I wonder where this might lead...

[Philip James]

So, the CC recognized the errors, but they used some of the ideas anyway.

Hello PrayerWarrior,

'capture every thought for Christ'

Peace be with you!

 

[Prayer Warrior]

Then why express incredulity about the spirit leaving the body?

Not sure what you're talking about.

His resurrected body was completely under his control. It was spirit and obeyed the Spirit. Our physical bodies are carnal and disobedient. He could make that body as solid as a physical body. He could make it disappear. It did whatever he wanted it to do.

How did Jesus eat physical fish if His resurrected body was only spirit?

Only the mind can be carnal. Our bodies house our souls (mind, will, emotions). You make it sound like our bodies have a mind of their own. Our bodies can't disobey. They do what we (our souls) will them to do. Our bodies experience the corruption of sin, but they can also experience divine healing. My body has been healed.

This can be done daily. The carnal nature is defeated here a little and there a little and transformed. So Paul said he died daily. Some can even "attain" the resurrected state without the death of the physical body. It's very rare. Only a "few" find that strait gate and narrow way (Matthew 7), but "many" will sit down with Abraham (Matthew 8). Paul wrote that he had not attained it.

The carnal nature or sin nature cannot be transformed. The only solution for the sin nature is death. We begin our new life of faith in Christ by being crucified with Him. And we take up our cross daily....

Galatians 2:20--I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I now live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself for me.

Luke 9:32--Then He said to them all, “If anyone wants to come with Me, he must deny himself, take up his cross daily, and follow Me.

Jesus was saying that few find salvation/life because most take the wide road that leads to destruction.

Matt. 7:12-13--Enter through the narrow gate. For the gate is wide and the road is broad that leads to destruction, and there are many who go through it. How narrow is the gate and difficult the road that leads to life, and few find it.

Note that Jesus appeared only to the righteous after his resurrection. Many things are concealed from most men.

You'll have to give me a reference on this.

God is not going to "create" new spiritual bodies for people for the most part. The corruptible is changed to the incorruptible by crucifying self.

The corruptible is changed when we are resurrected, not by "crucifying self." You quoted 1 Cor. 15 talking about the resurrection of the dead. You said this doesn't apply to us. Why doesn't this apply to all believers? Also, 1 Thes. 4 talks about the resurrection of the dead.

1 Thes. 4:13-17--We do not want you to be uninformed, brothers, concerning those who are asleep, so that you will not grieve like the rest, who have no hope. Since we believe that Jesus died and rose again, in the same way God will bring with Him those who have fallen asleep through Jesus. For we say this to you by a revelation from the Lord: We who are still alive at the Lord’s coming will certainly have no advantage over those who have fallen asleep. For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the archangel’s voice, and with the trumpet of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first. Then we who are still alive will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air and so we will always be with the Lord.

I would love to keep discussing this, but my brain is done for the day. I'm not used to talking all day, but this has been good. :)

I'll think about the rest of your post and comment tomorrow.

 

[Giuliano]

Evil urges come from the sin nature, the fallen nature, that resulted from "the Fall." Adam and Eve did not have a sin nature until they disobeyed God. Prior to the Fall, they were free to choose to disobey, but they had not disobeyed. When they did disobey, their natures were corrupted by disobedience/sin; hence, they had a sin nature from that point on along with everyone else who has been born of Adam's seed. This includes every human being born since then, except Jesus, who was NOT born of Adam's seed.

Sorry but I don't buy into Augustine's concept of inherited guilt. His idea of original sin was not part of Christianity until he invented it and the Catholic Church adopted it.

The devil, who had become evil when He challenged God's authority in heaven, was present one day as Eve looked at the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. He tempted Eve to disobey God and eat the fruit. That's ALL we know for sure because that's ALL we are told! We're not told that the devil was present during creation or anything else that you're saying. (Now, I'm repeating myself....)

Actually Genesis does not say it was the Devil. The only place where the Devil and the serpent are equated is in Revelation.

