wasn't sure.

As for your explanation, I don't agree. I don't believe that the Lord would curse an innocent creature like that.

But here's what I think. It wasn't some "innocent" creature. Innocent would imply that it knows things, like right and wrong, and it chose right, and then was punished for something it didn't do. The serpent has no idea what happened. It doesn't know it was cursed. Heck, it probably didn't even know it changed. But it was still a good change to make a type of Jesus and Satan.

[/QUOTE]Here is another question. To me at least, it would seem quite strange to see a snake talking... Yet Eve gave no thought to it. This to me points out that man and animals once had a connection that the majority of us no longer share, what is everyones' thoughts on that?[/QUOTE]Yeah, that is wierd. I never thought of that before...

 

[Aqualung]

congratulations! you are corrects. Genesis 3:15 is a messianic prophecy. like you say, his plan to 'fix it'.

Hey, thanks! I always like a nice compliment!

 

[ThisShouldMakeSense]

Hey, thanks! I always like a nice compliment!

i know!

 

[Aqualung]

i know!

:biglaugh: Good to see someone knows me well enough to shower me with undeserved praise. (that's right. Now that you have started, there's no turning back. You must now follow me around between forums, and complement my every post, no matter how rediculous. Hahahaha!!!)

 

[jewscout]

congratulations! you are corrects. Genesis 3:15 is a messianic prophecy. like you say, his plan to 'fix it'.

And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; they shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise their heel.'

that's messianic prophecy?!?!?

what part of that verse is prophecy?

 

[Aqualung]

that's messianic prophecy?!?!?

what part of that verse is prophecy?

The man is Jesus, the serpent is Satan. It is a prophesy about how Satan will tempt Jesus (bite his heal, or whatever), but Jesus will come through that, and in the end he will destroy Satan (crush his head).
Romans 16:20 says "And the God of peace shall bruise satan under your feet shortly. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you. Amen."

 

[jewscout]

The man is Jesus, the serpent is Satan. It is a prophesy about how Satan will tempt Jesus (bite his heal, or whatever), but Jesus will come through that, and in the end he will destroy Satan (crush his head).
Romans 16:20 says "And the God of peace shall bruise satan under your feet shortly. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you. Amen."

ooooooooooooooooook:sarcastic

i'll, um, just take your word for it.
forgive me if i don't see it

 

[Aqualung]

ooooooooooooooooook:sarcastic

i'll, um, just take your word for it.
forgive me if i don't see it

Don't worry. I wasn't expecting you to really "see it" and have some major conversion, "jew"scout, nor was intent to really get that sort of reaction. I'm not trying to change your views, just explain mine.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

The man is Jesus, the serpent is Satan. It is a prophesy about how Satan will tempt Jesus (bite his heal, or whatever), but Jesus will come through that, and ...

I think I've got it. So that would make Eve a metaphorical Mary Magdalen, while Cain and Abel would surely represent Paul and James. This leaves Jesus/Adam driven from paradise (i.e., out of Israel and into France) and sleeping with Mary/Eve, while Paul/Cain kills the Jerusalem church headed by James/Able. Later it rains Romans for 40 days and 40 nights, and ...

This prophecy stuff gets easy once you learn to dispense with anything approximating rational thought.

 

[Aqualung]

I think I've got it. So that would make Eve a metaphorical Mary Magdalen, while Cain and Abel would surely represent Paul and James. This leaves Jesus/Adam driven from paradise (i.e., out of Israel and into France) and sleeping with Mary/Eve, while Paul/Cain kills the Jerusalem church headed by James/Able. Later it rains Romans for 40 days and 40 nights, and ...

This prophecy stuff gets easy once you learn to dispense with anything approximating rational thought.

Hey, Deut. I don't go around bashing your beleifs with such sarcasm. Jewscout relpectfully asked for an explanation of why I beleived it was a prophecy. I repectfully explained it to him. He respectfully declined to beleive the way I do. I respectfully told him that I accepted that and wasn't trying to convert him and that I respected his right to his religoun. And then you jump in and start bashing me. What's with that? You can respectfully decline to beleive, as Jewscout did. And since this is strictly a matter of beleif and the way we see the same thing differently, this inflamatory speech isn't going to start a debate - there is nothing to debate.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Hey, Deut. ... there is nothing to debate.

Then perhaps your assertions do not belong in a debate forum?

