Identity if the serpent in Genesis (2)

soleil10

Well-Known Member
Messages
763
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
USA
Investigation on the Identity of the Serpent in Genesis ? (2)

This is part 2 of my research

Did “Satan” begin in heaven ? Did God create satan and did the fall of humanity reflect God’s plan? These are all the type of questions that are generated by the scriptural testimony.

Some point to Isaiah 45:7 where God proclaims that “I form the light and create darkness, I bring prosperity and create calamity; I, the LORD, do all these things.

However Genesis 1:31 says that God created all things and that all things were very good. If so, we can only conclude that “satan” is a post-corrupted identity tag. Before”he was hurled to the ground” he enjoyed a position and a status as a heavenly being with an original tag of heavenly identity.

The idea that goodness was corrupted and transformed to evil is the overwhelming trend documented in the scriptures.
These scriptures testify to beings, originally created as good, becoming dissatisfied with their station and engaging in a process that renders them unworthy for continued holiness within the heavenly realm…they are purged from heaven, and in their new found sorry state are assigned to the lower realm to await judgement.

Likewise, satan’s corruption from heaven means that before he was tagged with this hellish moniker after his corruption and fall, he enjoyed an altogether different position and status in heaven as one of the angelic beings.

In fact in Revelation 12, beginning with the 7 verse to the 9th, we find one more important piece of the puzzle that helps us to further pinpoint this original identity. It states that Michael and ‘his angels’ do battle with ’satan and his angels’.

This draws a direct comparaison with Michael the Archangel. Both satan and Michael have their angels and, therefore, both must be archangels.

Satan before being hurled down from heaven was, therefore, not just a rank and file angel…he was an archangel of the highest order, comparable to Michael and Gabriel
 
Investigation on the Identity of the Serpent in Genesis ? (2)

This is part 2 of my research

Did “Satan” begin in heaven ? Did God create satan and did the fall of humanity reflect God’s plan? These are all the type of questions that are generated by the scriptural testimony.

Some point to Isaiah 45:7 where God proclaims that “I form the light and create darkness, I bring prosperity and create calamity; I, the LORD, do all these things.

However Genesis 1:31 says that God created all things and that all things were very good. If so, we can only conclude that “satan” is a post-corrupted identity tag. Before”he was hurled to the ground” he enjoyed a position and a status as a heavenly being with an original tag of heavenly identity.

The idea that goodness was corrupted and transformed to evil is the overwhelming trend documented in the scriptures.
These scriptures testify to beings, originally created as good, becoming dissatisfied with their station and engaging in a process that renders them unworthy for continued holiness within the heavenly realm…they are purged from heaven, and in their new found sorry state are assigned to the lower realm to await judgement.

Likewise, satan’s corruption from heaven means that before he was tagged with this hellish moniker after his corruption and fall, he enjoyed an altogether different position and status in heaven as one of the angelic beings.

In fact in Revelation 12, beginning with the 7 verse to the 9th, we find one more important piece of the puzzle that helps us to further pinpoint this original identity. It states that Michael and ‘his angels’ do battle with ’satan and his angels’.

This draws a direct comparaison with Michael the Archangel. Both satan and Michael have their angels and, therefore, both must be archangels.

Satan before being hurled down from heaven was, therefore, not just a rank and file angel…he was an archangel of the highest order, comparable to Michael and Gabriel


you have many questions :) but there is only one channel that is being given insight and that channel is spoken of in matthew 24;45-47

And Notice that it is these faithful ones that are being given spiritual food straight from the hand of JESUS .
and now the understanding is abundant.Daniel 12;4


yes true knowledge is NOW very abundant especially in these the last days.



the understanding about satan, and the understanding about just who Michael is, and the understanding about that war in heaven is NOW clearly understood.


And its all happening in the time of the end.



and MEE has found the channel that JESUS is feeding .



here it is spoken of in MICAH 4;1


And it must occur in the final part of the days [that] the mountain of the house of Jehovah will become firmly established above the top of the mountains, and it will certainly be lifted up above the hills; and to it peoples must stream.


that mountain of JEHOVAH is certainly elavated indeed .


and its worth the climb because Jehovah

IS BLESSING HIS PEOPLE WITH UNDERSTANDING:)



This is what Jehovah of armies has said, ‘It will yet be that peoples and the inhabitants of many cities will come; 21 and the inhabitants of one [city] will certainly go to [those of] another, saying: “Let us earnestly go to soften the face of Jehovah and to seek Jehovah of armies. I myself will go also.” 22 And many peoples and mighty nations will actually come to seek Jehovah of armies in Jerusalem and to soften the face of Jehovah.’

Zechariah 8;20-22



come you people :)











MEE goes to the channel that JESUS is feeding, and they share that good spiritual food with MEE.
 