It seems to me that you're going to great lengths to add to what God has said in order to incorporate your mystical/occult views. IOW, you're looking at the Bible through the lens of the occult rather than examining the occult through the lens of the Bible.
.

I'm wondering where you get your ideas. Sinful urges are not part of someone unless he acts on them. Think of it as an angel sitting on one shoulder and a demon on the other. God told Cain "sin" was crouching at the door, ready to pounce. It was not an incorporated part of Cain.

Genesis 4:7 If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him.

See? Sin was outside of Cain. The evil urge was outside.

And it is written that God created evil. Evil is a "nothingness" just as "darkness" is the absence of light. Thus it is said to be "created" and not "made."

Isaiah 45:7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things.

Evil is presented as a choice again to Israel. God puts it in front of them as a choice.

Deuteronomy 30:15 See, I have set before thee this day life and good, and death and evil;

It's how demons can get in people. People have to invite them in by choosing evil.

 

[brakelite]

I don't feel comfortable thinking of "antichrist" except in the context John used it.

As an entity that replaces Christ.

 

[brakelite]

Surely the serpent was in the Garden. You don't think he sneaked in without God's knowing it, do you?

Genesis 1:25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.


Did God say man was "very good"? My Bible doesn't even have God saying he was "good." He wasn't. Man was created with both good and evil urges.

The phrase "very good" occurs when God looks at everything He had made in its totality.

31 And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

Some things can be poisons by themselves. Take crine and sodium. Either one is highly poisonous separately; but together, they form salt, a compound necessary for life and a sacred symbol.

The devil is an angel. Not a serpent. But he took a serpent and used I would presume something like ventriloquism to speak to Eve. Revelation describes him as a fiery red dragon. Metaphor. And the women in Revelation? Same as what women are in the rest pf prophetic literature. Churches. Or Israel. The people of God...or apostate people of God...whether the church or Israel. The woman of Revelation 12...God's faithful people. The woman of Revelation 17...God's adulterous unfaithful people.

 

[brakelite]

Why do you assume fear? I have looked into it and rejected it as being occult and, therefore, evil.



Think of it this way. The constellation that possibly represents the Virgin Mary (the woman) is on the eastern horizon with the sun shining behind her and the moon rising at the bottom of her feet. Can you picture it?

It could be that John saw literal stars, sun, and moon. Like I said before, we know that the constellation probably represents the virgin in some way, so this vision has both literal and figurative meaning.

I'm not against knowledge!!! I took several Bible classes in college and learned about the terms and history of the Bible--like who the Pharisees and Sadducees were. I'm glad that I learned this, because I understand certain passages in the Bible better.

What you're talking about is not factual knowledge, but occult knowledge. BIG difference! Occult knowledge doesn't have its basis in the truth. It hides the truth. You have to dig for it using practices that God has told us NOT to employ, like divination, etc.
.

