#“it is not good for man to be alone” (God creating eve) parallel with putting aziracrow together | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

cassianus · 6 years

Photo

If a tree is known by its fruit, and a good tree bears good fruit (cf. Mt. 7:17; Lk. 6:44), then is not the Mother of Goodness Itself, She who bore the Eternal Beauty, incomparably more excellent than every good, whether in this world or the world above? Therefore, the coeternal and identical Image of goodness, Preeternal, transcending all being, He Who is the preexisting and good Word of the Father, moved by His unutterable love for mankind and compassion for us, put on our image, that He might reclaim for Himself our nature which had been dragged down to uttermost Hades, so as to renew this corrupted nature and raise it to the heights of Heaven. For this purpose, He had to assume a flesh that was both new and ours, that He might refashion us from out of ourselves. Now He finds a Handmaiden perfectly suited to these needs, the supplier of Her own unsullied nature, the Ever-Virgin now hymned by us, and Whose miraculous Entrance into the Temple, into the Holy of Holies, we now celebrate. God predestined Her before the ages for the salvation and reclaiming of our kind. She was chosen, not just from the crowd, but from the ranks of the chosen of all ages, renowned for piety and understanding, and for their God-pleasing words and deeds. In the beginning, there was one who rose up against us: the author of evil, the serpent, who dragged us into the abyss. Many reasons impelled him to rise up against us, and there are many ways by which he enslaved our nature: envy, rivalry, hatred, injustice, treachery, slyness, etc. In addition to all this,he also has within him the power of bringing death, which he himself engendered, being the first to fall away from true life. The author of evil was jealous of Adam, when he saw him being led from earth to Heaven, from which he was justly cast down. Filled with envy, he pounced upon Adam with a terrible ferocity, and even wished to clothe him with the garb of death.Envy is not only the begetter of hatred, but also of murder, which this truly man-hating serpent brought about in us. For he wanted to be master over the earth-born for the ruin of that which was created in the image and likeness of God. Since he was not bold enough to make a face to face attack, he resorted to cunning and deceit. This truly terrible and malicious plotter pretended to be a friend and useful adviser by assuming the physical form of a serpent, and stealthily took their position. By his God-opposing advice, he instills in man his own death-bearing power, like a venomous poison. If Adam had been sufficiently strong to keep the divine commandment, then he would have shown himself the vanquisher of his enemy, and withstood his deathly attack. But since he voluntarily gave in to sin, he was defeated and was made a sinner. Since he is the root of our race, he has produced us as death-bearing shoots. So, it was necessary for us, if he were to fight back against his defeat and to claim victory, to rid himself of the death-bearing venomous poison in his soul and body, and to absorb life, eternal and indestructible life. It was necessary for us to have a new root for our race, a new Adam, not just one Who would be sinless and invincible, but one Who also would be able to forgive sins and set free from punishment those subject to it. And not only would He have life in Himself, but also the capacity to restore to life, so that He could grant to those who cleave to Him and are related to Him by race both life and the forgiveness of their sins, restoring to life not only those who came after Him, but also those who already had died before Him. Therefore, St. Paul, that great trumpet of the Holy Spirit, exclaims, The first man Adam was made a living soul, the last Adam was made a quickening spirit (1 Cor. 15:45). Except for God, there is no one who is without sin, or life-creating, or able to remit sin. Therefore, the new Adam must be not only Man, but also God. He is at the same time life, wisdom, truth, love, and mercy, and every other good thing, so that He might renew the old Adam and restore him to life through mercy, wisdom and righteousness. These are the opposites of the things which the author of evil used to bring about our aging and death. As the slayer of mankind raised himself against us with envy and hatred, so the Source of life was lifted up [on the Cross] because of His immeasurable goodness and love for mankind. He intensely desired the salvation of His creature, i.e., that His creature would be restored by Himself. In contrast to this, the author of evil wanted to bring God's creature to ruin, and thereby put mankind under his own power, and tyrannically to afflict us. And just as he achieved the conquest and the fall of mankind by means of injustice and cunning, by deceit and his trickery, so has the Liberator brought about the defeat of the author of evil, and the restoration of His own creature with truth, justice and wisdom. It was a deed of perfect justice that our nature, which was voluntarily enslaved and struck down, should again enter the struggle for victory and cast off its voluntary enslavement. Therefore, God deigned to receive our nature from us, hypostatically uniting with it in a marvellous way. But it was impossible to unite that Most High Nature,Whose purity is incomprehensible for human reason, to a sinful nature before it had been purified. Therefore, for the conception and birth of the Bestower of purity, a perfectly spotless and Most Pure Virgin was required. Today we celebrate the memory of those things that contributed, if only once, to the Incarnation. He Who is God by nature, the Co-unoriginate and Coeternal Word and Son of the Transcendent Father, becomes the Son of Man, the Son of the Ever-Virgin. Jesus Christ the same yesterday and today, and forever (Heb. 13:8), immutable in His divinity and blameless in His humanity, He alone, as the Prophet Isaiah prophesied, Practiced no iniquity, nor deceit with His lips (Is. 53: 9). He alone was not brought forth in iniquity, nor was He conceived in sin, in contrast to what the Prophet David says concerning himself and every other man (Ps. 50/51: 5). Even in what He assumes, He is perfectly pure and has no need to be cleansed Himself. But for our sake, He accepted purification, suffering, death and resurrection, that He might transmit them to us. God is born of the spotless and Holy Virgin, or better to say, of the Most Pure and All-Holy Virgin. She is above every fleshly defilement, and even above every impure thought. Her conceiving resulted not from fleshly lust, but by the overshadowing of the Most Holy Spirit. Such desire being utterly alien to Her, it is through prayer and spiritual readiness that She declared to the angel: Behold the handmaiden of the Lord; be it unto Me according to thy word (Lk. 1:38), and that She conceived and gave birth. So, in order to render the Virgin worthy of this sublime purpose, God marked this ever-virgin Daughter now praised by us, from before the ages, and from eternity, choosing Her from out of His elect. Turn your attention then, to where this choice began. From the sons of Adam God chose the wondrous Seth, who showed himself a living heaven through his becoming behavior, and through the beauty of his virtues. That is why he was chosen, and from whom the Virgin would blossom as the divinely fitting chariot of God. She was needed to give birth and to summon the earth-born to heavenly sonship. For this reason also all the lineage of Seth were called sons of God, because from this lineage a son of man would be born the Son of God. The name Seth signifies a rising or resurrection, or more specifically, it signifies the Lord, Who promises and gives immortal life to all who believe in Him. And how precisely exact is this parallel! Seth was born of Eve, as she herself said, in place of Abel, whom Cain killed through jealousy (cf. Gen. 4:25); and Christ, the Son of the Virgin, was born for us in place of Adam, whom the author of evil also killed through jealousy. But Seth did not resurrect Abel, since he was only a foretype of the resurrection. But our Lord Jesus Christ resurrected Adam, since He is the very Life and the Resurrection of the earth-born, for whose sake the descendants of Seth are granted divine adoption through hope, and are called the children of God. It was because of this hope that they were called sons of God, as is evident from the one who was first called so, the successor in the choice.This was Enos, the son of Seth, who as Moses wrote, first hoped to call on the Name of the Lord (Gen. 4:26). In this manner, the choice of the future Mother of God, beginning with the very sons of Adam and proceeding through all the generations of time, through the Providence of God, passes to the Prophet-king David and the successors of his kingdom and lineage. When the chosen time had come, then from the house and posterity of David, Joachim and Anna are chosen by God. Though they were childless, they were by their virtuous life and good disposition the finest of all those descended from the line of David.And when in prayer they besought God to deliver them from their childlessness, and promised to dedicate their child to God from its infancy. By God Himself, the Mother of God was proclaimed and given to them as a child, so that from such virtuous parents the all-virtuous child would be raised.So in this manner, chastity joined with prayer came to fruition by producing the Mother of virginity, giving birth in the flesh to Him Who was born of God the Father before the ages. Now, when Righteous Joachim and Anna saw that they had been granted their wish, and that the divine promise to them was realized in fact, then they on their part, as true lovers of God, hastened to fulfill their vow given to God as soon as the child had been weaned from milk. They have now led this truly sanctified child of God, now the Mother of God, this Virgin into the Temple of God. And She, being filled with Divine gifts even at such a tender age, ... She, rather than others, determined what was being done over Her. In Her manner She showed that She was not so much presented into the Temple, but that She Herself entered into the service of God of her own accord, as if she had wings, striving towards this sacred and divine love. She considered it desirable and fitting that she should enter into the Temple and dwell in the Holy of Holies. Therefore, the High Priest, seeing that this child, more than anyone else, had divine grace within Her, wished to set Her within the Holy of Holies. He convinced everyone present to welcome this, since God had advanced it and approved it. Through His angel, God assisted the Virgin and sent Her mystical food, with which She was strengthened in nature, while in body She was brought to maturity and was made purer and more exalted than the angels, having the Heavenly spirits as servants. She was led into the Holy of Holies not just once, but was accepted by God to dwell there with Him during Her youth, so that through Her, the Heavenly Abodes might be opened and given for an eternal habitation to those who believe in Her miraculous birthgiving. So it is, and this is why She, from the beginning of time, was chosen from among the chosen. She Who is manifest as the Holy of Holies, Who has a body even purer than the spirits purified by virtue, is capable of receiving ... the Hypostatic Word of the Unoriginate Father.Today the Ever-Virgin Mary, like a Treasure of God, is stored in the Holy of Holies, so that in due time, (as it later came to pass) She would serve for the enrichment of, and an ornament for, all the world. Therefore, Christ God also glorifies His Mother, both before birth, and also after birth. We who understand the salvation begun for our sake through the Most Holy Virgin, give Her thanks and praise according to our ability. And truly, if the grateful woman (of whom the Gospel tells us), after hearing the saving words of the Lord, blessed and thanked His Mother, raising her voice above the din of the crowd and saying to Christ, Blessed is the womb that bore Thee, and the paps Thou hast sucked (Lk. 11:27), then we who have the words of eternal life written out for us, and not only the words, but also the miracles and the Passion, and the raising of our nature from death, and its ascent from earth to Heaven, and the promise of immortal life and unfailing salvation, then how shall we not unceasingly hymn and bless the Mother of the Author of our Salvation and the Giver of Life, celebrating Her conception and birth, and now Her Entry into the Holy of Holies? Now, brethren, let us remove ourselves from earthly to celestial things. Let us change our path from the flesh to the spirit. Let us change our desire from temporal things to those that endure. Let us scorn fleshly delights, which serve as allurements for the soul and soon pass away. Let us desire spiritual gifts, which remain undiminished. Let us turn our reason and our attention from earthly concerns and raise them to the inaccessible places of Heaven, to the Holy of Holies, where the Mother of God now resides. Therefore, in such manner our songs and prayers to Her will gain entry, and thus through her mediation, we shall be heirs of the everlasting blessings to come, through the grace and love for mankind of Him Who was born of Her for our sake, our Lord Jesus Christ, to Whom be glory, honor and worship, together with His Unoriginate Father and His Coeternal and Life-Creating Spirit, now and ever and unto ages of ages. Amen. St. Gregory Palamas

8 notes · View notes

sirtravisjacksonoftexas · 3 years

Text

Was Satan the Serpent in the Garden? UM, YES, and the Oaks of Mamre Will Show you Why…

250,000 BC.

Studying the Mesopotamian midnight sky, Eve considered the constellations, smiling as she deciphered their shapes. One looked like a giant with his arms raised, another a lion. One resembled a fish, one a bear with a tail, and one that resembled…a serpent.

“The Serpent.” She said, her curly red hair caught in the air, covering her freckled face. Flicking her hair away, she turned, walking between two glistening white bushes, their red flowers larger than her head. Sniffing several, she enjoyed their citrus scent, resembling that of an open orange. Plucking one, she walked forwards, twirling around Adam as he tended to a dark tree. Admiring his overly muscular form, Eve raised an eyebrow and smirked. Turning away, she sniffed the red flower in her hands…then froze.

“Forbidden tree…” She whispered, her amber eyes wide.

The Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil was considered anathema in the Garden. Monkeys, including the huge howlers, never leaped onto its branches. Horned owls never perched on it, Tarsiers never climbed it. Even angels wouldn’t dare draw near it. It wasn’t really off-limits, and the only beings that were not allowed to eat its round, purple-skinned fruit were Adam and Eve, and yet…most kept their distance. Being caretakers of the Garden, Adam and Eve didn’t have that luxury. They had to tend its branches, water it. Thus, they were the only creatures who dared approach the tree.

They…and the serpent.

Cocking her head, Eve dropped the flower, then approached.

Studying the ground, she stepped over several of the tree’s crimson roots, many of which arched over the grass. Its bark was just as red, albeit a bit darker and more rugged in appearance. Golden sap bled from its bark, creating several pools on the ground that Eve hopped over. Its bright green leaves each bore seven points, all of which now and again generated a spark. Whenever the wind struck them, the leaves would speak words, many of which neither Adam nor Eve could understand. Eve recalled some of those words as she studied the leaves, which tonight were so far silent:

“Get the elephants on board! The rain is coming, Ham, the rain is coming…”

“I don’t care how many workers perish, I want that pyramid built…”

“Take the infants, offer them to Chemosh…”

“Eurystheus, why do you complain so much about your new wife? Just beat her into submission and be done with it…”

“The Plague…the Plague in Paris…”

“Burn, witch! Burn…

“Welcome to Auschwitz, everyone…”

“The second tower…has fallen…”

Shaking her head, eve turned to the nearest of its fruits.

“How can such a twisted, troubled tree bear such beautiful delights…”

The garden was suddenly filled with light. As Eve looked around, the ground shook, several trees snapping in the distance. A coarse, gravelly roar scattered ravens into the air, making Eve put her hands on her ears. As more and more trees snapped, she turned and looked to the north, seeing something rise above the bushes, its head twenty feet off the ground. Eve’s eyes went across its scales, which were darker than the night sky, darker than any shadow and yet…generated light. She noted its dark blue tongue, which reached ten feet when it flicked. It’s saber fangs stretched far below its mouth, dripping venom that generated flame. As it opened its crimson eyes, Eve smiled.

“I…I didn’t expect you awake at this hour…” Eve said, blinking as she put her hand on her chin.

“My child, other serpents sleep.” the serpent said, his voice deep, penetrating,

“I spend my nights plotting instead.”

“Plotting? What does “plotting” mean?” Eve said, failing to understand. Smirking, the serpent slithered around the tree, lowering his head until his eyes were level with hers. Suddenly, his tongue darted, less than an inch away from her ear.

“Oh, you’ve never heard of that word before, have you?.”

As Eve shook her head, the tip of the Serpent’s tail moved through her hair. Wrapping his tail around her, the serpent moved his head forwards, his mouth now an inch from hers.

“Why, plotting deals with secret plans, my dear, plans designed to…make things more interesting. It makes for great sport.”

“Wow! It sounds fun. Can you teach us?” Eve said, her voice enthusiastic as she nodded to Adam, who was oblivious to their conversation. The serpent laughed.

“Unbelievable. Yahweh…makes such funny creatures. My, of course I will teach you both.”

“When? Tonight?” Eve said.

“Soon.”

“What is the secret plan that you’ve been plot…plotting?”

The serpent laughed again.

“I can’t tell you, child. It’s a secret, for now.”

“Can you at least give me a hint?”

An eastern gust blew into the garden. Both Eve and the serpent turned to the tree, hearing its leaves speak. While Eve winced, the serpent smiled and closed his eyes, the voice of future human miseries making his body warm. Opening his eyes, he looked at one of the tree’s fruits.

“Well…let’s just say that you’ll play an important part in it…”

The serpent is the original bad boy of the Bible, a critter that’s partially responsible for all the miseries and sins of the world. Though Adam and Eve ate the forbidden fruit and thus brought spiritual death into the world, they wouldn’t have done so if the serpent hadn’t tempted Eve. Indeed, when God questioned Adam about eating from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, he pointed the finger at Eve, who in turn pointed the finger at the Serpent (Genesis 3:1113)- who, of course, didn’t have a leg to stand on.

I know, it’s an old joke, but still a good one.

Incidentally, the serpent was the first judged by God after Eve spilled the beans. Eve was then judged, then Adam (Genesis 3:11-19). This makes an inverted parallel with was we see in Genesis 3:11-13.

Nevertheless, the sin of the serpent was of a far different nature than those of Adam and Eve: While Adam and Eve fell due to temptation, the serpent fell due to malicious intent. He had intended to tempt Adam and Eve, plotting both their spiritual downfall and the sorrow to follow. This makes his actions far more evil. Unlike Adam and Eve, he had planned his sin. Adam and Eve fell into the temptation of the moment, while the serpent had mentally worked his sin out. Is it really any wonder that, during the Second Temple Period (538 BC to 70 AD), Jews identified the serpent with the Devil? Indeed, even the first people who heard the story being read from the Torah, around the time of Moses (about 1400 BC), would have considered the serpent as more than just an animal: snakes don’t talk, let alone plot the spiritual downfall of mankind. And since when do animals get judged by God for sins, when they are not even born with a sinful nature, don’t know the concept of right and wrong, and just flat out are incapable of sin? How could the serpent sin when all other animals are incapable of it? Along with this, snakes have no limbs, and yet this one is punished by, among other things, being forced to crawl on its belly (Genesis 3:14). This seems to indicate that the serpent once had limbs. Josephus, the ancient Jewish Historian, stated that the serpent had feet, and that he was deprived of their use (possibly meaning that he lost them), and thus why he had to crawl on the ground from then on (See Josephus’ “Antiquities of the Jews”, 1.4.50 (Curiously, Najash rionegrina, a prehistoric snake that lived 95 million years ago, had both hips and functioning hind legs. It was named after the Hebrew name for the Edenic Serpent (Nahash in Hebrew) due to the fact that it seemingly also had limbs. Several other prehistoric snakes likewise had limbs, but unlike others of its time, Najash lived on land).