What are you studying? Are you researching the works of a particular author or denomination?

Namaste Wil,

I recently participated to a webinar. One of the subject was the human fall from the content in Genesis. I am going over my notes. I like the idea of organizing them like the investigation of a crime. First, the fruit, 2nd the serpent 3rd will be the mental and emotional process within Lucifer and Adam and Eve. There may be more. I do not know yet.
 
It seems that there is a huge vested interest in painting the serpent as the BAD GUY.
Maybe the real bad guy was the one who was placing restrictions onto people desiring to learn about good and evil and then punishing them excessively for making the efforts necessary to achieve that understanding.
So then the alleged bad guy in the story is not really the bad guy at all, but gets to serve as the fall guy who takes the blame so that the real villain(s) can continue with their villainy.
 
I think Terry Pratchett and Neil Gaiman's Good Omens should be required reading for the truth surrounding this particular story

"A J Crowley and Aziraphale have been on earth for millennia - well, since the beginning really. Crowley is one of the Fallen (who did not so much fall as saunter vaguely downwards) and was originally the serpent who suggested to Eve that those apples looked particularly tasty. Aziraphale managed not to fall but is in a certain amount of trouble for taking on pity on Adam and Eve and helping them out a bit by giving Adam his flaming sword

The two have become friends of a sort and rub along quite nicely doing their thing, maintaining the balance, until Crowley is charged with the placement with a suitable family of the son of Satan. The idea is that once the child reaches adolescence he will bring about the end of the world allowing
Crowley
and Aziraphale to go their separate ways, one up and one down, and giving this poor planet a break. Neither one of them is sure that they want this to happen because Hell is sort of hot and Heaven is kind of boring and they really like it here on earth

With a cast of witches and witchfinders, a jezebel/medium, several children, a book of prophecies that are actually accurate, not to mention the four horsemen of the apocalypse - due to advances in modern medicine pestilence has been replaced by pollution but it seems to work okay - and four other horsemen, this is Pratchett at his best"
 
The old and persistent idea that it was necessary for Adam and Eve to taste the fruit that was forbidden them, and that God acted out of weakness, assumes certain unfounded assumptions:
1: That God was seeking to instruct Adam and Eve with regard to reality of their nature as finite and created beings.
2: That the serpent was claiming to do the same, but insisting that the reality of their nature was that they were in fact divine. As part of his claim, it was necessary to paint God as a liar.

So one of the two is not telling the truth.
The evidence would suggest it was the serpent.

+++

The next assumption is in thinking that God punished Adam and Eve out of spite for their disobedience. That what happened was purely an act of malice in response to the exposing of the lie.

Prior to this, we have a God who acts, who creates, and what He creates is good, a fact the text affirms each and every 'day' of creation. There is no other motive in God so far, than the good, that is the only end to which His actions are directed.

Implicit in the text, by the very nature of the world's temporality, is the clear message that God acts for the good, and creates for the good, and furthermore directs all things towards their natural and proper end, which again is good.

There is no reason to think otherwise, nor is the text suggesting otherwise. To claim otherwise is to say that God is not good, does not act for the good, in fact does not know what the good is (if He did, why act otherwise?) Such a god is at best relative and contingent and subject to ignorance ... which nothing in the text suggests ... or that such a god is, as well as being subject to forces beyond his control and ignorant of their truth and reality, incapable of perceiving the difference between Himself — that is what He knows of His own nature and being — and the nature of His created creature ... something that would be immediately apparent to any other rational-minded witness ot the scene — that a created human nature is none of those things.

So what I'm saying is, if you pursue that argument to its logical conclusion, the whole thing collapses in internal contradiction and is rendered void as a text.

The implication is simple: Either take what the text says, or reject it, but don't fool yourself into thinking the text means something other than what its authors intended, and that you know its true meaning, and they did not.

The biggest error is the misreading of evil. Evil is not a body of knowledge, evil is not external to the nature of the creature, evil is that which is done in the full and certain knowledge that it is the wrong thing to do. Every definition of evil requires the assent of the will of the individual to act in such a manner that is contrary to what the individual knows to be the greater good, in pursuit of a lesser good, a self-serving end.

When God created Adam and Eve He brought all creation before them and said 'this is the way of the world. This is the way it is for you.' He did not say, 'this is the way it is for us' nor did He imply that Adam and He were of the same nature ... in fact He made it abundantly clear they were not, by revealing Himself to Adam as His creator, and then telling him what He created him for.

He also made it clear there were certain limitations to his nature. Adam was not made divine, nor could he be, no created nature can possess divinity, which itself is uncreated. Therefore human nature is good, but conditional, and relative ... conditional in its relationship to God, in which case it is evidently not the Absolute Good in itself, as God is, and relative to the world in which it finds itself ... if Adam, for example, should choose to bang his head on a rock, he will learn that the rock is harder, and the result, although with no malice on anyone's part, is not good for Adam should he bang his head too hard.