From the book Sting of the Scorpion by Jonathon Grey.
SO WHAT IS THE ZODIAC?
Very early in human history, the stars were named and arranged into groups (constellations) and drawn on sky charts as pictures of animals, people and other objects. Significantly, the same names and figures are consistent throughout history and throughout the cultures of the world. And they have survived on astronomical charts to this day. These constellations extend in a belt about 16 degrees wide, encircling the earth. If the stars could be seen in daytime, the sun would appear to move through this belt over the course of one year, in a path called the Ecliptic. It is this belt, with twelve months for its steps or stages, that we call the ZODIAC (not from the Greek life as is commonly supposed, but from a more ancient Hebrew word meaning a way by steps). Each stage of the yearly circle contains its own group of stars designated by a picture or SIGN. These are the twelve signs of the zodiac.
48 SIGNS, NOT 12
Twelve? Make that 48. For these twelve signs do not stand alone. To each of them are cojoined three others, known as DECANS (pieces). The great Arab astronomer Albamazer recorded that the Persians, Babylonians, Egyptians and Indians all had these three decans to each sign. As all the emblems in the similarly divided zodiacs are nearly all alike, it would seem that they had followed some common model. Aben Ezra, the learned Jewish astronomer, Orientalist and scholar, says:
According to Albamazer, none of these forms from their first invention have varied in coming down to us, nor one of their words [names] changed, not a point added or removed (22/18).
The primeval star charts, therefore, showed 12 basic signs + 36 decans (explanatory signs) = 48!
HOW OLD IS THE ZODIAC?
As far back as there are records, these signs existed. They have been found on Babylonian boundary markers over 4,000 years old. Sanchoniathon and other ancient historians insist that the seven vowels in the earliest alphabet were "so arranged as to express the places of the seven [visible] planets in the Zodiac" at the time the alphabet was completed. The twenty-five alphabet letters and the twelve zodiac signs were superimposed, the first two letters in Gemini, and so on, with the vowels unevenly spaced to represent the planetary positions at that time. The alphabet thus records "an exact notation of the actual condition of the heavens at an ascertainable date, which can occur but once in many thousands of years, and that date is in the seventh day of September 3447 before Christ". The zodiac, therefore, was already in existence as early as that date (22/23,174). From the state of the heavens when its original was drawn, it can be shown that the Egyptian Dendera zodiac (116-107 B.C.) was copied from one designed about 3000 B.C. And when Vergil wrote that "the white bull with the golden horns opens the year," that fact was no longer true; Taurus had ceased to begin the Equinoctial year. Vergil's statement is clearly a survival of a recorded fact several thousand years earlier (7/245). Aratus described the constellations to the Greeks of his day, not as he saw them, but as they were 4,000 years earlier. His source, therefore, was an extremely ancient zodiac (5/14). When the zodiac was formed, Alpha in the constellation of Draco was the Pole Star. The Pole star is now Alpha in Ursa Minor. This change takes us back to 3000 B.C. or earlier. Bailly, from internal evidences, was thoroughly convinced that both the Solar and Lunar zodiacs had their origin when the summer solstice was in the first degree of Virgo, about 4,000 years before Christ (22/22,149). Each year, you see, the stars rise and set some 50.2 seconds later; in 2,156 years they fall back 30 degrees. When the zodiac sphere was drawn, the position of the stars in relation to earth was almost 90 degrees different from now. So a 4000 B.C. date of origin would be close to the mark. Ptolemy (150 A.D.) declares the zodiac 'as of unquestioned authority, unknown origin, and unsearchable antiquity" (5/15). Sir Henry Drummond notes that "the traditions of the Chaldean Astronomy seem the fragments of a mighty system fallen into ruins" (5/15).

This very interesting book is available free online in pdf format to download. find here...beforeus.com/SOS.pdf · PDF file

 

[Prayer Warrior]

Actually Genesis does not say it was the Devil. The only place where the Devil and the serpent are equated is in Revelation.

This is splitting hairs. Do you think some animal lied to Eve and tempted her to disobey God?? The devil is a liar and the father of it. You seem to be intent on calling the serpent good. I wonder why.

Sorry but I don't buy into Augustine's concept of inherited guilt. His idea of original sin was not part of Christianity until he invented it and the Catholic Church adopted it.

What do you believe about this?

I'm wondering where you get your ideas. Sinful urges are not part of someone unless he acts on them. Think of it as an angel sitting on one shoulder and a demon on the other. God told Cain "sin" was crouching at the door, ready to pounce. It was not an incorporated part of Cain.

I've been wondering the same thing about you. Your religion seems to be an amalgam of whatever makes sense to your mind.

Genesis 4:7 If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him.

See? Sin was outside of Cain. The evil urge was outside.

Let's look at this in context.

Gen 4:4-7--The Lord had regard for Abel and his offering, but He did not have regard for Cain and his offering. Cain was furious, and he looked despondent.Then the Lord said to Cain, “Why are you furious? And why do you look despondent? If you do what is right, won’t you be accepted? But if you do not do what is right, sin is crouching at the door. Its desire is for you, but you must rule over it.”