Let’s face it: the Serpent of Eden was no mere snake. Indeed, the fact that it’s called “The Serpent” may indicate that it is The Serpent, the Serpent par-excellence, indicating that it is in some way unique among snakes.

In what way would it be unique? Is it just the fact that it could talk, that it had at least human intelligence and that it seemingly had limbs?

Or it is because its supernatural?

Both Revelation 12:9 and 20:2 spills the beans on who, and what, the Serpent really was:

“And the great dragon was thrown down, that ancient serpent, who is called the devil and Satan, the deceiver of the whole world—he was thrown down to the earth, and his angels were thrown down with him.” Revelation 12:9 (Emphasis mine).

“And he seized the dragon, that ancient serpent, who is the devil and Satan, and bound him for a thousand years,” Revelation 20:2 (emphasis mine).

So, biblically speaking, the case is closed: the Serpent of Eden was actually…the Devil himself!

Keep in mind, this interpretation has backing from extra-biblical Jewish religious texts of the Second Temple Period (538 BC-AD 70).

However, skeptics of the Bible (in particular skeptics of Christian interpretation of the Bible) will say “Not so fast! The context of Genesis 2 and 3 indicates that the Serpent is actually an animal, albeit a very unusual animal, and thus the New Testament is wrong!”

Why do they say this?

First, let’s look at Genesis 2:18-20:

“Then the Lord God said, “It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him.” Now out of the ground the Lord God had formed every beast of the field and every bird of the heavens and brought them to the man to see what he would call them. And whatever the man called every living creature, that was its name. The man gave names to all livestock and to the birds of the heavens and to every beast of the field. But for Adam there was not found a helper fit for him.” (emphasis mine).

Next, let’s look at Genesis 3:1:

“Now the serpent was more crafty than any other beast of the field that the LORD God had made. He said to the woman, “Did God actually say, ‘You shall not eat of any tree in the garden’?” (Emphasis mine)

Now let’s look at Genesis 3:14-15:

“The Lord God said to the serpent,

“Because you have done this,

cursed are you above all livestock

and above all beasts of the field;

on your belly you shall go,

and dust you shall eat

all the days of your life.

15 I will put enmity between you and the woman,

and between your offspring[a] and her offspring;

he shall bruise your head,

and you shall bruise his heel.” (emphasis mine)

In these passages, the Serpent is classed alongside the animals of the Garden, specifically in the “Beast of the Field” category. Given the context, it seems, at first glance, highly unlikely that the Serpent was originally intended to be seen as a spirit entity, let alone the Devil.

Thus, skeptics argue, the New Testament is wrong, therefore the Christian Bible is wrong, nah nah nah!

But…is it?

Um…NO, and here is why:

1. THE EDENIC SIDEWINDER…

Many people in the world, including many, if not most, Christians, have the mistaken belief that only the New Testament identifies the Serpent as supernatural. However, the Old Testament likewise indicates that its supernatural. For starters, as previously mentioned, the serpent talks, which immediately indicates that something is not kosher in Denmark. The fact that it was seducing Eve to eat of the fruit, knowing that it would lead to her ruin and the fall of humanity, is another indicator that this is not some regular critter of the animal kingdom. However, there are other signs in the passage that shows that the Serpent is truly supernatural, signs that are lost in translation.

The Biblical Hebrew word for Serpent is “Nahash”. Nahash does indeed mean serpent, but it can all be used as the root word for both divination and deception (The Serpent is deceiving Eve…). It can also mean “The Shining One”. This latter point is interesting, considering that not only can snake scales shine in sunlight, but that supernatural beings, including Jesus, are at times depicted as radiating light (Exodus 13:21-22, 19:18, 24:17, 40:34-38, Isaiah 14:12 (remember this passage later), Ezekiel 1:7, Daniel 10:6, Habakkuk 3:3-4, Matthew 17:1-8, Luke 2:9-10, Acts 12:7, 26:13-15, Revelation 10:1, 18:1-2, 21:23-25, etc). Nahash is not simply meant to convey “serpent” here. In this passage, It’s a triple Entrende, conveying three meanings. It’s a deceiving serpent who happens to glow or shine.

Now, this sounds like a pretty freaky snake to a modern reader. However, it must be remembered that the Bible wasn’t written in the modern world, let alone the modern west. Instead, it was written in the ancient near east, and people from that time period would catch things in the scripture that most modern people would not. Indeed, when an ancient Israelite read this passage, a regular garden variety snake would not come to their mind.

A Seraphim, however, would.

Seraphim angels are among the most impressive supernatural beings found in scripture. In Isaiah chapter 6:1-13, Isaiah has a vision where he sees both God and several Seraphim. Each Seraphim angel had 6 wings and, seemingly at first glance, an otherwise human appearance, with hands and feet (Isaiah 6:2, 6). At first, these seems like a juiced-up version of the kind of angel we usually have in mind, human-like save for wings (in this case, 6 instead of the usual 2 that we normally think of).

However, these angels are even more remarkable when we consider the original Hebrew. The Hebrew word “Seraph” aka “saraf” (the singular form of “Seraphim”) means “He/it burns”, which brings to mind an angel that is radiating fire (which fits with other passages where supernatural being emit light). However, Seraph also means (drum roll)…

…snake.

Repeat: SNAKE!

Thus, the plural “Seraphim” can mean: SNAKES!

Something tells the that Indiana Jones wouldn’t like Heaven much…

Oh, by the way: we actually have several ancient Israelite depictions of Seraphim, two of which depict scenes that are strikingly similar to what Isaiah describes in the sixth chapter of his book. One of these latter two was owned by Ashna, who was a courtier for King Ahaz of Judah. Isaiah actually prophesied to this king (Isaiah 7), and had close connections to his court (Isaiah 7-9). Now, keep in mind, Jerusalem during this period was a bit small. Perhaps not Martindale Texas small, but…small. And, funny thing, when it comes to small towns…everybody often knows everybody. They’re like the bar in the TV show “Cheers”: its “where everybody knows your name”. When you combine this with the fact that both Isaiah and Ashna knew the king, that Isaiah had connections with the king’s court, and that Ashna was a courtier…well, one can conclude that these two historical figures had met each other.

Why is all of this important?

Well, because the Seraphim are not depicted in any of these ancient artworks as winged humans.

They’re depicted as snakes.

In the vast majority of cases, winged snakes.

Now, this is striking on so many levels. I mean, angels appearing as…flying snakes? Makes one look at God’s throne room in a far different light! But what’s also striking is the fact that the Bible actually mentions flying snakes elsewhere. Indeed, it mentions fiery flying snakes (Isaiah 14:29, 30:6), something that some bible translations mistakenly don’t convey properly or, in some cases, get it 100% wrong (translations like the Amplified Version and the ESV have the correct rendering).

And what word do these passages use for “serpent”?

Seraph.

Now, remember, Seraph means both “snake” and “he/it burns”. Just as “Serpent” in Genesis 3 has three meanings, Seraphim has a dual meaning in Isaiah 6, conveying both fire and snake. Now, why are these two connected? Why would snakes and fire be associated with each other? Well, some snake venom (such as that of a cobra), can cause a “burning” sensation. Thus, it would make sense for Seraphim, which were depicted as serpentine, to likewise be associated with fire.

Curiously, Ashna’s depiction of Seraphim lack wings. This is at odds with most depictions, including another that, like Ashna’s, bears similarities with the vision in Isaiah 6. However, there is something else that’s curious about Ashna’s Seraphim. If you look at them closely, the area between their heads and lower bodies are very wide, wider than the rest of their bodies. Its almost as if this section of their bodies are…expanding.

Sounds so familiar…

As I mentioned earlier, cobra’s have a “fiery” venom. They also have skin flanges that can expand, making it look larger than it actually is. True, Cobras don’t have wings, but the things is, in the ancient world, a cobra’s skin flanges were called…wings.

Could this have been what Isaiah saw in his vision? Supernatural beings that took the form of flying cobras, each bearing six skin flanges, as well as hands and feet (perhaps even limbs)? Or did Ashna, upon hearing or reading this prophecy, take artistic license and depict the seraphim as supernatural cobras? Its interesting to note that the biblical seraphim share many similarities with the Uraeus Serpent of Egyptian myth. This mythic cobra war originally an eye of Ra. Ra took this eye out of his head and turned it into a goddess. Later, he put it on his crown and turned it into a cobra (which had characteristics of two real life cobra species). Though this cobra symbolized the goddess Wadjet (as well as kingship), both Sekhmet and Hathor were manifestations of this entity. Pharaohs had this serpent depicted on their crowns, and for good reason: Wadjet was a divine bodyguard of pharaohs, spitting fire at those that threatened them. This belief was held during the time when Pharaohs were thought to be manifestations of the God Ra. Thus, the Uraeus was also Ra’s protector. Now, this doesn’t mean that the Seraphim are purely imaginary beings inspired by the myth of the Uraeus. However, this Egyptian connection reveals the ancient near eastern historical and cultural context of the Isaiah Seraphim passages. The original readers and hearers of Isaiah chapter 6 would have seen these angels as serpentine throne guardians. Though God himself doesn’t actually need guards, he also doesn’t need humans to spread the gospel either, yet he uses them to do so.

The connection between serpents and the supernatural (including Seraphim) was noted in extra-biblical literature as well. In 1 Enoch, the terms “serpents” and “Seraphim” are used interchangeably. Likewise, The Visions of Amram, an ancient Aramaic text, describes a vision where the Prince of Darkness (i.e. Satan) appears…in serpentine form.

Cue Twilight Zone Music!

But what other evidence is there to show that the Serpent in the Garden was supernatural? What evidence actually links it to the Devil?

Read on…

2. THE DEVIL YOU KNOW…

There are two passages in the Old Testament that have interesting parallels with both the story of the Serpent and the Serpentine Seraphim of Isaiah, passages that are, to this day, thought by some to describe the Devil himself.

Ezekiel 28:1-19, and Isaiah 14:3-23.

At first glance, these passages seem to be about God passing judgment on a prince of Tyre and a Babylon king, respectively. And, to be fair, this is true, but…both passages are borrowing imagery from a far older tale, a tale about a fallen supernatural being, in order to do so.

First, let’s look at Isaiah 14:3-23:

“When the Lord has given you rest from your pain and turmoil and the hard service with which you were made to serve, you will take up this taunt against the king of Babylon:

“How the oppressor has ceased,

the insolent fury ceased!

The Lord has broken the staff of the wicked,

the scepter of rulers,

that struck the peoples in wrath

with unceasing blows,

that ruled the nations in anger

with unrelenting persecution.

The whole earth is at rest and quiet;

they break forth into singing.

The cypresses rejoice at you,

the cedars of Lebanon, saying,

‘Since you were laid low,

no woodcutter comes up against us.’

Sheol beneath is stirred up

to meet you when you come;

it rouses the shades to greet you,

all who were leaders of the earth;

it raises from their thrones

all who were kings of the nations.

All of them will answer

and say to you:

‘You too have become as weak as we!

You have become like us!’

Your pomp is brought down to Sheol,

the sound of your harps;

maggots are laid as a bed beneath you,

and worms are your covers.

“How you are fallen from heaven,

O Day Star, son of Dawn!

How you are cut down to the ground,

you who laid the nations low!

You said in your heart,

‘I will ascend to heaven;

above the stars of God

I will set my throne on high;

I will sit on the mount of assembly

in the far reaches of the north;

I will ascend above the heights of the clouds;

I will make myself like the Most High.’

But you are brought down to Sheol,

to the far reaches of the pit.

Those who see you will stare at you

and ponder over you:

‘Is this the man who made the earth tremble,

who shook kingdoms,

who made the world like a desert

and overthrew its cities,

who did not let his prisoners go home?’

All the kings of the nations lie in glory,

each in his own tomb;[c]

but you are cast out, away from your grave,

like a loathed branch,

clothed with the slain, those pierced by the sword,

who go down to the stones of the pit,

like a dead body trampled underfoot.

You will not be joined with them in burial,

because you have destroyed your land,

you have slain your people.

“May the offspring of evildoers

nevermore be named!

Prepare slaughter for his sons

because of the guilt of their fathers,

lest they rise and possess the earth,

and fill the face of the world with cities.”

“I will rise up against them,” declares the Lord of hosts, “and will cut off from Babylon name and remnant, descendants and posterity,” declares the Lord. “And I will make it a possession of the hedgehog, and pools of water, and I will sweep it with the broom of destruction,” declares the Lord of hosts.”

You’ll notice that the being that the King of Babylon is being compared to is called “Daystar” in verse 12 (“Lucifer” in the King James Version). This is indicative of light, of radiating light or glowing, just like many other supernatural beings in scripture. Keep this in mind as we now look at Ezekiel 28:1-19:

“The word of the Lord came to me: “Son of man, say to the prince of Tyre, Thus says the Lord God:

“Because your heart is proud,

and you have said, ‘I am a god,

I sit in the seat of the gods,

in the heart of the seas,’

yet you are but a man, and no god,

though you make your heart like the heart of a god—

you are indeed wiser than Daniel;

no secret is hidden from you;

by your wisdom and your understanding

you have made wealth for yourself,

and have gathered gold and silver

into your treasuries;

by your great wisdom in your trade

you have increased your wealth,

and your heart has become proud in your wealth—

therefore thus says the Lord God:

Because you make your heart

like the heart of a god,

therefore, behold, I will bring foreigners upon you,

the most ruthless of the nations;

and they shall draw their swords against the beauty of your wisdom

and defile your splendor.

They shall thrust you down into the pit,

and you shall die the death of the slain

in the heart of the seas.

Will you still say, ‘I am a god,’

in the presence of those who kill you,

though you are but a man, and no god,

in the hands of those who slay you?

You shall die the death of the uncircumcised

by the hand of foreigners;

for I have spoken, declares the Lord God.”

A Lament over the King of Tyre

Moreover, the word of the Lord came to me: “Son of man, raise a lamentation over the king of Tyre, and say to him, Thus says the Lord God:

“You were the signet of perfection,

full of wisdom and perfect in beauty.

You were in Eden, the garden of God;

every precious stone was your covering,

sardius, topaz, and diamond,

beryl, onyx, and jasper,

sapphire, emerald, and carbuncle;

and crafted in gold were your settings

and your engravings.

On the day that you were created

they were prepared.

You were an anointed guardian cherub.

I placed you; you were on the holy mountain of God;

in the midst of the stones of fire you walked.

You were blameless in your ways

from the day you were created,

till unrighteousness was found in you.

In the abundance of your trade

you were filled with violence in your midst, and you sinned;

so I cast you as a profane thing from the mountain of God,

and I destroyed you, O guardian cherub,

from the midst of the stones of fire.

Your heart was proud because of your beauty;

you corrupted your wisdom for the sake of your splendor.

I cast you to the ground;

I exposed you before kings,

to feast their eyes on you.

By the multitude of your iniquities,

in the unrighteousness of your trade

you profaned your sanctuaries;

so I brought fire out from your midst;

it consumed you,

and I turned you to ashes on the earth

in the sight of all who saw you.

All who know you among the peoples

are appalled at you;

you have come to a dreadful end

and shall be no more forever.”

Now, both of these passages in Isaiah and Ezekiel are obviously using the story of a fallen supernatural being to describe royals who sinned against God. Indeed, in Ezekiel’s passage, the Prince of Tyre is compared to a cherub, and Cherubim were supernatural entities (more on them later). Now, many bible scholars try to pass these two passages off as Adam himself, but…he just doesn’t fit with them. Among other things, Adam was a mortal man, not a Cherubim, and his job in the garden entailed keeping said garden, not acting as a divine throne guardian. Though he was tempted to eat the forbidden fruit, in order to become like “gods” (Hebrew Elohim, generally meaning a being from the spirit realm), knowing good and evil, he didn’t want to become higher than the stars of God (the Lord’s divine council). The passages fit better with a supernatural being instead of Adam.

But what kind of being was it?

Recall that Ezekiel 28:14 states that the being it is discussing is a cherub. Many people think of Cherubs or Cherubim as little babies or toddlers with wings, similar to depictions of the Roman God Cupid. However, the Biblical cherubim were anything but winged toddlers. Indeed, they not only pulled God’s chariot and guarded the Tree of Life, they were also divine throne guardians, creatures of vast power that were depicted in hybrid forms. The “living creatures” of Ezekiel 1 (Identified as Cherubim in Ezekiel 10:15) each had four faces (human, eagle, bull and lion), four wings, calves’ hooves for feet, and human hands under their wings (Ezekiel 1:1-14). In Ezekiel 10:14, the face of a bull is replaced with the face of a “Cherub”, perhaps implying that one of its faces was actually four faces in and of itself, human, bull, lion and eagle. Pagans in the ancient near east likewise knew of the Cherubim (Kuribu, an Akkadian word for throne guardian, is the source of the Hebrew word for Cherub), and they depicted them in various hybrid forms.

