Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Okay, here goes...
Assuming you're a bit familiar with Greek Mythology, and if not you can learn about it by searching...
"OK, a little quiz. Who am I talking about?
He was born to a virgin by immaculate conception through the intervention of a holy spirit. This fulfilled an ancient prophecy. When he was born the ruling tyrant wanted to kill him. His parents had to flee to safety. All male children under the age of two were slain by the ruler as he sought to kill the child. Angels and shepherds were at his birth and he was given gifts of gold, frankincense and myrrh. He was worshipped as the saviour of men and led a moral and humble life. He performed miracles which included healing the sick, giving sight to the blind, casting out devils and raising the dead. He was put to death on the cross between two thieves. He rose from the dead to ascend to heaven.
Sounds exactly like Jesus doesn’t it? But it’s not. That is how they described the Eastern saviour god known as Virishna 1,200 years before Jesus is claimed to have been born. If you want a saviour god who died so our sins could be forgiven, take your pick from the ancient world because there are a stream of them."
After searching the internet I find that some people say this paralleling is simply not true; that that is not what Greek Mythology says.
I, however, for now, will assume it's true; that Greek Mythology does say these things.
Many, if not all gods in Greek Mythology paralleled Jesus Christ.
Now, if Mythology states these gods, these saviors were known 1200 years BC...Who put these parallels in the hearts of these men?
Was it Satan? I'm thinking it had to be him. Who else could mastermind this brillant plan in an attempt to thwart the life of Jesus...to put this lie into the hearts of men...closely, so closely parallel to the life and death of Jesus Christ?
These Greek gods were said to have done things Jesus did (miracles, die, rise on the 3rd day, etc.) and they did it before He was born so that when Jesus was actually born, crucified, buried, rose up from the dead, people would think....Oh, another Horus, another Thor, just another Adonis, just another prophet, just another good man, etc.
“Was Satan unable to comprehend the unfolding of the plan of redemption and the defeat of his kingdom? Was Satan aware of this plan, but unable to control the wicked works of his kingdom of anarchy? It seems Satan's hand was heavily involved in his own demise.
1 Cor 2v7-8, 'But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, the hidden wisdom which God ordained before the ages for glory,
vs8, which none of the rulers of this age knew, for had they known, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory."
” Satan's role in the crucifixion
Why DO some people today think Jesus was just another prophet?
If this idea is not from Satan, who is it from?
Because that makes SOOOOO much more sense than assuming that Jews and Christians did just as much mythological motif-borrowing as other peoples.
You actually believe that Satan was going around telling people stories in order for them to become myths in order to get later peoples not to believe in Jesus because the stories resembled the old myths? That...is...so far off the side of Occham's Razor as to be ridiculous.
Yeh - it doesn't say anything about Satan or Jesus in Genesis. I don't know what Bible you're reading...
And in case anyone feels so inclined to "educate" me - NO, I don't see some sort of super-secret prophecy here. In fact - I think the Genesis writer would have been a bit more specific if he thought the serpent was Satan (of course, the concept of "Satan" didn't exist when the Gensis author was writing, so that's a moot point).
It's called an etiological story: Why do snakes bite humans, and why are humans scared of snakes? Answer: consult Genesis. Why does the snake have no legs? Answer: consult Genesis. Why do humans have to die? Answer: Consult Genesis. Fun Game! Add your own etiological questions for the Genesis 2-3 Creative Account!
moot/moot/
Adjective:Subject to debate, dispute, or uncertainty, and typically not admitting of a final decision.Verb:Raise (a question or topic) for discussion; suggest (an idea or possibility).
Why DO some people today think Jesus was just another prophet?
If this idea is not from Satan, who is it from?
The reality is that there was no "Jesus", it's just a good story. And there's no "Satan" either, it's just myths and fairy tales. You're reading too much into an ancient book full of parables and outlandish stories and you take that as truth? Come on.
Ah, got that from long discussions with Jewish women on an interreligious forum in another place a few years ago. I remember saying, "so wait...in the original story, this is just about a talking snake and why snakes and people don't get along?" And one of them said, "Yeah, pretty much."
Just like here, there were the usual name-callers, verse-quoters, and "I'm righters", but just like here, I was able to find a few people to have serious and interesting discussions with.
Thanks for the book recommendations.
You know, I can even see from a Christian point of view a discussion happening about metaphorical or mystical layers of meanings in this and other stories. But they should be kept within a study venue and not turned into doctrine, and the original story and the original concept of the story should not be abandoned for the new interpretation. That just seems wrong.
Metaphorical...Just like Jonah spent three days in the belly of the whale is a metaphor...It is said that in ancient times the three longest darkest days of the year, December 24, 25 and 26, were referred to as being in the belly of the whale, One was in darkness for those three days, So, later being 'in the belly of the whale' became a idiom for being in a state of darkness or SIN...or rebellion, as Jonah was...
Adjective:Subject to debate, dispute, or uncertainty, and typically not admitting of a final decision.Verb:Raise (a question or topic) for discussion; suggest (an idea or possibility).
The most common usage of the phrase "moot point" is "an irrelevant question", or "a matter of no importance". So, in other words - even though it's still an open question as to when exactly the Yahwistic writer wrote down the Genesis 2-3 Account and how much he might have changed the tradition; and we thus cannot know whether he was living in a time when the concept of "the satan" had changed into "Satan": It doesn't matter, since he uses neither of the phrases in his account. So it's am "irrelevant question" and "a matter of no importance".
I hope that clarifies my usage of "moot point". It was not intended to show that scholars still debate whether or not the serpent was the devil - that it's open to question. We know it was not the devil, and have known for some time now. Only later tradition (as I showed in another post) would read much more into the story than is actually there, and thus attribute the identity of the serpent to Satan.