We can see that Cain was "furious." This extreme anger was INSIDE Cain, and he acted on it. Jesus said it's what is within a man, "from his heart," that defiles him.

Matt 15:17-20--“Don’t you realize that whatever goes into the mouth passes into the stomach and is eliminated? But what comes out of the mouth comes from the heart, and this defiles a man. For from the heart come evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, sexual immoralities, thefts, false testimonies, blasphemies. These are the things that defile a man, but eating with unwashed hands does not defile a man.”

And it is written that God created evil. Evil is a "nothingness" just as "darkness" is the absence of light. Thus it is said to be "created" and not "made."

Isaiah 45:7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things.

I have to disagree with the JKV choice of words on this one. The word used for "evil" in this passage can also mean "calamity," as in natural disaster. In terms of the word meaning evil, this can be "natural or moral." In the case of natural, this would be a natural disaster, not moral evil.

From Strong's: h7451. רַע ra‘; from 7489; bad or (as noun) evil (natural or moral): — adversity, affliction, bad, calamity, + displease(-ure), distress, evil....

Where do you get the idea that "evil is nothingness"? I would really like to know.

Did Adam and Eve do nothing?? Is that what caused all of creation to be corrupted? Did Cain do nothing to Abel?

Evil is presented as a choice again to Israel. God puts it in front of them as a choice.

Deuteronomy 30:15 See, I have set before thee this day life and good, and death and evil;

It's how demons can get in people. People have to invite them in by choosing evil.

Israel disobeyed God, just like Adam and Eve disobeyed Him. Instead of doing what God had told Israel to do, in their sinful pride, they did that which was right in their own eyes--what made sense to their corrupted minds and evil hearts. This always got them into trouble just like it gets people into trouble today.

Judges 17:6--In those days there was no king in Israel, but every man did that which was right in his own eyes.

You said that people invite demons in "by choosing evil." So, you're saying that people invite demons in by choosing nothingness?? You said that "evil is nothingness." Sounds like you're contradicting yourself.

I believe that demons can possess or oppress people for various reasons. I agree that sinning is the main avenue, but I believe that there are others. For example, this problem can perhaps be generational.

 

[brakelite]

.

The concept of the serpent is very misunderstood. People cannot explain why Moses put a brass serpent on a pole or why Jesus compared himself to that serpent. Perhaps more mysteriously (if I may go New Agey on people), Messiah and serpent both equal 358 using standard gematria.

If I may offer my opinion here. The Israelites, at least those who believed the promise, who looked upon the brazen serpent, were not just healed, but also forgiven of the sin that caused the problem in the first place. I would suggest that this is why Jesus compared Himself to that serpent...as a Provider of freedom from sin. The Israelites knew that it wasn't the piece of brass itself that provided deliverance from guilt and pain, but rather the Rock in the wilderness Who was leading them, and upon Whom their faith was focused. Why a serpent? It was a copy of the ones that was biting them and causing their discomfort and death. IT was their sin and rebelliousness that brought them into the camp. In the NT we find that Jesus, Who knew no sin, was made sin for us, and through faith in Him we are also freed from the discomfort (and pleasure for certain periods) and the death that sin brings. Basically, it is the gospel. But somehow I think you knew all that, and you are attempting to place a more esoteric flavour upon the whole scene, which I think is unwarranted.

 

[brakelite]

So, imo asking does not = praying, the way we define praying now, but to attempt a cogent reply to your initial Q, i certainly believe that if we ask in Joshua's Name, we will be given, however in general i would say that this is rarely done, this kind of asking, and instead we generally ask for things or for outcomes, a la Santa Claus, wadr. Asking in Jesus' Name is asking for a lesson imo; asking for pain.

In certain contexts I would agree with you. Hungering and thirsting after righteousness, (and asking for the life changes that are in harmony with such righteousness, is indeed asking for 'trouble'. But you will receive what you ask for, only perhaps not in the way you might expect. There are other examples that spring to mind...where Jesus said, if you ask for a fish shall you receive a stone etc...so also shall your heavenly Father give His holy Spirit to those that ask.