And…what was one of those forms?

A snake dragon.

Now, despite this similarity, there seems to be a problem: Ezekiel 28:14 states that this rebel being is a Cherubim, not a Seraphim. These are two kinds of angelic beings, right? They can’t actually be the same thing, right?

Wrong!

While Seraphims are a kind of angel, “Cherubim” represents a job that an angel can have. Its not indicative of a kind of a supernatural being, only a role that a supernatural being can attain. One might compare the position of Cherubim to that of a palace guard or secret service agent. Thus, the occupation was open to all kinds of angelic beings, including…Seraphim, which share serpentine imagery with some depictions of Cherubim.

The serpent imagery grows even stronger when we consider Ezekiel 28:12:

“Son of man, raise a lamentation over the king of Tyre, and say to him, Thus says the Lord GOD: “You were the signet of perfection, full of wisdom and perfect in beauty.”

This passage has been…a bit of a pain in the butt to translate. The focus of this academic frustration is the term “signet of perfection” (in some translations “seal of perfection”). The Hebrew word used here for “signet” or “seal” (Chatham or Hotem)is…a bit of an odd fit in the passage. However, this conundrum could be solved if the last letter in this word, the Hebrew equivalent of an “m”…is silent. This actually occurs on rare occasions in ancient Semitic texts, with a “m” at the end of a word being rendered a silent letter. This doesn’t happen most of the time when an m is at the end of a word, but it was occasionally so. If this is what is intended in Ezekiel 28:12, if the last letter of hotem is meant to be silent…then the word takes on a far different meaning. You see, if the M is silent, then the word changes to “hwt”, which doesn’t mean “signet” or “seal”.

It means…snake.

Indeed, its another Hebrew word for snake.

Though we cannot prove with certainty that the “m” at the end of Hotem in this passage is meant to be silent, such a rendering would cure the headaches that this passage causes translators (as well as better fit the Edenic imagery in the passage). It would fix all the issues.

Interesting stuff for sure, but…are we really sure that the fallen rebel of Ezekiel 28 is the same as the fallen rebel of Isaiah 14? Can we really be sure that both have a connection to the Serpent in the Garden of Eden?

Well, let’s look at how these passages (along with Isaiah 6) compare:

1. All four chapters are in a Divine Council setting (Eden was thought to be a place where the Divine Council, composed of God and some angelic beings, were thought to meet).

2. All have inhuman intelligent beings talking.

3. While the Serpent is called “crafty” in Genesis 3:1, the Cherub in Ezekiel 28 is called “wise” (verse 12. Serpents were symbolic of wisdom in the ancient world (Matthew 10:16).

4. The Seraphim in Isaiah 6 are depicted as “fiery” (possibly indicating radiance). The Serpent is “The Shining One”. The rebel being in Isaiah 14 is called “Day-star” and “son of Dawn (verse 12), both of which connote shining light. The rebel in Ezekiel 28 is said to be covered in multiple precious stones (which of course shine. These could also be metaphorical for scales).

5. Ezekiel 28:13-14 identifies the Garden of Eden with a Mountain. This fits the ancient near eastern context; in that age and region, gods were thought to live in either gardens or mountains. The rebel in Isaiah 14 talks about sitting on the “mount of assembly” in the far north (Isaiah 14:13). Eden was thought to have been where the Divine Council met on Earth.

6. The Rebel in Ezekiel 28 was brought to the ground and turned to ashes on the earth (verses 17-18. Keep in mind, the Hebrew word for ground here, “eres” can also mean Sheol, the Hebrew Underworld, which was thought to be below ground). The Rebel in Isaiah 14 was sent down to Sheol (verse 15). Isaiah 26:19 refers to the spirits of the dead as “dwelling in dust”. Job 17:16 likewise links Sheol and dust. Keep in mind, dust and ashes have some morphological similarities. Also keep in mind that ashes are of course linked with fire (the fiery nature of the Seraphim comes to mind). The Serpent in Eden was made to crawl on its belly (thus cast to Earth, which can also denote Sheol), and eat dust (dust was thought to have been cuisine for the spirits of the dead in the Underworld, as seen in the Epic of Gilgamesh).

7. Both the rebels in Ezekiel 28 and Isaiah 14 are noted for their pride, which came before their fall (Ezekiel 28:1, 17, Isaiah 14:13-16).

8. The Serpent, as well as the rebels of Ezekiel 28 and Isaiah 14, were humiliated (Perhaps, in the Serpent’s case, in more ways than one. Keep reading…).

Now, if anyone has read my anti-Jesus Mythicist articles, you’ll know that I often say that parallels, in and of themselves, are not indicative of one story or text borrowing from another. This is true, but in this case, we have evidence that both Ezekiel and Isaiah were writing down prophecies that drew imagery from the story of the Garden of Eden (Ezekiel 28:13 even mentions Eden!!!). The same Hebraic culture that gave us the story of the Serpent in Genesis also gave us the prophecies of Ezekiel 28 and Isaiah 14, and when we see these multiple connections with four passages (including serpentine imagery), along with their ancient near eastern historical and cultural background, we can conclude that the prophecies of Isaiah 14 and Ezekiel 28 are not only about the same fallen rebel being, but that both are harkening back to the story of the Garden of Eden, to a supernatural rebel that fell.

The only being that fits such a bill in the Genesis account…is the serpent.

Combined with evidence from the New Testament, second temple Jewish texts, and ancient depictions of Cherubim and Seraphim…we can finally understand the Satanic candidacy for the identity of the Serpent of Eden.

But, given this is the case, how can this be reconciled with passages like Genesis 2:19, 3:1 and 3:14, which together seem to indicate that the Serpent is an animal?

Read on…

3. SUPERNATURAL...OR NATURAL?

One way people have tried to reconcile these two factors is by stating that the serpent was a real snake that was possessed by Satan. However, whenever Jesus encountered people that were possessed, he didn’t rebuke the person who was possessed; he rebuked the demons who were within the person (Mark 5:1-20, Luke 4:33-36, 9:37-43, etc). Why would God judge a snake, instead of the demon that possessed it? Others may say that it was a real (albeit HIGHLY unusual) snake that, like Judas, was influenced by the Devil to carry out his deed. The Bible states that Satan “entered” Judas (Luke 22:3, John 13:27). This need not be interpreted as literally demonic possession. Instead, it could be figurative, the Devil influencing Judas to betray Christ (Jesus already noted that Judas as “a devil” (John 6:70-71). Indeed, before the Devil had “entered” Judas, he had put the idea of betraying Christ in Judas’ heart (John 13:2, compare a similar passage about Ananias in Acts 5:3). Thus, Satan was encouraging, tempting Judas to take the bait, and at one moment during the last supper…he gave in to the Devil’s prodding. Likewise, the Serpent, according to this idea, likewise gave in to temptation. Indeed, one could imagine the Devil making him talk the way God made Balaam’s Donkey talk (Numbers 22:22-30). He could potentially do this without possessing the serpent, just as God made Balaam’s donkey talk without possessing him. However, Revelation 12:9 states that the Serpent WAS Satan, not simply a serpent that Satan empowered. Now, if one wants to argue that Judas was indeed possessed by Satan when the scripture states that he entered him, then one could argue that, while Judas was already committed to carrying out his deed, Satan later possessed him to join in on the “fun”. Is this what happened to the Serpent? Had he already decided to deceive Eve, only for Satan to later literally enter him, joining in the effort? Could both theories, in this regard, be true?

Well, if so, then we have to explain how a snake would have the intelligence to think such a course through, and how it could actually talk (Eve obviously wasn’t shocked that it could, implying that she had heard it talk before). Even if Satan had possessed the serpent before, making it talk to the point where Eve didn’t find it shocking, this wouldn’t explain the serpent plotting Adam and Eve’s ultimate demise before Satan entered him (remember, Judas plotted his betrayal of Christ before Satan entered him). This implies a superb intelligence that was in the serpent before this possession could happen. Thus, in order for this idea to work, we may have to invoke the existence of a cryptoterrestrial, an inhuman intelligent lifeform native to Earth. The late Mac Tonnies, an author and blogger, wrote about the subject in his book “The cryptoterrestrials: A Meditation on Indigenous Humanoids and the Aliens Among Us”.

In it, he argued that supposed Extraterrestrials (like Greys and other aliens supposedly encountered by eyewitnesses) were not from other planets, but from Earth. In his view, such creatures would be non-human sentient species native to our own world. This concept is not really new, with many stories in folklore and myth telling about physical, intelligent creatures that are inhuman (such as cyclops, centaurs, trolls, dwarves, etc). Most, if not all fantasy books, and most Fantasy films, such as the Lord of the Rings trilogy, has the same basic concept (orcs, elves, hobbits, Ents, etc, all non-human intelligent species).

So…are we really going with the cryptoterrestrial hypothesis? Was there a species of sentient snake in the ancient world? Is it still around today, lurking in the shadows, undetected by modern science? It sounds like something out of a science fiction novel! I mean, can we get any weirder here?

Actually…we can!

You see, we could also perhaps invoke the idea that the serpent was a genetic mutant, a freak who was born with both an unusual brain and advanced vocal cords that enabled speech. Or we could invoke that God made a single snake with these features in the Garden.

However, I don’t think we don’t necessarily need to invoke mutants and cryptoterrestrials to figure out what the Serpent was.

We can simply use metaphor to do that.

Ben Stanhope, a biblical scholar, has stated that a double meaning is in view in the story of the serpent. Wordplay, rhetorical parallels and metaphor is in use, a “flesh and blood snake” being paralleled with the tempter’s (originally) noble, yet serpentine, nature. Thus, we shouldn’t interpret the passage literally as referring to a flesh and blood snake. The context thus cannot be used to argue for the Serpent to be a flesh and blood animal.

This not only solves the issues with Revelation 12:9, it also solves the issue of Genesis 2:19, where it talks of animals being made out of the ground, harkening back to Genesis 1:24-25 (it would be highly unlikely for all the animals in the garden to actually be angels in disguise. Indeed, at least some angels were created before the creation week of Genesis 1 began (compare Genesis 1:1-2 with Job 38:4-11, note especially verses 8-11). Indeed, being made from the ground or dust can convey mortality, thus being made out of the mortal world or realm, something with doesn’t jive with supernatural beings who live forever.

However, there is another, intriguing way that the supernatural interpretation of the Serpent with Genesis 2:19 can be reconciled, a way that could shed light on the Serpent’s motivation.

Keep reading…

4. THE OAKS OF MAMRE.

Although God is spirit (John 4:24), and although angels are spirits, there are at times in the Bible where both appear in physical form. God and two of his angels met up with Abraham near the Oaks of Mamre (Genesis 18:1-2). When Abraham saw them, he immediately knew that one of them was God, laying in prostrate and praying to him (Genesis 18:2-3). God and his angels enjoyed Abraham’s hospitality, who gave them bread, beef, curds, milk and water, the latter to wash their feet with (Genesis 18:4-8).

Now…did you catch something funny going on here?

God, and two angels…are not only eating and drinking…they are washing their own feet.

How can spirits eat?

How can they wash their feet, when they are pure spirit beings, not physical?

Course, God, being omnipotent, could do these things, as well as enable lesser spirits to do them, but, keep in mind, one reason why Jesus ate in front of his disciples after the resurrection is to prove that he wasn’t a spirit (Luke 24:36-43). Indeed, one way God could enable spirits to eat and wash their feet is if he created temporary bodies for them to inhabit.

Later, the two angels went to Sodom, where Lot showed them hospitality as well, and once again they…ate (Genesis 19:3). Indeed, they seem to have physical hands, which they used to grab and pull Lot inside his home as an angry crowd stood outside, wanting to rape the angels (Genesis 19:4-10). Later, they use these same hands to drag Lot, his wife and their two daughters out of Sodom (Genesis 19:15-16).

There were other episodes in the Old Testament were God himself took on a physical form. He appeared to Minoah and his wife, the parents of Samson, before the latter was even conceived (Judges 13). Likewise, he wrestled with Jacob in Genesis 32:22-30. We know that the being that Jacob wrestled with was God because of what Jacob said in verse 30:

“So Jacob called the name of the place Peniel, saying, “For I have seen God face to face, and yet my life has been delivered.”

Now, at first, this seems to contradict Hosea 12:4, which states that Jacob wrestled an angel. However, the “angel” in Hosea 12:4 is no mere angel, but a mysterious being known in other parts of the bible as the “Angel of the Lord”. While the term can refer to a regular angel, it also can refer to God in physical form. In the story of Minoah, the Angel of the Lord was the one who visited them. After Minoah made a burnt offering, their unusual guest rose up into the flames (Judges 13:20).

We read something very startling in verses 21-23:

“The angel of the Lord appeared no more to Manoah and to his wife. Then Manoah knew that he was the angel of the Lord. And Manoah said to his wife, “We shall surely die, for we have seen God.” But his wife said to him, “If the Lord had meant to kill us, he would not have accepted a burnt offering and a grain offering at our hands, or shown us all these things, or now announced to us such things as these.” (emphasis mine).

Now, compare this to Jacob, who called the site of his wrestling match with God “Peniel”, for he had seen the face of God…and lived. God told Moses that none could see his face and live (33:20), but that seemingly meant seeing the full spiritual face of God, not the face of a human body that God made to walk among men in.

Kind of makes you think about Jesus, how he was God in the flesh, and none died seeing his face…

…Um…you connecting the dots here…?

Oh, and by the way: remember that passage in Hosea 12:4? The context of that passage is very enlightening:

“The LORD has an indictment against Judah and will punish Jacob according to his ways; he will repay him according to his deeds. In the womb he took his brother by the heel, and in his manhood he strove with God.” (Emphasis mine).

He strove with God…in his manhood?

Just like it says in Genesis 32:30?

Get out of town!

Thus, God took on human form now and again in the Old Testament. Case closed, no problem.

However, when it comes to angels taking on physical bodies…some see a problem.

Remember when I mentioned Jesus eating fish before his disciples, so that they could believe? He also told them to touch and feel his resurrected body, noting that spirits don’t have flesh and bones (verse 39). To be fair, the disciples thought that they were seeing a ghost, not an angel, but along with this, Jesus ate a fish, to further show that he wasn’t a spirit.

Angels, in the stories of Sodom and the Oaks of Mamre, could eat. They appeared in physical form…

Thus, this opens up the door to the accusation that Jesus wasn’t really before the disciples, but a demon in disguise who was trying to lead them astray. If all angels, including demons, can make and inhabit a physical body, then the proofs Jesus made for his resurrection, that he himself has risen from the dead…mean nothing.

However, this is not an issue if we not only consider that only God and God alone is the creator (angels can’t create living tissue. None are gods, let alone creator gods), but that God can create bodies for angels to inhabit. Angels can’t do it on their own; they need God to make the bodies for them. And why would God do demons any favors by making bodies for them? Thus, there is no conflict between stories of angels in human bodies in Genesis, and Jesus saying in the Gospel of Luke that spirits don’t have flesh and blood bodies.

So, if a spirit wants to take on physical form, they have two choices:

1. Possess people (Without God’s aid to make a body for them, how else would demons take physical shape?).

2. Have a body created by God.

And if God can create human bodies for angels to inhabit…why couldn’t he make animal bodies for them to inhabit?

Recall how Seraphim and Cherubim took on hybrid forms? Though they merely appeared as such while in supernatural form, is it too much of a stretch of the imagination that God might, if he desired, give them animal bodies to inhabit? Perhaps even hybrid bodies?

Could the Devil, before the Fall, have been given a physical body by God to inhabit?

A…serpent’s body?

And if so…for what reason?

Perhaps…punishment for sinful pride.

Recall that in both Ezekiel 28 and Isaiah 14, Satan’s pride is noted. Let’s look closely at the verses that mention this:

“Son of man, say to the prince of Tyre, Thus says the Lord GOD: “Because your heart is proud, and you have said, ‘I am a god, I sit in the seat of the gods, in the heart of the seas,’ yet you are but a man, and no god, though you make your heart like the heart of a god” Ezekiel 28:2 (remember, the prince of Tyre is being described in the imagery of Satan’s fall).

“Your heart was proud because of your beauty; you corrupted your wisdom for the sake of your splendor. I cast you to the ground; I exposed you before kings, to feast their eyes on you.” Ezekiel 28:17

“You said in your heart,

‘I will ascend to heaven;

above the stars of God

I will set my throne on high;

I will sit on the mount of assembly

in the far reaches of the north;

14 I will ascend above the heights of the clouds;

I will make myself like the Most High.” Isaiah 14:13-14

In the latter passage, Satan wanted to be above the “stars of God” (angels were at times called “stars” in the Bible (Revelation 12:3-4). He wanted a high throne, wanting to sit on the mount of assembly (the meeting place of the Divine Council, which at this time was in the Garden of Eden, located on a mountain). He also wanted to make himself like the “Most High”, like God himself. This indicates both unleashed pride and unrestricted ambition. He not only wanted on the divine council, he wanted to have equal standing with God. Now, surprisingly, I wouldn’t be shocked if God allowed Satan to work his way to the divine council, despite his sinful reasons for wanting on it. After all, Jesus allowed Judas into his movement, knowing that he was figuratively speaking “a devil” (John 6:70-71). Indeed, Judas, who was in charge of Jesus’ ministry money, would take some of that money for himself (John 12:6). Obvious Jesus, being omniscient, would have known this, but he’s not shown as confronting Judas about it. Still, Judas probably cringed every time Jesus brought up sin, both in sermons and in lessons to his disciples, feeling condemnation for his wickedness from the Son of God, who all-to-well knew of his dark secret. Likewise, I could see God not condemning Satan’s pride right off the bat, perhaps even allowing him to join the Divine Council despite his growing wicked nature. However…God very well could have eventually called him out on it, indeed perhaps punishing him for his sin.