The point of my remarks was not to "bash your beliefs" (the image comes to mind of some poor, whimpering Christian waif), but to make clear just how baseless your claim of prophecy really is, and how easy it is to fabricate metaphore out of nothing. In fact, my rendition was every bit as substantive as yours (no real stretch) and, from my point of view, far more viable.

 

[Aqualung]

Then perhaps your assertions do not belong in a debate forum?

The point of my remarks was not to "bash your beliefs" (the image comes to mind of some poor, whimpering Christian waif), but to make clear just how baseless your claim of prophecy really is, and how easy it is to fabricate metaphore out of nothing. In fact, my rendition was every bit as substantive as yours (no real stretch) and, from my point of view, far more viable.

Well, I guess if you actually wanted a debate . . . I just assumed you were being rude. Why is thinking it is prophesy more baseless than thinking it isn't? It is certainly baseless to think that it isn't a prophesy, because Jesus did come and did fulfill most of that and all other prophesies written of about him. All of these things written about him are prophesies. Most of them are obvious. Most have been fulfilled. I think the more basesless postion to take is that Jesus is not the son of God and that none of the prophesies are true.
(Gen 3:15; Gen. 49: 10; Gen. 49: 24; Num. 24: 17; Deut. 18: 15 (Acts 7: 37); Ps. 2: 7; Ps. 2: 12; Ps. 22: 1; Ps. 22: 16; Ps. 24: 10; Ps. 34: 20; Ps. 68: 18; Ps. 69: 9; Ps. 69: 21 (Matt. 27: 34, 48); Ps. 110: 4; Ps. 118: 22 (Matt. 21: 42); Ps. 132: 17; Isa. 7: 14 (Matt. 1: 23); Isa. 9: 6; Isa. 11: 1; Isa. 25: 9; Isa. 28: 16; Isa. 40: 3; Isa. 42: 7; Isa. 50: 6; Isa. 53: 5; Isa. 59: 20; Isa. 61: 1; Jer. 23: 5 (Jer. 33: 15); Ezek. 37: 12 (Matt. 27: 52); Dan. 9: 24; Dan. 9: 26; Hosea 11: 1 (Matt. 2: 15); Hosea 13: 14; Jonah 2: 6 (Jonah 2: 2-9); Micah 5: 2 (Matt. 2: 6); Hab. 3: 13; Zech. 3: 8 (Zech. 6: 12); Zech. 9: 9; Zech. 11: 13; Zech. 13: 6; Mal. 3: 1; Matt. 1: 21 (Luke 2: 21); Matt. 26: 24; Mark 9: 12; Luke 1: 70; Luke 4: 21; Luke 24: 27 (Luke 24: 44); John 1: 45; John 3: 14; John 5: 46; John 6: 14; John 7: 42; Acts 3: 24; Rom. 9: 33

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Before dealing with your silly laundry list, let's return to the two currently under discussion. Please show how yours is in any way superior to mine.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I'm sorry, but I believe that Jewscout was curious about Noah in my metaphorical Torah.

Noah, of course, was Constantine, who gathered the remnants of Christianity into the Nicene Ark. The more Gnostic tendencies present, noting that the Trinity was little more than an Emperor without clothes, were marked as heretics for observing this nakedness.

----

There is an old song by Tom Lear which includes the lines ...

when correctly viewed
everything is lewd
I can tell you things about Peter Pan
and the Wizard of Oz - there's a dirty old man​

When you're sitting there with the "Old Testament" engaged in fabricating the New, reverse engineering prophecy is no more complicated than writing historical fiction.

 

[Aqualung]

Before dealing with your silly laundry list, let's return to the two currently under discussion. Please show how yours is in any way superior to mine.

("yours" as in "your way"? Is that what you mean? I'm sorry, but sometimes I just have trouble understanding people when there is no inflection. Well, I'll go with that.)
I just did. I gave you many prophesies that actually happened. You say that the Genesis quote is not a prophesy. I claim that it is a prophesy because it has happened, and also gave you others that have happened to show that it wasn't just some isolated coincidence, but that it is widespread throughout all scripture

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I claim that it is a prophesy because it has happened, and also gave you others that have happened to show that it wasn't just some isolated coincidence, but that it is widespread throughout all scripture

Note that the story of what "has happened" was written (a) after the Tanach, and (b) with knowledge of the Tanach. There's a clue there.

 

[Aqualung]

Yes. Which is how Jesus could tell his followers "look. I'm fulfilling the prophets. They said I would do this, and I have. They said I would do that, and I have. They said I would do this other thing, and I certainly will." Just because it was written later doesn't mean it is fiction.