Metaphorical...Just like Jonah spent three days in the belly of the whale is a metaphor...It is said that in ancient times the three longest darkest days of the year, December 24, 25 and 26, were referred to as being in the belly of the whale, One was in darkness for those three days, So, later being 'in the belly of the whale' became a idiom for being in a state of darkness or SIN...or rebellion, as Jonah was...
The only problem with Jonah/great fish being ONLY a metaphor then it makes Messiah a liar when He said He'd be in the grave for 3 full days and 3 full nights.
Some of the scribes/ Pharisees asked Him for a sign:
Matthew 12:38, "... Master, we would see a sign from thee." But Jesus replied to them in verses 39-41, "... An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given to it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas: For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. The men of Nineveh shall rise in judgment with this generation, and shall condemn it: because they repented at the preaching of Jonas; and, behold, a greater than Jonas is here."
However in verse 40 the force of the word 'as' tells us it wasn't a metaphor:
40 For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale’s belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. [grave/sepulche]
And He was. He died on the High sabbath [what we call Wed.] and was raised from the dead 3 full days/nights later on the weekly sabbath. [Sat.]
Now it is possible that after Messiah's death and being in the grave 3 day/3 nights the phrase could have become a metaphor.
The only problem with Jonah/great fish being ONLY a metaphor then it makes Messiah a liar when He said He'd be in the grave for 3 full days and 3 full nights.
Some of the scribes/ Pharisees asked Him for a sign:
Matthew 12:38, "... Master, we would see a sign from thee." But Jesus replied to them in verses 39-41, "... An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given to it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas: For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. The men of Nineveh shall rise in judgment with this generation, and shall condemn it: because they repented at the preaching of Jonas; and, behold, a greater than Jonas is here."
However in verse 40 the force of the word 'as' tells us it wasn't a metaphor:
40 For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale’s belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. [grave/sepulche]
And He was. He died on the High sabbath [what we call Wed.] and was raised from the dead 3 full days/nights later on the weekly sabbath.
I'll bite--how did you get to Wednesday when everyone else says Friday. Go ahead, you're obviously waiting for someone to ask.
But, why does Jesus's use of the story mean that it is not metaphorical? Jesus didn't use metaphors and/or the common phrases and sayings of his day? Also, one COULD read "for as Jonas was..." to really mean in other words "as Jonas wasn't..." exactly three days.
Not that in the grand scheme of things, either one matters.
I agree with the verses just not the interpretations.
Like the Lord says "The Lords power will be known to His servants but to His enemies His wrath."
"If you are faithful you will see the glory of God".
"The Lord God does nothing without revealing His plans to His servants the prophets."
"No one can enter the kingdom of God unless they are born from above.
No one can see the reign of God unless they are born of water and spirit".
Flesh makes flesh, spirit makes spirit."
You have them backwards:
Joh 3:3 Jesus answered and said to him, Truly, truly, I say to you, If one is not generated from above, he is not able to see the Reign of God.
Joh 3:5 Jesus answered, Truly, truly, I say to you, If one is not generated out of water and Spirit, he is not able to enter into the kingdom of God.
The most common usage of the phrase "moot point" is "an irrelevant question", or "a matter of no importance". So, in other words - even though it's still an open question as to when exactly the Yahwistic writer wrote down the Genesis 2-3 Account and how much he might have changed the tradition; and we thus cannot know whether he was living in a time when the concept of "the satan" had changed into "Satan": It doesn't matter, since he uses neither of the phrases in his account. So it's am "irrelevant question" and "a matter of no importance".
I hope that clarifies my usage of "moot point". It was not intended to show that scholars still debate whether or not the serpent was the devil - that it's open to question. We know it was not the devil, and have known for some time now. Only later tradition (as I showed in another post) would read much more into the story than is actually there, and thus attribute the identity of the serpent to Satan.
This is yet another liberal attack on the Bible. The events described in Genesis are literal. Satan used the serpent to deceive the woman in order to get to Adam. As has already been shown, Rev 12:9 calls Satan is the serpent of old. This refers back to the deception which took place in the garden of Eden. Adam was created without sin. He ate of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil and brought spiritual death on the entire human race. Paul refers to the condemnation which came to all men on account of Adam's transgression.
Gen 3:15 is God's declaration to Satan of his ultimate defeat and this is echoed in Rom 16:20. Jesus won the strategic victory over Satan at the cross and as a result, Satan's doom is a certainty (Rev 20:10).
The most common usage of the phrase "moot point" is "an irrelevant question", or "a matter of no importance". So, in other words - even though it's still an open question as to when exactly the Yahwistic writer wrote down the Genesis 2-3 Account and how much he might have changed the tradition; and we thus cannot know whether he was living in a time when the concept of "the satan" had changed into "Satan": It doesn't matter, since he uses neither of the phrases in his account. So it's am "irrelevant question" and "a matter of no importance".
I hope that clarifies my usage of "moot point". It was not intended to show that scholars still debate whether or not the serpent was the devil - that it's open to question. We know it was not the devil, and have known for some time now. Only later tradition (as I showed in another post) would read much more into the story than is actually there, and thus attribute the identity of the serpent to Satan.
irrelevant [ɪˈrɛləvənt]
adj not relating or pertinent to the matter at hand; not important irrelevance , irrelevancy n
irrelevantly adv
Moot
Contrary to common misuse, “moot” doesn’t imply something is superfluous. It means a subject is disputable or open to discussion. e.g., The idea that commercial zoning should be allowed in the residential neighborhood was a moot point for the council.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