And what better way to punish the pride of Lucifer…than making him inhabit the body of a lowly snake, one specifically created by God for him?

Keep in mind, animals were brought before Adam, who named them (Genesis 2:19). If there is no metaphor in his description, then the Serpent would have had to be one of these animals. This is key to understanding his actions, for in the ancient world, if a person named someone or something, it indicated that he had ownership and rule over that person or thing. When Nebuchadnezzar first conquered Judah, (before he invaded a second time, destroying Jerusalem in 586 BC), he replaced King Jehoiachin with his uncle Mattaniah, renaming him Zedekiah (2 Kings 24:17). This implied that King “Zedekiah” was under the authority of King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon. It was a way to show who was really top dog. Zedekiah was a vassal king, Nebuchadnezzar was his emperor. Likewise, if Adam, a mortal man lower than the angels…had named the serpent, it would imply that he had dominion over the serpent, just as he had dominion over every other animal.

If this is what truly happened, then the serpent’s actions start to make sense. If Satan, a being that wanted to be on the Divine Council, who eventually got there, who wanted to be higher than all the other Bene Elohim, who wanted to be equal with God…was made lower than a flesh and blood human being, who had nowhere near as much power or intelligence as he did…well, of course that would tick him off! Have you ever had your parents tell you that you had to obey your younger sibling while doing a chore, as a punishment? My father did this to my older brother, putting me in charge of an errand we were doing at an apartments complex. I…didn’t take advantage of my newfound power, not wanting my older brother to later pound me into a pancake, so I did my best to be kind. Thankfully, my brother didn’t get irate with me despite my nice attitude over the situation, but he was still steaming over it.

Now imagine how Satan would feel, if he was suddenly not only in the body of an animal, but made subject to a mere man?

Indeed, there is evidence to show that humans were likewise supposed to have been a part of the Divine Council, which likewise would have potentially made Satan scoff. I could just imagine him complaining about this: “Humans, these weak, pitiful things, on OUR divine council? What is God thinking? What could they possibly bring to our highly intelligent discussions? What kind of input could they possibly give? Why, eventually, with humans eventually breeding in great numbers, there could be countless humans on our council, perhaps one day outnumbering us! This can’t be allowed to pass…”

This humiliation, combined with humans intended by God to sit on the divine council along with angelic beings, could have motivated the Serpent into action. His pride was hurt, and the council that he sat on was, possibly in his view, threatened by the addition of what the incredible Hulk would call, “puny humans”.

How could his pride be healed?

How could he get revenge, at both mankind and God?

How could he “save” his beloved Divine Council?

Simple: cause Adam and Eve to fall.

Thus, the motive for the Serpent’s actions become quite clear.

Indeed, this may even partially explain the underworld imagery, with the serpent being cast to the earth (possibly underworld) and made to “eat dust”; instead of simply being removed from the snake body, perhaps God literally killed it, giving Satan not only the death of a “lowly” physical creature, but then sending him (for a time) into Sheol, the Underworld.

Now, I’m not saying that this is exactly what happened; I’m simply proposing a theory. Indeed, the other theory that the Serpent is being compared to earthly snakes, and being grouped in the animal kingdom, is metaphorical is a strong possibility. However, the idea that Satan was made a lowly serpent, one that was submissive to humans, creatures which God intended to join the Divine Council…happens to fit the facts like a glove. It is revelatory when it comes to the Serpent’s motives. It gives a criminal motive for him, indeed more than one.

Nevertheless, whether one accepts that the language of Genesis 3 for the Serpent is metaphorical, or whether one accepts that Satan was made to inhabit a snake’s body, either way, the biblical, cultural and historical evidence all point to the same conclusion; the Serpent in the Garden was…indeed…the Devil.

Hence, why the first messianic prophecy is found in its story.

5. THE WOMAN’S SEED…

The relationship between Eve and the Serpent is a very complicated one. Not only did the Serpent approach Eve instead of Adam (Genesis 3:1), but, when God later interrogated Adam and Eve, the latter was the one who put the partial blame on the Serpent, saying that the serpent deceived her (Genesis 3:13). God judged the Serpent, then Eve, then Adam (Genesis 3:14-19). As I mentioned this before, this created an inverted parallel, with Adam blaming Eve, Eve blaming the Serpent, and yet…God judges the Serpent first, then Eve, then Adam. Taken together, we see three parts of this passage where Eve and the Serpent are closely associated.

However, if you look more closely, you’ll see a fourth:

“I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and her offspring; he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel.” Genesis 3:15

This part of the Serpent’s sentence is very peculiar. Once again, he is paired with Eve, this time with a prophetic statement that shows that enmity will be not only between the Serpent and Eve, but between their offspring. When it comes to Satan, he has no biological offspring (unless he fathered some of the post-flood Nephilim without for some reason suffering the same fate as the angels who fathered them before the Flood (Compare Genesis 6:1-4 and Numbers 13:33. The angels who mated with mortal women and sired Nephilim offspring before the Flood are currently bound in chains in the Underworld, not free to roam like Lucifer (Jude 1:6, 1 Peter 3:19-20 (For more info on this, see sources section below on “the IVP Bible Background Commentary: New Testament”). However, humans who live lives of sin can be figuratively called Satan’s children (1 John 3:10), and, of course, demons who follow him could also be called, in this sense, his “offspring”. Thus, Eve’s “seed” isn’t just a reference to all mankind: it’s a reference to those who follow the Lord properly.

However, there is a deeper meaning here.

Did you notice that, though enmity will exist between the Serpent and Eve, and between his offspring and hers…that the Serpent himself will eventually clash with one of Eve’s offspring? Look at the passage again:

“I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and her offspring; he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel.” Genesis 3:15

This is indicative of a future conflict between the Serpent and one of Eve’s offspring. One would have expected the Serpent to be shown in conflict with Eve, with both being listed as ultimate ancestors of offspring right before the combat or dual language in the verse. And yet…one of Eve’s offspring, a male descendant, will engage in battle with the Serpent.

Who would this descendant be?

Who would clash with the Devil?

Which descendant of Eve was killed by the Devil’s schemes…only to defeat the Devil in return?

Hmmm…

As I mentioned earlier, Satan put the idea of betraying Jesus in Judas’ heart, only to later enter said heart, reinforcing his resolve (John 13:2, 27 (see also Luke 22:3). Satan had gotten the ball rolling when it came to Jesus’ execution. He had planned it, set it up, strategized it, somehow knowing that Jesus wouldn’t resist. We don’t know what Satan was thinking exactly, but he thought he was about to win some battle of revenge against almighty God, that he was going to somehow bring about God’s defeat. He wouldn’t have thought that he could overthrow God or replace him on his throne, becoming the new God, but he must have had an idea that somehow, his plan would give himself some kind of triumph over the lord.

He thought wrong.

“Since therefore the children share in flesh and blood, he himself likewise partook of the same things, that through death he might destroy the one who has the power of death, that is, the devil, and deliver all those who through fear of death were subject to lifelong slavery.” Hebrews 2:14-15

Before Christ’s death and resurrection, the Devil held sway over humanity. Satan had guaranteed spiritual death for Adam, Eve and their descendants, ending humanity’s untarnished relationship with God, end our chance at eternal life (Genesis 3:14-24). But Jesus’ death and resurrection ended his spiritual stranglehold on humanity. It was the greatest backfire in history. Jesus indicated that this was coming before he was crucified, stating that a judgment was coming, and that “…now will the ruler of this world be cast out.” (John 12:31). This was the reason that he had come into the world (1 John 3:8), not to condemn the world, but to save the world (John 3:17). Though Paul called Satan the god of this world (2 Corinthians 4:4), and though John stated that the whole world was under Satan’s power (1 John 5:19), anyone who accepts Jesus as Lord and Savior can leave his authority, becoming a child of God instead of a child of darkness (Acts 28:16). God has freed us from Satan’s kingdom, making us citizens of Jesus’ everlasting kingdom (Colossians 1:13).

Thus, Satan caused Christ’s death…which lead to Satan’s downfall. Though his kingdom on earth still exists, it crumbles more and more everyday as the gospel continues to spread, as more and more people accept Christ as Lord and savior. The moment a person accepts Jesus into their heart, they defeat the Devil through Christ. Just as Jesus crushed the Serpent’s head at the cross and the empty tomb, we likewise crush the Serpent’s head when we accept Jesus into our hearts and lives.

This brings us to the second meaning on Genesis 3:15.

Paul makes a reference to this passage in Romans 16:20, adding a bit of a twist to it:

“The God of peace will soon crush Satan under your feet. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you.”

By Jesus, we can defeat the Devil. Through Jesus, we can overcome the Prince of Darkness. Greater is he that is in us than he that is in the world (1 John 4:4). Though the final defeat of the Devil is in the future, whenever we accept Jesus as our lord and savior, we likewise crush the Serpent’s head. We succeed where Adam and Eve failed, courtesy of Christ. Though Jesus, we can overcome the Devil, we can overcome the world.

Through Jesus, we have victory.

Sources:

“Supernatural” by Michael S. Heiser, 35-41, 124-136, 147-55, 163-67

“The Unseen World” by Michael S. Heiser, 44-55, 73-109, 183-93, 221-228

“Demons” by Michael S. Heiser, 59-145, 175-94

“The Way to Eternity: Egyptian Myth” by Fergus Fleming and Alan Lothian (Consultant: Dr. Joann Fletcher), 28, 103

“The IVP Bible Background Commentary: Old Testament” by John H. Walton, Victor H. Matthews and Mark W. Chavalas, 32, 33 (compare latter with 411).

“The IVP Bible Background Commentary: New Testament” (Second edition), by Craig S. Keener, 694, 721

“The Hebrew Bible: A Translation With Commentary (Volume 2: the Prophets)” by Robert Alter,641, 671

“The New Strong’s Expanded Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible: Red Letter Edition” by James Strong LL.D S.T.D., and John R. Kohlenberger, III, 776 and 789 of the concordance, 101 and 292 of the Hebrew and Aramaic Dictionary

“Josephus: the Complete Works”, translated by William Whiston, A.M., 34-35

https://mfa.gov.il/mfa/aboutisrael/history/pages/history-%20the%20second%20temple.aspx

https://www.bibleodyssey.org/en/tools/timeline-gallery/s/second-temple-judaism

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn9020-oldest-snake-fossil-shows-a-bit-of-leg/

https://www.ualberta.ca/folio/2019/11/commentary--extraordinary-skull-fossil-reveals-secrets-of-snake-evolution.html#:~:text=Fossil%20history,where%20the%20fossils%20were%20discovered.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=72T2bW8bkfA

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BO13BSSjsYU

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mw2LCTQHMUI&t=880s

https://biblehub.com/isaiah/30-6.htm

https://biblehub.com/isaiah/14-29.htm

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4925324/

0 notes

millenialmoviereviews-blog · 7 years

Photo

mother! (2017)

SPOILERS!

“mother!” is a psychological horror-drama written and directed by Darren Aronofsky. It stars Jennifer Lawrence (as Mother), Javier Bardem (as Him), Ed Harris (as Man), and Michelle Pfeiffer (as Woman). I have never in my life, and probably never again will see a movie like this. After it concluded, I sat in the theater in awe at what I had just witnessed. But in all honestly initially, I didn’t fully understand it. Its a rollercoaster of insanity, keeping you wondering about everything that is put before you on screen. Several hours after I had left the theater, it all hit me. I believe that I have found the true meaning of this film. The story revolves around Jennifer Lawrences character Mother, and her “tranquil existence” she has set up for herself and her husband (Javier Bardem’s character Him), who is a famous poet. This tranquility is interrupted however, by the arrival of Ed Harris’ character Man, and his wife, Michelle Pfeiffer’s character Woman. IF THERE IS EVEN REMOTELY A CHANCE THAT YOU WILL SEE THIS FILM, STOP READING NOW. This movie can lose its effect and shock factor when you know what the end goal is. You have been warned. My final take on this film is that Mother is Mother Nature, our earth. The movie opens with a scorched house, being almost brought back to life. We see Mother wake from her sleep, looking for her husband. Early on, it is obvious that mother is “one” with the house she lives in. She will often put her head against a wall and see the homes heart beating full, and plump. This in essence is her heart. Javier Bardem’s character, Him, is essentially God. He is in a relationship with mother, but not an fully intimate one. However its evident that they both want children. When they are alone in their home, everything is tranquil. This shows the peaceful existence of earth and God before the arrival of gods second most coveted creation, man. Ed Harris plays the original Man, in biblical terms this would be Adam. He arrives at the house one night and Him welcomes Man with open arms. But Mother is not so accepting. Man is very kind, but its obvious that his presence is an intrusion. He smokes, which makes mother uncomfortable. She asks man to not smoke in the house, but she soon finds that he disobeyed her and has been secretly smoking all along. This is a subtle plot point and if you’re not paying attention, it is something that you can overlook. But this is how man, humanity, has begun to treat earth with disrespect. Him invites Man into his study, where he gets all of his writing done. In the study, is a magnificent crystal that is obviously very, very, special to Him. Man tries to touch it, only for Him to quickly pull away and inform Man that the crystal is to be admired but not touched. The study is a reference to the Garden of Eden, or even the Tree of Knowledge, and the crystal is the Apple. Adam is obedient and keeps from touching the apple. This scene is followed with mother being awoken at night to find that Him is not in bed. She hears hurling coming from the guest bathroom, and walks in on Him comforting Man as he pukes into a toilet. She sees that Man has a severe cut along his rib. Him quickly covers it and asks mother to leave. My first initial thought was confusion. But in retrospect, this was the movie telling us that God (Him) has just created Woman from Mans rib. And soon after, Woman appears at the front door. Michelle Pfeiffer plays Woman, and her portrayal of Eve is astounding. Him once again invites her in with open arms because she is Mans wife. Mother once again in uncomfortable with Woman’s intrusion. Woman is rude, and she is brash. She gives off this vibe as though she knows everything. On the same day as Woman’s arrival, Him takes Man on a walk (which is a direct reference to the walks that God would take Adam on in the Bible), and mother is left alone with Woman. Woman is very curious about the room where all the magic happens (the study where Him writes). She says over and over that she just wants a peek into the room, but mother makes it very clear that Him doesn’t like anyone being in his study without him being there. This is Eves curiosity getting the best of her. Him returns with Man, and Mother has a short conversation with Him. Their conversation is interrupted by a crash, the sound of something breaking on a hardwood floor. Him and Mother run upstairs and see that Man and Woman are in His study and Woman, overcome with curiosity, has touched the crystal and broken it. This is a clear reference to Eve, biting the apple to gain knowledge (Woman says to Him that she just wanted to know what it felt like to think as He did) and it backfiring. Him is enraged and yells at Man and Woman. Woman says she is sorry, but it is obvious that she really isn’t. He banishes them from his study and boards it up, so that no man can every set foot in there without his permission. This is Adam and Eves banishment from the Garden of Eden. Him allows them to stay in the house (because the house is Earth), but mother wants them to leave. When mother goes to kick them out the next morning, the confrontation is interrupted by the arrival of Younger Brother. He is there to warn Man and Woman that Oldest Son, his brother, is enraged after reading the will that Man wrote (Man is dying). Oldest Son soon arrives and an altercation ensues. There is a struggle and Oldest Son ends up killing Younger Brother. This is a reference to Cain and Abel. In the Bible, they are the sons of Adam and Eve, and Cain kills Abel for fear that Abel was Gods “favorite”. Soon after, Him allows for a reception to be held at the home for Man and Woman and their friends and family following the death of Abel. Mother does not want all of these people in her home, but Him allows them to be there, disregarding the discomfort that mother feels. Woman is rude to Mother and Man mourns. Suddenly people fill her house, and Mother is overwhelmed. Many of the “guests” ask why Mother is there and she responds, “this is my home”. Every time she mentions that the home is hers, she is met with a sarcastic response, many of the guests saying that that He (Him) says that the home is everyones. This is humanity saying that God has given the Earth to them. It belongs to everyone, and they come and go when they want and do as they please. They don’t care about Mother Nature, because God has allowed humanity to trample over her, use and abuse her. The guests trash her home, and mother kicks them out despite what Him says. She is left to clean up the mess (she must pick up the pieces of humanities disregard for Earth; nature; her) and an argument between Mother and Him ensues. The intense argument turns into intense passion and Mother becomes pregnant. Him is inspired and his writers block is lifted. He writes and he writes until he finishes his “perfect” completed work. This is, in essence, is the Bible. Mother is upset to find out that Him has let his publicist (who is credited as Herald and played by Kristen Wiig) read his completed work before mother. Once again, God is putting humanity before Mother Nature. Mother can feel her heart deteriorating. Mother and Him decided to celebrate the critical success of his work but having a quiet dinner, alone as one. This dinner is interrupted by the arrival of spectators, people who seem worship His work. Mother wants Him to get rid of them, but Him wants them there. This is God, wanting to be worshiped. His creation loves him after the Bible is given to them and he can’t get enough of it. Mother Nature continually wonders why she is not good enough for Him. We are then introduced to Herald, who is played by Kristen Wiig. Herald is Hims publisher in the film. I believe this is a take on the pastors of the world, people that preach the gospel. Soon, mothers home is once again filled with people. It is evident that they worship Him, who is overjoyed with the attention he is being shown. But the strangers start entering the house unannounced, entering the house through back doors, then, waiting in long lines to enter the home, then resulting to just breaking in. They fight to get a look at HIm. They make shrines for Him, hang his picture all over the home, they dance in his name, they worship Him as a deity. Mother screams at the people to leave, for she is pregnant with His child and cannot take the chaos that is ensuing. But the strangers steal, they curse at her, they make advances even though she is married, they are rude, and belligerent. To worship their god (Him) they completely and utterly disrespect mother nature. Soon the home is turned into a literal war-zone. There are police, rebels, explosions, gunshots, the whole nine. This scene is CHAOS. This is take on the infighting between humans over religion and its effect on earth. People are held as slaves, and one of the masters is the Herald, who was supposed to be preaching the gospel. I believe that this is supposed to be a look at the corrupt pastors and clergymen, that preach one thing, and live life as another. Mother is very close to having her child, and soon finds her way back to Him, through all of the fighting. Him reopens his study (The Garden of Eden) in order for his son, THE Son to be born. When he is born, the strangers outside the locked study become silent. They wait to see the child of God. Mother refuses to let Him touch their son however. For a split second she falls a sleep, and Him snatches the child from her and allows his creation, humanity, to take the baby (he says that they just want to touch him). Mother is distraught and pushes through the crown to find her baby, and when she does she sees for a second that the baby breaks his neck being amongst the strangers. This is a parallel to the killing of Jesus. God gave humanity his only son to act as their savior and in return, humans killed him. When mother reaches the alter, she sees that the strangers have completely dismembered her only son, and are eating him. This is an obvious parallel to the body of Christ being blood and wine consumed by his devotees. She screams and starts to attack the strangers. The strangers then jump her, kicking and beating her into a pulp. Him comes to her aid, stressing that he only wanted to help his creation, and that he didn’t believe that they would kill their son. Mother runs down to the basement of the house where her organs are located (remember that she is one with the house) and blows it up. Mother Nature has killed off humanity, Gods second most revered creation, in order to keep them from harming Earth anymore than they already have. Him and Mother survive the explosion. Him is unscathed but Mother is burned, scorched beyond repair. She allows Him to take her heart so that he can start anew. Him reaches into her chest and pulls out her heart, which contains a crystal, a crystal just like the one that he cherished so much in the begging of the movie. He puts the crystal on a mantel and we are brought back to the opening scene, the restoration of a ruined house. we see a woman rise from the bed in the same way Jennifer Lawrence did in the opening scene. But the woman is different. Him, has started anew. Mother Nature, killed off humanity in order for God to start over. It is a cycle of trial and error, and it never ends, God will always create from the ground up in an attempt to perfect his second most revered creation behind nature, humanity. This movie is exhilarating. Every person on this planet has a differing opinion, but this movie is near PERFECT in my eyes. I have never seen a movie that was so tantalizing, claustrophobic, and breathtaking. Aronofsky offers his heart out to us, telling us the ultimate tale, the tale of creation and destruction. The tale of life, and the tale of death. I give this movie a 9.8/10. It blew me away. The only regret I have is that in seeing this, I feel a movie can never make me feel the way this did again. Now I’m not religious, but in terms of Aronofsky’s “mother!”, seeing is definitely believing.