That is unless we are asking in supplication, in service to someone else, perhaps. But to elevate this "seek, and you will find" to a literal promise rather than a spiritual principle can easily lead to disappointment and abuse, imo. For instance if one seeks riches hard enough they will find them, almost surely, but then what have they got?

I agree that this can be taken way out of context, and often is. Staple diet for the mega church. As for praying or interceding for someone else. That also can result in pain, even death to oneself. "Forgive them, and if necessary, blot my name from your book".

Not sure about this "when we open the door" thing, not meaning to be...pedantic, sorry, not meaning to be that guy lol, but imo this is not indicated in this v anyway

Quite right. Got me there.

So with all the above said and worked through, do you still refuse to have expectations when it comes to promises from scripture? Let me offer another example, one of my favourites.
Jeremiah 29:11 For I know the thoughts that I think toward you, saith the LORD, thoughts of peace, and not of evil, to give you an expected end.
12 Then shall ye call upon me, and ye shall go and pray unto me, and I will hearken unto you.
13 And ye shall seek me, and find me, when ye shall search for me with all your heart.
Now I know that this promise is given in the context of the captivity in Babylon...but based on our own captivity to sin, and the unchanging character of the one promising, I believe we can take this personally, particularly in applying it to our salvation and relationship with Christ.

 

[brakelite]

LOL, just thinking again about the title to this thread...yep, going all sorts of places...yet interesting thoughts from everyone whatever the direction the conversation headed.

Just as a lead in to some thoughts on the Antichrist, I want to share something about our true Christ; Who He is, and what He claimed to be.
Mathew 12:6 But I say unto you, That in this place is one greater than the temple...

The temple, the priesthood, and the religious system including all the ceremonies, the sacrifices, and the law of the Jewish nation go hand in hand. It was the mainstay and focal point of the life of Israel. Yet Jesus claimed to be greater. Greater even than the very High priest who no doubt would take great interest in hearing a report of these words. Greater even than the law itself, because He was the lawgiver.

….38 ¶ Then certain of the scribes and of the Pharisees answered, saying, Master, we would see a sign from thee.
39 But he answered and said unto them, An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given to it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas:
40 For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale’s belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.
41 The men of Nineveh shall rise in judgment with this generation, and shall condemn it: because they repented at the preaching of Jonas; and, behold, a greater than Jonas is here…

Jonah was the most powerful and successful of all OT prophets. In all 40 odd chapters of Jeremiah, there is no record of anyone at anytime taking the slightest bit of notice of anything Jeremiah said. Yet Jonah, on the strength of just one or two sermons, converted the entire city of Nineveh of the children of Ishmael totaling maybe 60,000 people. By any standards, that has got to be recorded as a very successful evangelistic campaign. Yet Jesus claimed to be greater than Jonah.

…42 The queen of the south shall rise up in the judgment with this generation, and shall condemn it: for she came from the uttermost parts of the earth to hear the wisdom of Solomon; and, behold, a greater than Solomon is here.

Solomon was the wisest and wealthiest and most successful of any ruler of the ancient world. Yet Jesus claimed to be greater even than Solomon.

He claimed to be a greater priest than the current high priest of Israel, He claimed to be a greater prophet than Jonah, and He claimed to be a greater King than Solomon. In these three startling claims, we have before us the threefold ministry of Jesus.

Priest, prophet, and King.

In the preceding thread, we have been discussing the new age cosmic Christ, Krishna to some, the Matreya according to some, Madi according to others, and there is a common theme between this future new age Christ, and the real, in as much as the new age Christ also reflects a desire for priesthood, religious authority, and secular power. In essence, the spirit behind this movement, is Antichrist in every way. How is that? Because the very word "Antichrist" means instead of Christ. Anti– as in antichrist, according to Strong’s concordance, and like other words having the prefix ‘anti’, means at it’s most basic form “in the room of”, “instead of”, or “in the place of”.
In other words, ‘antichrist’ stands as a substitute. Any thoughts on this before I take this to its next step?