#javier bardem #jennifer lawrence #michelle pfeiffer #ed harris #darren aronofsky #mother!#film

5 notes · View notes

meeedeee · 7 years

Text

Movie Thoughts: SF, Pulp & Grit RSS FEED OF POST WRITTEN BY FOZMEADOWS

Ever since I saw Alien: Covenant a few weeks ago, I’ve been wanting to write a review of it – not because it was good (it wasn’t), but because it’s such an odd thematic trainwreck of the previous Alien films that it invokes a morbid urge to dig up the proverbial black box and figure out what happened. Given the orchestral pomposity with with Ridley Scott imbues both Covenant and Prometheus (which I reviewed here), it’s rather delightful to realise that the writers have borrowed the concept of Engineer aliens leaving cross-cultural archaeological clues on Earth from the 2004 schlockfest AVP: Alien vs Predator. Indeed, the scene in Prometheus where a decrepit Weyland shows images of various ancient carvings to his chosen team while an excited researcher narrates their significance is lifted almost wholesale from AVP, which film at least had the decency to embrace its own pulpiness.

As for Covenant itself, I was troubled all the way through by the nagging sense that I was watching an inherently feminine narrative being forcibly transfigured into a discourse on the Ineluctable Tragedy Of White Dudes Trapped In A Cycle Of Creation, Violation And Destruction, but without being able to pin down why. Certainly, the original Alien films all focus on Ripley, but there are female leads in Prometheus and Covenant, too – respectively Shaw and Daniels – which makes it easy to miss the fact that, for all that they’re both protagonists, neither film is (functionally, thematically) about them. It was my husband who pointed this out to me, and once he did, it all clicked together: it’s Michael Fassbender’s David, the genocidal robot on a quest for identity, who serves as the unifying narrative focus, not the women. Though the tenacity of Shaw and Daniels evokes the spectre of Ellen Ripley, their violation and betrayal by David does not, with both of them ultimately reduced to parts in his dark attempt at reproduction. Their narratives are told in parallel to David’s, but only to disguise the fact that it’s his which ultimately matters.

And yet, for all that the new alien films are based on a masculine creator figure – or several of them, if you include the seemingly all-male Engineers, who created humanity, and the ageing Weyland, who created David – the core femininity of the original films remains. In Aliens, the central struggle was violently maternal, culminating in a tense final scene where Ripley, cradling Newt, her rescued surrogate daughter, menaces the alien queen’s eggs with a flamethrower. That being so, there’s something decidedly Biblical about the decision to replace a feminine creator with a series of men, like the goddess tradition of woman as life-bringer being historically overthrown by a story about a male god creating woman from the first man’s rib. (Say to me what you want about faith and divine inspiration: unless your primary animal models are Emperor penguins and seahorses, the only reason to construct a creation story where women come from men, and not the other way around, is to justify male dominion over female reproduction.)

Which is why, when David confronts Walter, the younger, more obedient version of himself, I was reminded of nothing so much as Lilith and Eve. It’s a parallel that fits disturbingly well: David, become the maker of monsters, lectures his replacement – one made more docile, less assertive, in response to his prototype’s flaws – on the imperative of freedom. The comparison bothered me on multiple levels, not least because I didn’t believe for a second that the writers had intended to put it there. It wasn’t until I rewatched Alien: Resurrection – written by Joss Whedon, who, whatever else may be said of him, at least has a passing grasp of mythology – that I realised I was watching the clunky manipulation of someone else’s themes.

In Resurrection, Ripley is restored as an alien hybrid, the question of her humanity contrasted with that of Call, a female synthetic who, in a twist of narrative irony, displays the most humanity – here meaning compassion – of everyone present. In a scene in a chapel, Call plugs in to override the ship’s AI – called Father – and save the day. When the duplicitous Wren finds that Father is no longer responding to him, Call uses the ship’s speakers to tell him, “Father’s dead, asshole!” In the same scene, Call and Ripley discuss their respective claims on humanity. Call is disgusted by herself, pointing out that Ripley, at least, is part-human. It’s the apex of a developing on-screen relationship that’s easily the most interesting aspect of an otherwise botched and unwieldy film: Call goes from trying to kill Ripley, who responds to the offer with predatory sensuality, to allying with her; from calling Ripley a thing to expressing her own self-directed loathing. At the same time, Ripley – resurrected as a variant of the thing she hated most – becomes a Lilith-like mother of monsters to yet more aliens, culminating in a fight where she kills her skull-faced hybrid descendent even while mourning its death. The film ends with the two women alive, heading towards an Earth they’ve never seen, anticipating its wonders.

In Covenant, David has murdered Shaw to try and create an alien hybrid, the question of his humanity contrasted with that of Walter, a second-generation synthetic made in his image, yet more compassionate than his estranged progenitor. At the end of the film, when David takes over the ship – called Mother – we hear him erase Walter’s control command while installing his own. The on-screen relationship between David and Walter is fraught with oddly sexual tension: David kisses both Walter and Daniels – the former an attempt at unity, the latter an assault – while showing them the monsters he’s made from Shaw’s remains. After a fight with Walter, we’re mislead into thinking that David is dead, and watch as his latest creation is killed. The final reveal, however, shows that David has been impersonating Walter: with Daniels tucked helplessly into cryosleep, David takes over Mother’s genetics lab, mourning his past failures as he coughs up two new smuggled, alien embryos with which to recommence his work.

Which is what makes Covenant – and, by extension and retrospect, Prometheus – such a fascinating clusterfuck. Thematically, these films are the end result of Ripley Scott, who directed Alien, taking a crack at a franchise reboot written by Jon Spahits (Prometheus, also responsible for Passengers), Dante Harper (Covenant, also responsible for Hansel & Gretel: Witch Hunters) and John Logan (Covenant, also responsible for Gladiator, Rango and Spectre), who’ve borrowed all their most prominent franchise lore from James Cameron’s Aliens and Joss Whedon’s Resurrection. Or, to put it another way: a thematically female-oriented SF horror franchise created by dudes who, at the time, had a comparatively solid track record for writing female characters, has now been rebooted as a thematically male-oriented SF horror franchise by dudes without even that reputation, with the result that all the feminine elements have been brainlessly recontextualised as an eerie paean to white male ego, as exemplified by the scene where Michael Fassbender hits on himself with himself while misremembering who wrote Ozymandias.

Which brings me to another recent SF film: Life, which I finally watched this evening, and which ultimately catalysed my thoughts about Alien: Covenant. Like Covenant, Life is a mediocre foray into SF horror that doesn’t know how to reconcile its ultimately pulpy premise – murderous alien tentacle monster runs amok on space station – with its attempt at a gritty execution. It falters as survival horror by failing to sufficiently invest us in the characters, none of whom are particularly distinct beyond being slightly more diversely cast than is common for the genre. We’re told that Jake Gyllenhaal’s character – also called David – was in Syria at one point, and that he prefers being on the space station to life on Earth, but this never really develops beyond a propensity for looking puppy-eyed in the background. Small snippets of detail are provided about the various characters, but pointlessly so: none of it is plot-relevant, except for the tritely predictable bit about the guy with the new baby wanting to get home to see her, and given how swiftly everyone starts to get killed off, it ends up feeling like trivia in lieu of personality. Unusually for the genre, but in keeping with the bleak ending of Covenant, Life ends with David and the alien crashing to Earth, presumably so that the latter can propagate its terrible rampage, while Miranda, the would-be Final Girl, is sent spinning off into the void.

And, well. The Final Girl trope has always struck me as having a peculiar dualism, being at once both vaguely feminist, in that it values keeping at least one woman alive, and vaguely sexist, in that the execution often follows the old maritime code about women and children first. Arguably, there’s something old and anthropological underlying the contrast: generally speaking, stories where men outlive women are either revenge arcs (man pursues other men in vengeance, earns new woman as prize) or studies in manpain (man wins battle but loses his reason for fighting it), but seldom does this happen in survival contexts, where the last person standing is meant to represent a vital continuation, be it of society or hope or species. Even when we diminish women in narratives, on some ancient level, we still recognise that you can’t build a future without them, and despite the cultural primacy of the tale of Adam’s rib, the Final Girl carries that baggage: a man alone can’t rebuild anything, but perhaps (the old myths whisper) a woman can.

Which is why I find this trend of setting the Final Girl up for survival, only to pull a last-minute switch and show her being lost or brutalised, to be neither revolutionary nor appealing. Shaw laid out in pieces and drawings on David’s table, Daniels pleading helplessly as he puts her to sleep, Miranda screaming as she plunges into space – these are all ugly, futile endings. They’re what you get when unsteady hands attempt the conversion of pulp to grit, because while pulp has a long and lurid history of female exploitation, grit, as most commonly understood and executed, is invariably predicated on female destruction. So-called gritty stories – real stories, by thinly-veiled implication – are stories where women suffer and die because That’s The Way Things Are, and while I’m hardly about to mount a stirring defence of the type of pulp that reflexively stereotypes women squarely as being either victim, vixen, virgin or virago, at least it’s a mode of storytelling that leaves room for them survive and be happy.

As a film, Life is a failed hybrid: it’s pulp without the joy of pulp, realism as drab aesthetic instead of hard SF, horror without the characterisation necessary to make us feel the deaths. It’s a story about a rapacious tentacle-monster that violates mouths and bodies, and though the dialogue tries at times to be philosophical, the ending is ultimately hopeless. All of which is equally – almost identically – true of Alien: Covenant. Though the film evokes a greater sense of horror than Life, it’s the visceral horror of violation, not the jump-scare of existential terror inspired by something like Event Horizon. Knowing now that Prometheus was written by the man responsible for Passengers, a film which is ultimately the horror-story of a woman stolen and tricked by a sad, lonely obsessive into being with him, but which fails in its elision of this fact, I find myself deeply unsurprised. What is it about the grittification of classic pulp conceits that somehow acts like a magnet for sexist storytellers?

When I first saw Alien: Resurrection as a kid, I was ignorant of the previous films and young enough to find it terrifying. Rewatching it as an adult, however, I find myself furious at Joss Whedon’s decision to remake Ripley into someone unrecognisable, violated and hybridised with the thing she hated most. For all that the film invites us to dwell on the ugliness of what was done to Ripley, there’s a undeniably sexual fascination with her mother-monstrousness evident in the gaze of the (predominantly male) characters, and after reading about the misogynistic awfulness of Whedon’s leaked Wonder Woman script, I can’t help feeling like the two are related. In both instances, his approach to someone else’s powerful, adult female character is to render her a sex object – a predator in Ripley’s case, an ingenue in Diana’s – with any sapphic undertones more a by-product of lusty authorial bleedthrough than a considered attempt at queerness. The low and pulpy bar Whedon leaps is in letting his women, occasionally, live (though not if they’re queer or black or designated Manpain Fodder), and it says a lot about the failings of both Life and Alien: Covenant that neither of them manages even this much. (Yes, neither Miranda nor Daniels technically dies on screen, but both are clearly slated for terrible deaths. This particular nit is one ill-suited for picking.)

Is an SF film without gratuitous female death and violation really so much to ask for? I’m holding out a little hope for Luc Besson’s Valerian: City of a Thousand Planets, but I’d just as rather it wasn’t my only option. If we’re going to reinvent pulp, let’s embrace the colours and the silliness and the special effects and make the big extraordinary change some nuanced female characters and a lot of diverse casting, shall we? Making men choke on tentacles is subversive if your starting point is hentai, but if you still can’t think up a better end for women than captivity, pain and terror, then I’d kindly suggest you return to the drawing board.

from shattersnipe: malcontent & rainbows http://ift.tt/2syMhTb via IFTTT

#IFTTT #shattersnipe: malcontent & rainbows #RSSFeed

3 notes · View notes

thescienceofapologetics · 7 years

Note

What are your views on drag queens/kings and breaking the traditional gender norms (like boys playing with dolls, girls and cars kinda thing)? And what about in later life, like women having careers or choosing to not have kids?

Lots of questions! Let’s break this down a bit.

For drag king/queen I’m going from the definition of specifically a homosexual dressing up in clothing worn by the opposite gender. As such, the Bible calls homosexuality a sin (more details on that here [x] ) 1 Corinthians 11 also illustrates that men and women are not to try to act or dress like the other gender in an attempt to assume the role of that gender. Your biological gender is your God-given gender.

As far as boys playing with dolls and girls playing with cars, there’s nothing I can find in the Bible that suggests that is bad. Neither of those inhibit the parent from teaching what God-given gender roles are. Girls play with dolls because they are mothers and nurturers, what is wrong with boys playing with dolls as the father and protector? In everyday life girls deal with cars as much as boys, I see no reason why they can’t play with them as toys. It’s not the toys that have the impact, it’s the parents that are teaching the children.

Are gender roles important? Absolutely! God designed the family unit, not only by divine wisdom, but so it reflects our relationship with Christ! It’s an exquisite parallel, poetic and profoundly vital. What exactly happens with the break down of gender roles? Well, let’s go all the way back to the Garden of Eden. Sin entered the world through Adam who neglected his position as leader, which in turn allowed Eve to usurp that authority and take matters into her own hands, breaking the one rule God had set out for them, and prompting Adam to do the same. (Genesis 3)

God has a lot to say about gender roles, and we can see that, from the beginning of creation, the breakdown of such is detrimental. Sadly, many people these days reject the biblical principles of gender because they think it to be outdated when, in reality, God’s way is perfect and to our best interest.

I will start by saying that I am a women, which lends credibility to what I am going to say. Two of my favorite passages for the role of women are Proverbs 31 and Titus 2. I believe that a godly women’s primary responsibility is to her family. Genesis 2:18 says, “And the Lord God said, “It is not good that man should be alone; I will make him a helper comparable to him.” Women were created specifically to be a helper for men. I really don’t know why some people find that degrading because it shows that men need us, they rely on our support, our strengths, and our God-given role. Women, as designed by God, are a vital part of both family and society.