 

[bbyrd009]

I was agreeing with you. You were right to point that out. I hesitate to use the word antichrist when talking about Revelation.

Who is well versed in it? :)

i wouldnt claim that, but i can say you will makes strides when youget that everything in the Rev may be applied to you, today

 

[bbyrd009]

You are worried over nothing.

Actually I think nothing except God exists. We exist only because He continues to wish it so. We may exist then in a certain way; but it's not as "real" as the way God exists. Paul quotes a pagan poet:

Acts 17:28 For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring.

I will ask you what I have asked many others when they talk about "born again." Why did Jesus say that those born of the Spirit can move like the wind?

John 3:8 The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.

funny tho, according to the proper def of "exist" all of that needs to be flipped lol

I know of no reason to believe Genesis 1 is describing a material creation. None. People can assume it, but they should know better after reading Revelation. They should also know better after reading that Jesus told the thief he would be with him that day in the garden.

zing

 

[bbyrd009]

Ah, so serpents can be a good thing if subject to the authority of God. . . .

hmm. while they serve God, wadr i dont think so, myself. Not your idea, i know. Imo that would be a "fox" maybe? Dunno.

 

[bbyrd009]

In certain contexts I would agree with you. Hungering and thirsting after righteousness, (and asking for the life changes that are in harmony with such righteousness, is indeed asking for 'trouble'. But you will receive what you ask for, only perhaps not in the way you might expect. There are other examples that spring to mind...where Jesus said, if you ask for a fish shall you receive a stone etc...so also shall your heavenly Father give His holy Spirit to those that ask.

I agree that this can be taken way out of context, and often is. Staple diet for the mega church. As for praying or interceding for someone else. That also can result in pain, even death to oneself. "Forgive them, and if necessary, blot my name from your book".
Quite right. Got me there.

So with all the above said and worked through, do you still refuse to have expectations when it comes to promises from scripture? Let me offer another example, one of my favourites.
Jeremiah 29:11 For I know the thoughts that I think toward you, saith the LORD, thoughts of peace, and not of evil, to give you an expected end.
12 Then shall ye call upon me, and ye shall go and pray unto me, and I will hearken unto you.
13 And ye shall seek me, and find me, when ye shall search for me with all your heart.
Now I know that this promise is given in the context of the captivity in Babylon...but based on our own captivity to sin, and the unchanging character of the one promising, I believe we can take this personally, particularly in applying it to our salvation and relationship with Christ.

not disagreeing, but imo most of us seek to find time for Christ in our lives, rather than seeking to find a life in Christ iow. We go about our days mostly acquiring some whatever it may be that we think we need, groceries, gas, maybe a benz, and then--in our own esteemed opinions--"earnestly" "pray" for a closer walk. At least thats pretty much my mo?
few there are who find it

...tells me that when we are generally doing what most other people are doing, there wont be any recriminations necessarily, but count the cost goes a bit deeper than any temporary embarrassment at some (misguided) attempt to proselytize, at least imo.

 

[bbyrd009]

Jonah was the most powerful and successful of all OT prophets.

i particularly like Jonah, as he was sent to "the people of the fish"

 

[Giuliano]

If I may offer my opinion here. The Israelites, at least those who believed the promise, who looked upon the brazen serpent, were not just healed, but also forgiven of the sin that caused the problem in the first place. I would suggest that this is why Jesus compared Himself to that serpent...as a Provider of freedom from sin. The Israelites knew that it wasn't the piece of brass itself that provided deliverance from guilt and pain, but rather the Rock in the wilderness Who was leading them, and upon Whom their faith was focused. Why a serpent? It was a copy of the ones that was biting them and causing their discomfort and death. IT was their sin and rebelliousness that brought them into the camp. In the NT we find that Jesus, Who knew no sin, was made sin for us, and through faith in Him we are also freed from the discomfort (and pleasure for certain periods) and the death that sin brings. Basically, it is the gospel. But somehow I think you knew all that, and you are attempting to place a more esoteric flavour upon the whole scene, which I think is unwarranted.

You seem to have them hallucinating.

 

[Giuliano]

i wouldnt claim that, but i can say you will makes strides when youget that everything in the Rev may be applied to you, today

I say if you can't believe the first verse in that book, you're wasting your time reading the rest of it.

 

[Giuliano]

The devil is an angel. Not a serpent. But he took a serpent and used I would presume something like ventriloquism to speak to Eve. Revelation describes him as a fiery red dragon. Metaphor. And the women in Revelation? Same as what women are in the rest pf prophetic literature. Churches. Or Israel. The people of God...or apostate people of God...whether the church or Israel. The woman of Revelation 12...God's faithful people. The woman of Revelation 17...God's adulterous unfaithful people.

This explanation doesn't fly with me. The devil is not mentioned in Genesis. Genesis says the serpent was there speaking. Now obviously I don't think a physical serpent was talking; but I also don't introduce the devil into the mix. It's hard enough to try to sort out the meanings of things in Genesis without introducing new variables.

What some may not realize is that Adam had spoken to the serpent earlier when God brought all the animals to Adam to be named. Adam was not deceived. Adam saw what the serpent was and named it. Ha, perhaps this was the reason Paul thought women shouldn't talk in some situations?

As for the women in Revelation? Remember that the spiritual war is between the seed of the serpent and the seed of the woman. Some male Christian thinking is anti-woman. Why worry about the UN and Freemasons if so much of Christianity has already infected by the poisonous thinking of the serpent? It has been infected for centuries.

 

[Giuliano]

As an entity that replaces Christ.

I wouldn't assume that. It can also mean "against" or "instead of." There is no need to replace Spirit of Christ in people who already have the "other" spirit. How could the Christ Spirit dwell in someone under the spell of this "other" spirit?

Darkness precedes light in Genesis. Cain is older than Abel. Esau is older than Jacob.

2 Thessalonians 2:3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;
4 Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.

What is the proper Temple of God?

 

[Prayer Warrior]

What some may not realize is that Adam had spoken to the serpent earlier when God brought all the animals to Adam to be named. Adam was not deceived. Adam saw what the serpent was and named it. Ha, perhaps this was the reason Paul thought women shouldn't talk in some situations?

What you're saying here is a real stretch--that Adam spoke to the serpent. These verses don't say that Adam spoke directly to any of that animals he named.

Gen 2:18-20--And the Lord God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. And out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof. And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.

The serpent who spoke to Eve was obviously not just an animal. God didn't give the animals the gift of speech. He gave this only to man, and yet, the serpent was able to speak. He lied to Eve. As I said before the devil is known as the "father of lies."

John 8:44--You are of your father the devil, and you want to carry out your father's desires. He was a murderer from the beginning and does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he tells a lie, he speaks from his own nature, because he is a liar and the father of lies.

As I've read your comments, I get the feeling that you formed the beliefs that you've stated in the thread from some books or sermons, but clearly not straight from the Bible even though you're trying to use the Bible to support your unbiblical views. Can you let me in on what you've been reading or listening to?? Could it be that at least some of your beliefs are connected with Kabbalistic teaching?

Here's some info on Kabbalah, aka Jewish mysticism.

What is Kabbalah?

Kabbalah (also spelled Kabalah, Cabala, Qabala)—sometimes translated as “mysticism” or “occult knowledge—is a part of Jewish tradition that deals with the essence of God. Whether it entails a sacred text, an experience, or the way things work, Kabbalists believe that God moves in mysterious ways. However, Kabbalists also believe that true knowledge and understanding of that inner, mysterious process is obtainable, and through that knowledge, the greatest intimacy with God can be attained.​

The Zohar, a collection of written, mystical commentaries on the Torah, is considered to be the underpinning of Kabbalah. Written in medieval Aramaic and medieval Hebrew, the Zohar is intended to guide Kabbalists in their spiritual journey, helping them attain the greater levels of connectedness with God that they desire.

Source: What is Kabbalah?​