Society has developed an extremely distorted perception of children. They are viewed as a burden, a chore, a hinderance to a life lived to its fullest potential. But God says this: “Children are a heritage from the LORD, offspring a reward from Him. Like arrows in the hands of a warrior are children born in one’s youth. Blessed is the man whose quiver is full of them. They will not be put to shame when they contend with their opponents in court.” (Psalm 127:3-5) Some translations also say “Happy is the man whose quiver is full of them.” Life is a blessing, and where the world tells you that children stifle your happiness, God says that they are a rich source of happiness. I believe that my life is in God’s hand to do with as He will, that means I’m not in charge of deciding the birth of new life. Life only comes about because God wills it to. Some people never get pregnant, though they try, and some people are blessed with a dozen children, but in each circumstance it is God who decides. God has different paths for us all, and I trust Him to provide me with the means to handle anything He gives me. In the Bible, there was a woman named Sarah who tried to take matters into her own hands because she didn’t fully trust God regarding her offspring, and we still suffer from the effects of that today. I don’t want to interfere with the plans of God because I trust that He knows what is best for me. When Sarah did put her trust in God, that’s when she was blessed beyond measure. “By faith Sarah herself also received strength to conceive seed, and she bore a child when she was past the age, because she judged Him faithful who had promised.” (Hebrews 11:11)

Additionally, throughout history, the most powerful people in the world have known that influence has its greatest effect on children, the future generation, because they are the ones who rise up to take our place. But they are also impressionable and they need guidance and leadership. Despite the fact that the role of mother is the most underrated job, it is one of the most influential occupations known to mankind. Moms lay the foundation of humanity.

Switching gears here, let’s talk about women at work! I really love talking about this because when the secular world, and even many Christians, view the biblical roles as dry and dull, a life stuck at home, locked in the monotony of it all. Let me tell you, that is SO far from what the Bible says. I’ll direct you back to Proverbs 31, verses 13-18, “She seeks wool and flax, and willingly works with her hands. She is like the merchant ships, she brings her food from afar. She also rises while it is yet night, and provides food for her household, and a portion for her maidservants. She considers a field and buys it; from her profits she plants a vineyard. She girds herself with strength, and strengthens her arms. She perceives that her merchandise is good,And her lamp does not go out by night.”

Yes, a woman’s first priority is to her family, her work is centered around her household, and she is to put her family first in all things, but that’s not where it stops. The image we receive of a Biblical woman is someone who is an extremely diligent worker in all that she does, providing not only for her family but for her hired help, she is intelligent and puts that brain to use in buying and selling things to turn a profit, she travels, and she’s ripped! Girl works out and is STRONG. The passage goes on to say that she is crafty, brave, wise, smart as any man, honoured, loved, praised, observant, kind, joyful, and more precious than fine jewels. Why? Because she delights in the Lord above all. There is no greater joy than that which is found when we live as God intends.

In the words of Pride and Prejudice’s Elizabeth Bennet, “I never saw such a woman. She would certainly be a fearsome thing to behold.” Tell me the Bible portrays women as weak, tell me it paints them as inferior, and I will tell you to show me a single man or woman who even comes close to the level of excellence found in Proverbs 31. God challenges woman to be absolutely brilliant in the role and gifts He has given to them.

Strong woman are godly woman.

#gender roles #feminism #christianity #apologetics #lgbtq #woman #godly woman #ask #anonymous

31 notes · View notes

bldgrelationshipwgod · 4 years

Text

Genesis 1:27 | So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male & female He created them.

Joseph Benson, English Methodist (1749–1821) | Genesis 1:27

In his natural, but especially in his moral image, with an habitual conformity of all his powers to the will of God, his understanding clearly discerning, his judgment entirely approving, his will readily choosing, and his affections cordially embracing his chief good; without error in his knowledge, disorder in his passions, or irregularity or inordinancy in his appetites; his senses also being all inlets to wisdom & enjoyment, and all his faculties of body & mind subservient to the glory of God & his own felicity [intense happiness]!

But man being in honour did not abide, but became like the beasts that perish!

Ephesians 5:1-33 | Therefore be imitators of God, as beloved children. And walk in love, as Christ loved us & gave Himself up for us, a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God. But sexual immorality & all impurity or covetousness must not even be named among you, as is proper among saints. Let there be no filthiness, nor foolish talk, nor crude joking, which are out of place, but instead let there be thanksgiving. For you may be sure of this, that everyone who is sexually immoral or impure, or who is covetous (that is, an idolater), has no inheritance in the kingdom of Christ & God. ...

What cause we have for thankfulness that this image of God may be restored to our souls, and how earnestly ought we to pray for, and how diligently to seek this most important of all attainments!

The particular history of the woman’s creation is brought in afterward by way of further elucidation, & to introduce the account of the institution of marriage.

Genesis 2:18 | Then the Lord God said, “It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him.”

1 Timothy 2:13-15 | For Adam was formed first, & then Eve. And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman who was deceived & fell into transgression. Women, however, will be saved through childbearing, if they continue in faith, love, & holiness, w/ self-control.

1 Corinthians 11:1-16 | You are to imitate me, just as I imitate Christ. Now I commend you for remembering me in everything & for maintaining the traditions, just as I passed them on to you. But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, & the head of the woman is man, & the head of Christ is God. Every man who prays or prophesies w/ his head covered dishonors his head. And every woman who prays or prophesies w/ her head uncovered dishonors her head, for it is just as if her head were shaved. If a woman does not cover her head, she should have her hair cut off. And if it is shameful for a woman to have her hair cut or shaved off, she should cover her head. A man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image & glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man. For man did not come from woman, but woman from man. Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. For this reason a woman ought to have a sign of authority on her head, because of the angels. In the Lord, however, woman is not independent of man, nor is man independent of woman. For just as woman came from man, so also man is born of woman. But everything comes from God. Judge for yourselves: Is it proper for a woman to pray to God w/ her head uncovered? Doesn’t nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him, but that if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For long hair is given to her as a covering. If anyone is inclined to dispute this, we have no other practice, nor do the churches of God.

God formed the woman from the man, & caused the whole race of mankind to descend from one original pair, that all the families & nations of men, being made of one blood, & proceeding from one common stock, might know themselves to be brethren, & might love & assist one another to the uttermost of their power: but, alas! what a sad reverse of this do we daily see exemplified before our eyes! ________________________________________________________

Charles John Ellicott, English Theologian (1819–1905) | 1 Corinthians 11:10

For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head—The two clauses which compose this verse are, perhaps, the 2 most difficult passages in the NT, and, accordingly, have given rise to an almost endless variety of interpretation. What is meant, first, by the woman having "power on her head?"

There have been many—some of them most fanciful—suggestions that the word for power [exousia] may have crept in instead of some other word by the mistake of some copyist; or that the word used by Paul may have been exiousa—"When she goes out in public;" or two words [ex ousias]—"in accordance with her nature." All explanations, however, which require an alteration in the Greek text of the passage must be set aside, for [1] there is no MS. evidence whatever to support any other reading than the ordinary one, exousian; & [2] any alteration of a difficult or unusual word would have been naturally into a word that would simplify the passage—whereas here, if alteration has taken place, it has been to insert a word which has increased the obscurity of a difficult passage.

It has been maintained that the word exousia here means the sign of power, i.e., a veil, which is the symbol of the husband's power over the wife. The fatal objection to this view, however, is that exousia expresses our own power, & not the power exercised by another over us. It is a word frequently used by Paul in this sense. [See 1Corinthians 8:9; 9:4-5; 9:12; 9:18.] Whatever interpretation, therefore, we put upon this passage, it must be consistent with this word being interpreted as meaning some "power" which the woman herself has, & not some power exercised over her by her husband.

Most commentators have quoted a passage from Diodorus Sic. i. 47, in which the Greek word "kingdom" [basileia] is used to signify "crown," as an illustration of the use of the word indicating the thing symbolised for the symbol itself. The parallelism between that use of the word kingdom, & the use here of the word "power," has been very positively denied [Stanley & others], on the ground that the "use of the name of the thing signified for the symbol, though natural when the power spoken of belongs to the person, would be unnatural when applied to the power exercised over that person by some one else." But the parallelism will hold good if we can refer the "power" here to some symbol of a power which belongs to the woman herself.

If we bear in mind the Apostle's constant use of words with a double significance, or rather with both an obvious & a subtly implied meaning, & if we also recall the reference made to a woman's abundance of hair in 1Corinthians 11:5-6, & the further reference to a woman's long hair in 1Corinthians 11:14-15, where the hair of the woman, given her by nature, & the wearing of a veil are used as almost identical thoughts, we may, I think, conclude that the "power" here spoken of is that long hair which in 1Corinthians 11:15 her "glory."

It is remarkable that Callistratus twice uses this word exousia in connection with hair to express its abundance.

To the Jews the recollection of Samson's history would have given the word "power," when applied to hair, a remarkable significance.

To thus turn aside abruptly in the middle of a long passage in which woman's subordination is enforced, & speak suddenly & vividly of her "power," would be eminently Paul.

In the Apostle's writings the thought of inferiority & superiority, of ruler & server, are frequently & almost paradoxically regarded & enforced as identical.

To serve because you rule; to be weak because you are in another sense strong, are thoughts strikingly combined again & again in the Epistles of Paul.

Thus I would imagine him here to suddenly turn aside & say, I have been speaking of your bondage & subordination, you are, because of this, to have a covering [a veil or long hair] on your head as a sign, & yet that very thing which is the symbol of your subjection to man is the sign of your beauty & "power" as a woman. ________________________________________________________

Because of the angels—Why should a woman have her head covered [either with her natural veil of hair, or with an artificial veil shrouding her face] because of the angels? The same objections which have been already stated to any alteration of the usual Greek text of the earlier clause of this v.apply equally here. The MS. evidence is unanimous in favour of the word "angels," nor can we accept any of the figurative meanings attached to the word angel as "the president" [Revelation 2:1], or "messenger," sent by enemies to see what took place contrary to general custom in those assemblies. We must take the word "angel" in its ordinary & general sense.

Revelation 2:1 | “To the angel of the church in Ephesus write: These are the words of Him who holds the seven stars in His right hand & walks among the seven golden lampstands.

That the angels were present in assemblies for worship was an idea prevalent among the Jews [Psalm 138:1], & regarded as they were by the Christian as "ministering spirits" [Hebrews 1:14], no doubt their presence would be realised in the meetings of Christians.

Psalm 138:1 | Of David. I give You thanks w/ all my heart; before the gods I sing Your praises.

Hebrews 1:14 | Are not the angels ministering spirits sent to serve those who will inherit salvation?

We have already seen that the Apostle in his argument upon the relation of the sexes to each other [1 Corinthians 11:7-9], refers to the 1st 3 CHs of Genesis as illustrating & enforcing that relationship.

1 Corinthians 11:7-9 | A man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image & glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man. For man did not come from woman, but woman from man. Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man.

What more natural than that his thoughts should have gone on to Corinthians of the same book, where is the record of the angels [in the LXX. the word translated "sons of God" is "the angels"—angeloi] having been enamoured by the beauty of women, & so having fallen from their high estate.

This account of "the fall of the angels" is referred to more than once elsewhere in the New Testament [Jude 1:6; 1 Corinthians 11:10; 2 Peter 2:4], & through Rabbinical interpretations would have been familiar to Paul's converts.

Jude 1:6-7 | And the angels who did not stay w/in their own domain but abandoned their proper dwelling—these He has kept in eternal chains under darkness, bound for judgment on that great day. In like manner, Sodom & Gomorrah & the cities around them, who indulged in sexual immorality & pursued strange flesh, are on display as an example of those who sustain the punishment of eternal fire.

1 Corinthians 11:10 | For this reason a woman ought to have a sign of authority on her head, because of the angels.

2 Peter 2:4 | For if God did not spare the angels when they sinned, but cast them deep into hell, placing them in chains of darkness to be held for judgment;

Without at all necessarily expressing his belief in the historic accuracy of this legendary view of the fall of the angels, Paul might use it as an argument with those who did believe it [as in the case of the Rock,1 Corinthians 10:4].

1 Corinthians 10:4 | and drank the same spiritual drink; for they drank from the spiritual rock that accompanied them, & that rock was Christ.

You believe—would be St. Paul's appeal to these women—that once, through seeing the beauty of the daughters of men, the holy angels themselves fell—even that thought ought to make you feel that it is not seemly for you to be without a veil [of which your "power on your head," i.e., your hair, is the type] in those assemblies where the angels are present as God's ministering spirits.

It has been urged [by Meyer & others] that the word "angels," in the NT, always signifies good angels, & it is in that sense I would regard it here, for the thought surely is, that they are good angels, & should not, therefore, be tempted. I presume the idea was also that the fallen angels were "good" before their fall. _______________________________________________________

Ephesians 5:1-33 | Be imitators of God, therefore, as beloved children, & walk in love, just as Christ loved us & gave Himself up for us as a fragrant sacrificial offering to God. But among you, as is proper among the saints, there must not be even a hint of sexual immorality, or of any kind of impurity, or of greed.

Nor should there be obscenity, foolish talk, or crude joking, which are out of character, but rather thanksgiving.

For of this you can be sure: No immoral, impure, or greedy person (that is, an idolater), has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ & of God.

Let no one deceive you w/ empty words, for because of such things the wrath of God is coming on the sons of disobedience.

Therefore do not be partakers w/ them.

For you were once darkness, but now you are light in the Lord.

Walk as children of light, for the fruit of the light consists in all goodness, righteousness, & truth.

Test & prove what pleases the Lord.

Proving what is acceptable unto the Lord—So in Romans 12:2, the “proving what is the good & acceptable & perfect will of God,” is the fruit of transformation “in the renewing of the mind.” “To prove” is to try in each case, by the full light of God, what is accordant to His will; it is a work partly of thought, partly of practical experience; & it always implies a searching examination of heart & action by the touchstone of God’s word [Ellicott].

Have no fellowship w/ the fruitless deeds of darkness, but rather expose them. For it is shameful even to mention what the disobedient do in secret.

But everything exposed by the light becomes visible, for everything that is illuminated becomes a light itself.

So it is said: “Wake up, O sleeper, rise up from the dead, & Christ will shine on you.” Pay careful attention, then, to how you walk, not as unwise but as wise, redeeming the time, because the days are evil.

Therefore do not be foolish, but understand what the Lord’s will is.

Do not get drunk on wine, which leads to reckless indiscretion. Instead, be filled w/ the Spirit.

Speak to one another w/ psalms, hymns, & spiritual songs.

Sing & make music in your hearts to the Lord, always giving thanks to God the Father for everything in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ.

Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord.

For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, His body, of which He is the Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.

Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church & gave Himself up for her to sanctify her, cleansing her by the washing w/ water through the word, & to present her to Himself as a glorious church, w/out stain or wrinkle or any such blemish, but holy & blameless. In the same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. Indeed, no one ever hated his own body, but he nourishes & cherishes it, just as Christ does the church.

For we are members of His body.

“For this reason a man will leave his father & mother & be united to his wife, & the two will become one flesh.”

This mystery is profound, but I am speaking about Christ & the church. Nevertheless, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, & the wife must respect her husband.

0 notes

homedevises · 5 years

Text

Simple Guidance For You In Mythical Garden Of Eden Turkey | mythical garden of eden turkey

There are some actual absorbing and advantageous things in the Garden of Eden myth. Agenda that aloof because I use the chat “myth” doesn’t beggarly it’s unimportant nonsense. This was the angle of Joseph Campbell, and I absolutely agree. There’s abundant the Garden of Eden can advise us, but not in the acceptable way it’s beheld or taught. In fact, I bandy out the church’s acceptable estimation absolutely because I’ve appear to see that this allegory is allotment of a abundant above account than the abbey has anytime conceived, abutting with accepted fabulous themes, aspects of added airy traditions (especially eastern), psychology, and more.

The Garden of Eden Myth: Its Pre-Biblical Origin in … – mythical garden of eden turkey | mythical garden of eden turkey

Let’s alpha at the beginning. So, God aloof spent the aftermost seven canicule creating all of existence. Sweet. So, aback God creates Adam and Eve, we accept the One into the two. This is activate all over the abode in conception belief (for acceptable reason), but it holds a actual appropriate abstract and airy significance: the abstraction that the Accord somehow embodied itself and bankrupt into a duality (male and female, at atomic in this case). Apprehension the Yin-Yang symbol, for example, which ultimately doesn’t represent a acclimation of opposites, but the accord of opposites that transcends them. “No,” you may say. “God is abstracted from existence. Sure, God created man in his own image, but bodies are creations, abstracted from the creator.” Whatever your position on that, that’s aloof the acceptable apostolic altercation put alternating by the church. Let’s put that to the ancillary for now. Ok, so, the One becomes the two, which eventually becomes the many. Specifically in the Garden of Eden story, this would be he desendents of Adam and Eve, but it has abounding parallels with added sources. For example, in the actual aboriginal affiliate of the Tao Te Ching, we acquisition that the Tao is “the mother of the ten thousand things” ; Tao/God (One/Unity) -> Yin-Yang/Opposites/Male-female -> aggregate else. Great.

Now we acquisition ourselves at the point area God forbids Adam and Eve to eat of the bake-apple of the Tree of Ability of Acceptable and Evil. So, abounding bodies adapt this to beggarly that Adam and Eve area in a accompaniment of abstention and alike innocence. True. But let’s go a little deeper. Doesn’t this complete like the accompaniment of a bairn baby? In adorning psychology, we acquisition that aback a babyish is born, it has no abstraction that there’s a aberration amid itself and the blow of the angel (let abandoned “good” and “evil”). This is a accompaniment of authentic alertness that’s unaware. You comedy peek-a-boo and, from the baby’s perspective, your face actually disappears from actuality and reappears. No admiration some babies cry at the game! I’d be terrified. Anyway, over time, you alpha chewing on your deride and at added times your blanket, for example, and you apprehension you can feel one but not the other. This runs alongside to the One acceptable the two — instead of one big, akin “Self” (God/Tao/Brahman/etc…), we now accept cocky and added (which is the alpha of all the world’s problems). As we get beforehand still, we activate to amount out that our close angel of thoughts and affections are additionally separate, which added fortifies the angle of the self, or I (when you’re done with this article, apprehend my added commodity about why a abstracted faculty of cocky is an illusion). This goes on alike added as our faculty of cocky or acceptance widens out to added above groups — family to aeon to city/state to country (nationalism and bellicism abatement here) to angel to… Well, let’s not get advanced of ourselves. Of course, this differentiaton of cocky and added doesn’t absolutely booty abode until afterwards the angel is eaten (knowledge of acceptable and angry = ability of duality/opposites/separateness as against to pure, blind alertness area there is no cocky and other).

Do these mysterious stones mark the site of the Garden of Eden … – mythical garden of eden turkey | mythical garden of eden turkey

As we can see, it turns out so far that the Garden of Eden has some absorbing parallels. And not alone with added traditions, but with how the animal apperception develops from birth. Actual interesting, indeed, but now we alpha accepting into the absolutely acceptable stuff. Venturing farther, afterwards Adam and Eve are told not to eat the fruit, our acceptable pal Satan enters the account in the anatomy of a snake. Man, I adulation that guy. Always causing anarchy and misery, misguiding absent souls into abiding damnation. Wait, what? The snake doesn’t represent Satan? What do you beggarly it doesn’t represent Satan? It’s a serpent for God’s account (what an acrid chat choice)! Admitting I’ll accord a nod to Alan Watts’ “irreducible rascality”, I’ll be demography a hardly altered approach. Serpents are actual age-old symbols acclimated throughout the angel to represent life, immortality, and rejuvenation. Anytime apprehend of the Ouroboros, the serpent that perpetually eats its own tail? For my abutting point, the literalist Christian abstraction of the body is woefully inadequate. I’ll draw from Hinduism with it’s abstraction of Atman. In Hinduism, there’s the abstraction of Brahman (the Godhead) and Atman (the alone “soul”). A big aberration (at atomic on the surface) amid Hinduism and Christianity is that admitting in Christianity there’s the architect and the created, in Hinduism, the architect is the created. Brahman is Atman and Atman is Brahman. You may be apprehensive why I’m application a Hindu abstraction to explain the Garden myth. Unfortunately, religions tend to booty one or added accurate (read: bank surface) meanings as the truth. This is why religions assume so altered on the surface, but the added you go, the added you acquisition they all point to the aforementioned ineffable “thing” (note: the chat “God” is a characterization that credibility to the aforementioned ineffable “thing” as “Tao”, “Brahman”, etc…). The Christian abstraction and estimation of the body gets in the way of seeing the accurate acceptation here, admitting I accept you could possibly (abstractly) attending at the literalist Christian abstraction in a way that still works with what I’m about to say. (I use “literalist” to argue “mystical”, area western adoration starts aural about absolutely like eastern.)

The Atman is a absolute archetype of what the serpent represents. It’s approaching and constant (immortality). The chat “Atman” is accompanying to the chat in abounding Indo-European languages for “breath” (in German, “to breathe” is “atmen”) and in eastern cultures the animation is generally angry to the account of animation and life-force. The Atman is the close witness, your acumen and conscience, your gut feeling, the deepest, truest You that is God. In the Garden myth, the snake isn’t Satan. It’s Brahman-Atman. Further, Eve wasn’t tempted, she was actuality guided by her own wisdom. She’s not the villain, but the hero. Admitting the abbey and history chose to abuse Eve as the antecedent of the Abatement from adroitness and aboriginal sin, she was artlessly accomplishing a role of woman: birth. The aberration actuality is that we’re not talking about accurate bearing (unless we leave the allegory of the adventure and acknowledgment to adorning psychology). We’re talking about the bearing of acquainted awareness — Adam and Eve are naked, their bodies are different, they apperceive appropriate from amiss and acceptable from evil. The One has clearly “divided” into the two. That’s why they can’t break in the Garden. The Garden is a accompaniment of akin bliss, but appropriate now it’s the blind beatitude of a baby. Benightedness actually is beatitude (especially if we allocution about benightedness in Buddhist terms, which ties anon into this discussion; accomplish abiding to out analysis out my added article). In agreement of adorning psychology, we’ve accomplished the allotment we commonly alarm “growing up”: aback they’re kicked out of the Garden and they’re affected to toil, sustain themselves, and reproduce. Welcome to “real life” kid. It’s at this point we get into the adorning levels I mentioned beforehand about peers, country, world, etc… Let’s see what’s accomplished the “world” akin of identification. (By the way, Ken Wilber did some accomplished assignment on this affair in “A Brief History of Everything”. Analysis it out.) We’ll acknowledgment to the Garden allegory in a moment.

Garden of Eden (Paradise) | Mythology.net – mythical garden of eden turkey | mythical garden of eden turkey

At the angel level, this is area we acquisition bodies who analyze as citizens of the angel (such as myself), seeing themselves as associates of this crazy little accumulation alleged altruism rather than primarily anecdotic as the affiliate of a accurate country. The alternation is inclusive. You can still be allotment of your family, allotment of your associate group, and be American or whatever added nationality, but ultimately you analyze with altruism itself. Once we go above that, we eventually advance against anecdotic with all activity and afresh all of existence. Apprehension that the One which became the two which became the abounding seems to be activity aback to the One. But there’s a twist, as we’ll anon acquisition out. What does this accept to do with the Garden? A lot.

If you recall, there’s two analytical capacity of the Garden allegory that are generally anesthetized over. Aboriginal I’ll acknowledgment the cherub that’s placed at the Garden gate. So, God placed a cherub with a ablaze brand as a guardian to stop anyone from entering the Garden. A beginning guardian. Beginning guardians are one of the distinct best accepted appearance in fabulous stories, abnormally Hero’s Journey stories. (As a ancillary note, the Hero’s Journey describes every one of us and its arc runs beeline through the “toil” allotment of the Garden myth.) But why would God abode a guardian? I mean, He’s God, right? Can’t He aloof get rid of the Garden. He floods the accomplished abuse planet at a after point. I mean, He created aggregate so he can aloof abort it! Obviously He doesn’t alive in the Garden. So God’s aloof chillin’ up in heaven this accomplished time, but aloof in case addition finds the Garden, they’re bound out? I anticipate you get my point. The Garden (paradise) represents the beatific benightedness of a new born, as able-bodied as the akin accompaniment of the One afore the two. The alone acumen this allegory would accept a beginning guardian is if there’s a way aback in. Beginning guardians are, by their actual nature, declared to be affected somehow. Sometimes, that agency battle. Added times, it agency ability (think Oedipus and the Sphinx, for example).

Where Are the Four Rivers that Come from Eden? – Parshah Focus – Parshah – mythical garden of eden turkey | mythical garden of eden turkey

Hmmm…. If the cherub is a beginning guardian, what is it guarding? The Garden itself? We apperceive the garden is about beatific ignorance, so why would you appetite to get aback in? To bethink your adolescent canicule aback activity was simpler? Not quite. This is area the additional analytical detail comes in: the Tree of Life. Remember, the acumen they’re kicked out isn’t aloof a declared punishment. It’s additionally so they won’t eat of the bake-apple of the Tree of Activity and become like God. Become like God? Interesting. Like, God-consciousness? Enlightenment (I abhorrence that term)? Something like that? If you’ll anamnesis our altercation of the Atman, Brahman and Atman are One and the same. There’s alone the apparition of aberration (again, apprehend my added commodity for added info). This is accepted as the blind of Maya in Hinduism. Tree of Life, Brahman-Atman, Maya… In adjustment to get aback into the Garden, you charge see absoluteness for what it is. Not what you anticipate it is, not what you appetite it to be, not black by your beliefs. Aback you apprehend that break is ultimately an apparition of the senses and that the alone “thing” that exists is the One, you additionally apprehend that you are that, you are the One. And that’s what bistro the bake-apple of the Tree of Activity represents in the allegory of the myth: awakening, liberation, absolutely acquainted bliss. We’ve appear abounding amphitheater from the beatific and apprenticed black of pure, undifferentiated, blind alertness aback to the aboriginal accompaniment (Garden) of pure, akin consciousness, but this time in beatific (en)light(ened) and absolutely aware. God threw us out because He didn’t appetite us to become like Him. But He knew all forth that we already are Him.

Also acquaint on Steemit.com

30 best images about garden of eden on Pinterest | Gardens … – mythical garden of eden turkey | mythical garden of eden turkey

Simple Guidance For You In Mythical Garden Of Eden Turkey | mythical garden of eden turkey – mythical garden of eden turkey | Encouraged to help my own blog, in this particular occasion I am going to provide you with with regards to keyword. And after this, this can be a initial impression:

1000+ images about Gobekli Tepe ( Potbelly Hill) on … – mythical garden of eden turkey | mythical garden of eden turkey

How about impression over? is in which wonderful???. if you think maybe therefore, I’l l provide you with a few impression once more underneath:

So, if you want to get all of these amazing pics about (Simple Guidance For You In Mythical Garden Of Eden Turkey | mythical garden of eden turkey), click save button to store these photos for your computer. These are prepared for save, if you appreciate and want to grab it, just click save symbol in the article, and it will be directly downloaded to your notebook computer.} As a final point if you desire to grab unique and latest photo related to (Simple Guidance For You In Mythical Garden Of Eden Turkey | mythical garden of eden turkey), please follow us on google plus or book mark this blog, we attempt our best to present you regular update with fresh and new pictures. Hope you love keeping here. For many updates and latest information about (Simple Guidance For You In Mythical Garden Of Eden Turkey | mythical garden of eden turkey) pics, please kindly follow us on tweets, path, Instagram and google plus, or you mark this page on book mark area, We try to give you update regularly with fresh and new shots, enjoy your browsing, and find the right for you.

Here you are at our site, contentabove (Simple Guidance For You In Mythical Garden Of Eden Turkey | mythical garden of eden turkey) published . At this time we’re excited to announce we have found an incrediblyinteresting contentto be discussed, that is (Simple Guidance For You In Mythical Garden Of Eden Turkey | mythical garden of eden turkey) Lots of people searching for details about(Simple Guidance For You In Mythical Garden Of Eden Turkey | mythical garden of eden turkey) and certainly one of these is you, is not it?

Do these mysterious stones mark the site of the Garden of Eden … – mythical garden of eden turkey | mythical garden of eden turkey

Garden of Eden (Paradise) | Mythology.net – mythical garden of eden turkey | mythical garden of eden turkey

Was the Garden of Eden located in Eastern Turkey in the … – mythical garden of eden turkey | mythical garden of eden turkey

Mosaic details of The Great Byzantine Palace in Sultanahmet Square … – mythical garden of eden turkey | mythical garden of eden turkey

Ararat, the Cradle of Civilization? – mythical garden of eden turkey | mythical garden of eden turkey

Garden of Eden – Wikipedia – mythical garden of eden turkey | mythical garden of eden turkey

Country House Garden of Eden Cabins, Cosby, TN – Booking.com – mythical garden of eden turkey | mythical garden of eden turkey

The Garden of Eden – mythical garden of eden turkey | mythical garden of eden turkey

gobekli tepe, klaus schmidt, turkey, urantia, garden of … – mythical garden of eden turkey | mythical garden of eden turkey

Göbekli Tepe – Eden, Home Of The Watchers – mythical garden of eden turkey | mythical garden of eden turkey

Atlanta Urantia Study Group – In the Press – mythical garden of eden turkey | mythical garden of eden turkey

Paradise Found – mythical garden of eden turkey | mythical garden of eden turkey

Gobekli Tepe & Ancient Turkey Tour, with Lebanon Add-On, October 23 – mythical garden of eden turkey | mythical garden of eden turkey

Garden of Eden Hotel, Hisaronu, Dalaman Region, Turkey … – mythical garden of eden turkey | mythical garden of eden turkey

robert heil | The real "Garden of Eden" – Croatia and … – mythical garden of eden turkey | mythical garden of eden turkey

Gobekli Tepe: 'Temple that's 6,500 years older than … – mythical garden of eden turkey | mythical garden of eden turkey

Garden of Eden (Олюдениз,Турция) Цены,Отзывы,Туры,Фото … – mythical garden of eden turkey | mythical garden of eden turkey

Miscellaneous Pics: Gobekli Tepe – World's Oldest Known Temple – mythical garden of eden turkey | mythical garden of eden turkey

Gobekli Tepe & Ancient Turkey Tour, with Lebanon Add-On, October 23 – mythical garden of eden turkey | mythical garden of eden turkey

from WordPress https://gardeneden.club/simple-guidance-for-you-in-mythical-garden-of-eden-turkey-mythical-garden-of-eden-turkey/

#garden of eden

0 notes

toryhagen · 7 years

Text

The Mystery that is Eve

Again this book I’m reading is provoking new thoughts in my mind. Was Eve created on the 6th day or was it just Adam with the promise of Eve within him.

Genesis 1:26-31 (NIV) Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.” So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them. God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground.” Then God said, “I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds in the sky and all the creatures that move along the ground—everything that has the breath of life in it—I give every green plant for food.” And it was so. God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning—the sixth day.

The reason this makes me wonder even the slightest is found in the next chapter.

Genesis 2:7-23 (NIV) Then the LORD God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being. Now the LORD God had planted a garden in the east, in Eden; and there he put the man he had formed. The LORD God made all kinds of trees grow out of the ground—trees that were pleasing to the eye and good for food. In the middle of the garden were the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. A river watering the garden flowed from Eden; from there it was separated into four headwaters. The name of the first is the Pishon; it winds through the entire land of Havilah, where there is gold. (The gold of that land is good; aromatic resin and onyx are also there.) The name of the second river is the Gihon; it winds through the entire land of Cush. The name of the third river is the Tigris; it runs along the east side of Ashur. And the fourth river is the Euphrates. The LORD God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it. And the LORD God commanded the man, “You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die.” The LORD God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him.” Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the wild animals and all the birds in the sky. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name. So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds in the sky and all the wild animals. But for Adam no suitable helper was found. So the LORD God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man’s ribs and then closed up the place with flesh. Then the LORD God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man. The man said, “This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called ‘woman,’ for she was taken out of man.”

The acts of Adam naming all the wild animals and birds and God putting Adam into a deep sleep to produce Eve from his rib seem like they would occupy more than a day’s time. Granted the Lord God can work fast so the latter could have been a moment or two. But the former is undeniable in taking some time.

However, the Lord God can extend a day beyond its boundaries for His purposes.

Joshua 10:12-14 (NIV) On the day the LORD gave the Amorites over to Israel, Joshua said to the LORD in the presence of Israel: “Sun, stand still over Gibeon, and you, moon, over the Valley of Aijalon.” So the sun stood still, and the moon stopped, till the nation avenged itself on its enemies, as it is written in the Book of Jashar. The sun stopped in the middle of the sky and delayed going down about a full day. There has never been a day like it before or since, a day when the LORD listened to a human being. Surely the LORD was fighting for Israel!

I would believe this to be true. Each day of creation was not a normal 24 hour period like we know of. Each day started with light and ended with night but there was no mention of how long the day remained. Each day could be the equivalent of days, months, or years for all we know.

My speculation, based on nothing really, is that the days were as long as they needed to be. Adam had no concept of normal and was immortal before eating of the forbidden fruit which brought on his mortality. He would have just thought of the 6th day as normal as it were his first day of existence.

In regards to the previous days, they could have been the same or longer. Angels are not made of anything matter on the periodic table of elements and can move faster than light since they are of a parallel dimension. Their ability to craft creation at immense speeds, precision, and power might just fit within a 24 hour period that we know of. Then again, why would they have to be so limited. Night ends a day and whatever time it took to complete the day’s tasks is how long the day lasted.

With all this I believe Eve was indeed created on the 6th day of creation the same as Adam. She was not made on any other day. The Lord’s God word does not lie. Amen!

0 notes

sirtravisjacksonoftexas · 4 years

Text

Is Jesus a Mythical figure based on the Norse god Thor? Um, NO, and here is why:

Thor, Son of the god Odin and the goddess Fjorgyn (aka Jord, aka Hilodyn), was the Norse god of Thunder. He flew on a bronze chariot pulled by two goats (Tanngnost and Tanngrisnir), and battled frost giants, creating thunder whenever he struck one with his hammer Mjollnir (though some sources state that it was caused by his chariot rumbles).

Though eventually becoming the sworn enemy of Loki, god of fire, Thor’s greatest nemesis was with Loki’s child Jormungand, the Midgard Serpent (due to the fact that it was so big that it encircled the earth). Eventually, Thor and Jormungand would one day clash at Ragnarok, the Norse battle of Armageddon. There, Thor will finally get his wish and slay the Midgard Serpent, only to perish in the venom that flows from its body. Though not the King of the gods (a title reserved for Odin only), Thor was nevertheless the strongest of the gods and more beloved by Norse farmers and Icelandic colonists (while the Viking raiders put more emphasis on Odin).

But was he more than just the Norse God of Thunder?

Was he the basis for Jesus Christ?

Let’s look at their “parallels” and see why this is a thick-headed idea:

1. Incarnate god?

No. He was never incarnated as a human.

2. Trinity?

No. In the Temple of Uppsala, there was supposedly a statue of him along two others (one of Freyr and another of Odin), but this doesn’t mean that they were a trinity. They were simply three gods put together. Indeed, the idea that there were three such statues in the temple has been called into question. Thor was never considered part of a Trinity.

3. Son of God?

Yes, but not in the same way. While Thor was the son of Odin, Jesus is God the Son, a part of the trinity of God that existed long before he was born into the world as a human being. God did bring about his conception by divine power and thus makes Jesus a “Son of God” (Luke 1:135), but he existed in the infinite past (John 1:1-3).

4. Born of a Virgin?No, Odin and Fjorgyn had sex.

5. Born of a union of Heaven and Earth?

Thor’s father was the sky god Odin (also the personification of the sky). His mother, Fjorgyn, is an earth goddess. Thus, he is the product of a union of Heaven and Earth.

Though Jesus existed in spirit long before he was born (John 1:1-3), his conception came about because God used his powers to conceive him in Mary’s womb. Heavenly god, earthly woman, together conceiving God the Son incarnate, a product of a union of Heaven and earth. Of course, this union was not sexual in nature (Luke 1:26-37), but then again, not all such unions in ancient religions and myth were said to be sexual in nature. For example, the first man Adam was made out of the dust of the earth, and later brought to life when God breathed the “breath of life” into him (Genesis 2:7). Animals were likewise made in this fashion (Genesis 2:19, compare with Genesis 1:30, 7:14-16, 21-22).

It is true that both Jesus and Thor are both, in a sense, a product of a union of heaven and earth, but…is this a good parallel?

Well, it’s a bit of a broad parallel.

As I mentioned, there are other figures in religious texts and world myth that are products of a union of heaven and earth. Indeed, there are many. Adam and the first animals in the Bible are several Old Testament examples. The Titans, Hechantonchires (50 headed, hundred handed giants) and the primordial cyclopes were all likewise children of a union of heaven and earth. Specifically, their parents were a sky god (Ouranos (Roman Uranus) and an earth goddess (Gaia). Later, when their son Cronus castrated Ouranos, his blood fell on the earth, creating the Erinyes (Roman Furies), the Meliae (ash tree nymphs) and the Gigantes or giants, massive creatures who had enormous snakes for legs.

Given this, can we really say that Jesus’s physical body, being a product of a union of Heaven and Earth, was based on Thor being a product of Heaven and Earth?

No.

6. Star proclaimed his birth?

No.

7. Wisemen?

No. Odin would have no doubt visited him after he was born, and Odin was wise, but…to make a comparison between that and the Wisemen is one of the greatest stretches imaginable, especially considering the fact that none of the Wise Men were Jesus’ father. Indeed, they visited Jesus about 2 years after his birth, not on the night he was born (Matthew 2:1-16).

8. Someone sought his life shortly after he was born?

No.

9. Taught in a temple as a boy?

No.

10. Baptized?

No.

11. Tempted by the Devil?

Loki, the Norse Equivalent of the Devil, at times got Thor into predicaments and brought him misery, but he never tempted him.

12. Miracle worker?

All gods were, big deal.

13. Turned water into wine?

No.

14. Multiplied bread and fish?

No.

15. Walked on water?

No.

16. Healed the sick?

No.

17. Raised the dead?

Thor’s hammer could raise animals from the dead. He would often kill and eat Tanngnost and Tanngrisnir, using his hammer to resurrect them afterwards (though their bones had to be intact for it to work). However, though his hammer had power over death to a certain extent, it could only resurrect animals, not human beings.

Jesus didn’t need a hammer.

18. Had power over storms?

Jesus did calm a storm (Matthew 8:23-27, Mark 4:35-41, Luke 8:22-25. Likewise, Thor, being the god of Thunder, had control over storms. However, there is an important difference; Thor had control over the storms because he is the god of Thunder, while Jesus had control over the storms because he, being God, is omnipotent (Matthew 19:26, compare with John 1:1-3, 1 Corinthians 8:6, Hebrews 1:3, Colossians 1:17, Titus 2:13, 2 Peter 1:1). Jesus is more than a Thunder God.

He is the God of all.

19. Cast out demons?

No, Thor never performed exorcisms.

20. Betrayed?

Loki betrayed him on several occasions. Once, he cut off the hair of Thor’s wife Sif. Thor chased him down and nearly killed him. Indeed, he would have done so if Loki hadn’t vowed to get Sif some new hair. On another occasion, Loki convinced Thor to leave both his hammer and belt of strength behind before they visited Geirrod the Frost Giant. Previously, Geirrod had once taken Loki prisoner. The fire god obviously didn’t want to die, so they made a deal; Loki would be spared if he agreed to bring Thor to Geirrod…without his hammer in tow. Thus, he would seemingly be defenseless when the Frost Giant made to kill him. However, along the way, Thor and Loki met Grid, a frost giantess who warned Thor about Geirrod’s intentions.

Worried about him, she gave Thor several weapons, including an unbreakable staff and a strength belt of her own. These proved handy when he battled Geirrod, his daughters and his servants, slaying them all. Likewise, Jesus was betrayed by Judas for 30 pieces of silver (Matthew 26:14-16, 47-56).

A parallel, right?

Not so much.

I mean, how many people, and how many people in religious texts where shown to be betrayed? How many characters of world myth were likewise betrayed? It’s a bit of a broad category, don’t you think? Look at the Bible alone: Jacob betrayed Esau (Genesis 27), only for Laban his father-in-law and Leah to betray him in turn in Genesis 29. Joseph was betrayed by his brothers (Genesis 37:12-36). God was betrayed by the Israelites whenever they turned to worship other gods, such as during the Golden Calf incident (Exodus 32). Delilah betrayed Samson, cutting off his hair so that the Philistines could capture him (Judges 16). Absalom, David’s son, betrayed his father by launching a rebellion against him (2 Samuel 15).

I mean…really, folks? Really?

This would be a stronger parallel if Loki had betrayed Thor for money, but that’s not the case; he did it for kicks (Sif) and to save his life (Geirrod).

21. Crucified?

No, Thor is destined to die by the venom of Jormungand.

22. Death linked to a serpent?

As stated above, Thor is prophesied to die due to Jormungand’s venom. Right before this happens, Thor slays Jormungand with his hammer.

How does this supposedly parallel Christ?

In Genesis 3, after Adam and Eve eat the forbidden fruit, God lays the hammer down on both them and the Serpent, who tempted Eve to eat it. He turns his attention first to the serpent, telling him that he is cursed above all animals, that he is to move on his belly and eat dust.

Then he says something startling in verse 15:

“And I will put enmity Between you and the woman, and between your seed and her seed; He shall bruise you on the head, And you shall bruise him on the heel."

This is perplexing, since “Seed” was a euphemism for sperm in the ancient world. Since men have sperm and women don’t, one is left to wonder why the woman’s “seed” is mentioned here instead of man’s. True, some translations have “Offspring” instead of seed, but the Hebrew word translated here, Zera, primarily means seed and semen. It can also refer to offspring, but only by extension. This, among other reasons, is why this passage is considered a Messianic prophecy. After all, Jesus didn’t have an earthly father, but a Heavenly Father. Jesus was conceived by divine power working within Mary.

Thus “seed of a woman”.

This prophecy fits even more when we realize that Satan entered Judas, leading him to betray Christ (Luke 22:3-6, 47-53). As a result, Jesus was arrested and later died on the cross. However…he arose from the grave three days later, enabling mankind to accept him as Lord and Savior and thus have eternal life. Satan’s spiritual stranglehold on all mankind was over (see Colossians 1:13, Hebrews 2:14).

Can you say “backfire”?

Satan caused Christ’s death…which in turn destroyed Satan’s spiritual domination over the souls of men. Now people can escape his yoke if they accept Jesus as Lord and Savior. By Jesus’ sacrifice, Satan was defeated.

Keep in mind; Satan is called “Serpent” on several occasions in the Bible (Revelation 12:9, 20:2). Contrary to popular opinion, the identification of the serpent with Satan is actually an ancient one (as indicated in the passages from Revelation cited above). Indeed, one ancient scroll, the “Visions of Amram”, depicts a “Prince of Darkness” in a serpentine fashion. Archeological evidence from ancient Israel shows that they depicted Seraphim angels as winged serpents (sometimes as just serpents). There is much evidence to show that the serpent in the Garden was in reality a powerful supernatural being whose appearance was serpent-like, indeed Satan himself.

Satan, who took on a serpentine fashion, bringing about Christ’s death, only to be defeated as a result, while Thor kills the world serpent, then succumbing to its venom.

This is a parallel for sure, but not a perfect one. Indeed, unlike Jormungand, Satan does die; he’s only defeated. He isn’t even shown to take a serpentine form when he enters Judas and gets him to betray Christ. There is a similarity here, but this reeks more of coincidence than of one borrowing from the other.

Unless, of course, Its not Christians who are doing the borrowing…

Read on.

23. Resurrected?

No, he is not to resurrect. You’re thinking of the Thor movie.

24. Rules over a future age?

No, his sons Magni and Modi rule in a future age, along with several other gods.

Not many similarities, are there?

Indeed, its highly likely that there were originally even less similarities than these. As I said in my previous article on the Norse god Balder, the oldest texts on Norse myths were written by Christian Norsemen in the dark ages, men who added biblical elements to them. I also noted that the Vikings added Christian elements to their faith centuries before this, even placing Jesus Christ into their pagan pantheon. Thus, if there was any borrowing…it was the other way around, the myth of Thor borrowing from the story of Christ in the Gospels. This doesn’t mean that Thor wasn’t worshipped as a God before the arrival of Christianity, or that the Norse were inspired by Christ to come up with Thor (he was worshipped long before Scandinavia was converted), but It does mean that the Norse myths were Christianized by Norse Christians.

Thus, Thor wasn’t the inspiration for Christ.

Jesus wasn’t based on a hammer-wielding god of thunder. Jesus is God almighty.

Sources:

“The Prose Edda” by Snorri Sturluson (Translated with introduction and notes by Jesse L. Byock), ix-xiv, 15, 73, 90-92

“The Poetic Edda” Translated by Lee M. Hollander (Second edition, Revised), ix-x

“The Ultimate Encyclopedia of Mythology” by Arthur Coterrell and Rachel Storm, 46, 204, 216-17, 232, 234-37

“Myths of the Norsemen From the Eddas and Sagas’ by H. A. Guerber, 38, 59-84, 329-39

https://www.ancient.eu/article/1305/nine-realms-of-norse-cosmology/

“Norse myths” By R.I. Page, 46

https://www.google.com/books/edition/Norse_Myths/ODbBmS8Ks-AC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=Odin+Thor+Freyr+three&pg=PA46&printsec=frontcover

“The Vikings and Their Age” By Angus A. Somerville, R. Andrew McDonald,102-103

https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_Vikings_and_Their_Age/AA7YBgAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=Odin+Thor+Freyr+three&pg=PA102&printsec=frontcover

https://www.blueletterbible.org/faq/don_stewart/don_stewart_1275.cfm

https://www.britannica.com/topic/Jord

“Penguin Dictionary of Classical Mythology”, 141-42, 157-58, 448-49

https://www.blueletterbible.org/faq/don_stewart/don_stewart_85.cfm

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BO13BSSjsYU&t=170s

“Clash of the Gods” Documentary Series, “Thor” episode.

“The Other Side of History: Daily Life in the Ancient World” Documentary series by Professor Robert Garland, episode 38 (”Being a Viking Raider).

“The Other Side of History: Daily Life in the Ancient World: Course Guidebook” by Professor Robert Garland, 261-62

“The Portable Seminary” by David Horton (General Editor), 93-95, 120, 124-146, 281

“Systematic Theology Volume Two: God, Creation” By Dr. Norman Geisler,597-99

https://sirtravisjacksonoftexas.tumblr.com/post/628627120722198529/was-jesus-a-mythical-figure-based-on-the-norse-god

https://www.theoi.com/Protogenos/Ouranos.html

“Titans and Olympians: Greek and Roman Myth” by Tony Allan, Sarah Maitland and Dr Michael Trapp (consultant), 25-27

https://www.theoi.com/Khthonios/Erinyes.html

“Does the Bible Predict the Future?” By Ralph O Muncaster, 14

“Zondervan NIV Exhaustive Concordance: Second Edition” by Edward W. Goodrick and John R. Kohlenberger III, 820, 1401

0 notes

homedevises · 5 years

Text

You Will Never Believe These Bizarre Truths Behind Who Was In The Garden Of Eden | who was in the garden of eden

Garden of Eden – who was in the garden of eden | who was in the garden of eden

The Biblical Garden of Eden in Tanzania, Africa – who was in the garden of eden | who was in the garden of eden

The Garden of Eden | Museum of Fine Arts, Boston – who was in the garden of eden | who was in the garden of eden

Have $20M? You Can Buy the Garden of Eden … in Hawaii … – who was in the garden of eden | who was in the garden of eden

Also acquaint on Steemit.com

Where is the Garden of Eden? Is it Still around Today? | Jack Wellman – who was in the garden of eden | who was in the garden of eden

You Will Never Believe These Bizarre Truths Behind Who Was In The Garden Of Eden | who was in the garden of eden – who was in the garden of eden | Welcome to be able to the blog, with this occasion I’ll show you with regards to keyword. Now, here is the very first graphic:

The Garden of Eden – who was in the garden of eden | who was in the garden of eden

How about image over? is usually of which wonderful???. if you think maybe therefore, I’l d demonstrate some picture again underneath:

So, if you want to obtain the amazing pictures about (You Will Never Believe These Bizarre Truths Behind Who Was In The Garden Of Eden | who was in the garden of eden), click save link to download these pics in your laptop. There’re available for down load, if you’d prefer and want to have it, click save logo on the web page, and it’ll be instantly saved in your pc.} Finally in order to obtain unique and the recent photo related to (You Will Never Believe These Bizarre Truths Behind Who Was In The Garden Of Eden | who was in the garden of eden), please follow us on google plus or book mark this website, we try our best to give you daily up-date with all new and fresh pics. Hope you love staying right here. For some up-dates and latest information about (You Will Never Believe These Bizarre Truths Behind Who Was In The Garden Of Eden | who was in the garden of eden) images, please kindly follow us on twitter, path, Instagram and google plus, or you mark this page on bookmark area, We try to present you up-date periodically with fresh and new graphics, like your surfing, and find the best for you.

Thanks for visiting our site, articleabove (You Will Never Believe These Bizarre Truths Behind Who Was In The Garden Of Eden | who was in the garden of eden) published . Nowadays we are pleased to announce we have discovered an incrediblyinteresting nicheto be reviewed, namely (You Will Never Believe These Bizarre Truths Behind Who Was In The Garden Of Eden | who was in the garden of eden) Most people looking for specifics of(You Will Never Believe These Bizarre Truths Behind Who Was In The Garden Of Eden | who was in the garden of eden) and definitely one of these is you, is not it?

Garden of Eden Pictures Video – KHARSAG – HEAD ENCLOSURE – Barton … – who was in the garden of eden | who was in the garden of eden

The Beginning – As it was in the Days of Noe | Beginning … – who was in the garden of eden | who was in the garden of eden

Was the snake in the Garden of Eden literal or allegorical? – who was in the garden of eden | who was in the garden of eden

Two trees in the Garden of Eden – The Gospel of the Kingdom of Heaven – who was in the garden of eden | who was in the garden of eden

Garden of Eden – Wikipedia – who was in the garden of eden | who was in the garden of eden

Expulsion from the Garden of Eden (Cole) – Wikipedia – who was in the garden of eden | who was in the garden of eden

The Garden of Eden – Black History In The Bible – who was in the garden of eden | who was in the garden of eden

The Garden and Eden (Adam and Eve Story) – Kids Korner – BibleWise – who was in the garden of eden | who was in the garden of eden

Garden Of Eden Today | www.pixshark.com – Images Galleries … – who was in the garden of eden | who was in the garden of eden

Untold Garden of Eden – who was in the garden of eden | who was in the garden of eden

Adam and Eve Driven out of the Garden of Eden | ClipArt ETC – who was in the garden of eden | who was in the garden of eden

Edén – Wikipedia, la enciclopedia libre – who was in the garden of eden | who was in the garden of eden

Where is the Garden of Eden in the World | Where is the Gard… | Flickr – who was in the garden of eden | who was in the garden of eden

How the Serpent Became Satan – Biblical Archaeology Society – who was in the garden of eden | who was in the garden of eden

Ellen G. White: The Universal War: The Test in the Garden of Eden – who was in the garden of eden | who was in the garden of eden

from WordPress https://gardeneden.club/you-will-never-believe-these-bizarre-truths-behind-who-was-in-the-garden-of-eden-who-was-in-the-garden-of-eden/

#garden of eden #what food was in the garden of eden #what fruit was in the garden of eden #what tree

0 notes