At this point it's worth nailing another false assumption, that Adam and Eve didn't understand what God was saying. This presupposes that the Divine cannot make itself understood, or that the discourse between Adam and Eve and God was something akin to a man explaining particle physics to a hamster. Really, it's a no-go. Adam and Eve knew what was meant by 'good' and 'evil'; 'life' and 'death' — you don't jave to experience something to know something; you don't have to do the wrong thing to know it's the wrong thing to do.

What the serpent implied was that by the addition of something other than its own nature, something that was not intrinsic to its own being but would be realised, as it were, by the consumption of the fruit, whereas the implicit message of God is that the way of Truth and Reality was to seek the Good, and indeed God, in and through the proper act of its own inhering nature ... 'know thyself' as the oracle says ... for there can be no better good for a nature than to be perfectly what it is ...

The one thing God cannot give is the one thing that God invites us to participate in, the fulness of nature, all-in-all ... only the Uncreated Creator of All possesses, in Its nature, Everything, all-in-all.

Man can only know the true, the real and the good by participation in it, but what he sought, and what he eternally seeks in his error, is to possess it, and this is what the voice in his ear whispered to him ... that God is lying, that you can possess it all ...

... and of course, as well all know, as soon as we grasp a thing to possess it, in the very act of possessing it for one's own good, which is what the serpent was suggesting, we cease to see the truth, the reality, the virtue and the beauty of the thing as existing in its own right ... we lose sight even of our true selves.

And we were naked ... and we were ashamed ... and we hid, from God and from ourselves.

Now tell me, where's the good in that?

Not a complete argument, in fact more a collection of ideas about a text, but something to muse on, I hope.

Thomas
 
Time has been spent musing I see, but as you said here:
don't fool yourself into thinking the text means something other than what its authors intended, and that you know its true meaning, and they did not.
I think it is quite arrogant of anyone to say , "this is what the authors meant.....here I will interpret it aright for you".
Your speculations are interesting to read, but, at the end of the day that is what they are....musings and speculations.
Just like all of our ideas.
I don't claim any superiority of interpretation over you, or that I know what the texts mean while you don't, just that my speculations are different.
Here is a brief breakdown of some elements in the text:
God the creator is described as a good creator as all his works were said to be good.
God makes a garden within which He places people to tend the place, yet in the midst of it He places also a "tree" which bears "fruit" which will confer the knowledge of good and evil upon those who "eat" of it.
Adam and Eve (prototype people) were obviously very innocent and naive as the texts show walking about naked without a thought to any implications which may arise from such a state.
Now as people grow up they will seek to emulate the role models which they have in front of them.
Since they (God's children) served Elohim (Their Father), they had that example to aspire to.
Not a bad thing as why would it be bad to aspire to have the same traits as God.
Do you not wish for your children to emulate your good qualities?
laudable goals.
Intellectual maturity and wisdom is found by people through learning the difference between good and bad, this is the foundation of morality and law.
(So why would it then be a punishable offense for learning the basis of law???hmmm...keep them ignorant)
Discernment is impossible without such knowledge.
People in the bible (later on in the book) are told to seek after wisdom and understanding and to cultivate discernment so this is obviously not a sinful thing.
(So how can attempting to learn the basis for morality be defined as an original sin?)
rather, a godly trait which shows good character and qualities of righteousness.

the fact that God punishs the children He made for seeking to emulate Him and learn discernment shows us that this story cannot be taken literally whatsoever, and that to do so will result in erroneous interpretations.
So it then must be an allegorical work, as otherwise it makes no sense, other than to prop up even more mythology such as God-men saviors who will save men from the imperfections that the God built into them through barbarous (and unnecessary) blood sacrifices.
 
I recently participated to a webinar. One of the subject was the human fall from the content in Genesis.

When you were talking about the fall, did anybody ask how God lost track of His creation so quickly?

Why wasn't God paying attention? What was He doing when it all went "Kablooey"?

How can a deity who is thought of as all-knowing ask "Did you eat the apple?" Why didn't he already know the answer?

How can a deity who is thought of as all-seeing not locate Adam, simply because Adam is crouching down?

Did anybody ask questions like that?
 
As far as I understand it, most Christians view this sort of thing in the same way parents will ask their child "What happened to the cookies in that jar?" when they know perfectly well that the kid snuck them. One reading could be that God didn't know. The other reading could be that God was asking the question for a reason other than gaining information.

When I was a kid and my mother asked me "Do you think that behavior is appropriate?" it wasn't because she was asking for my opinion.
 
As far as I understand it, most Christians view this sort of thing in the same way parents will ask their child "What happened to the cookies in that jar?"

One answer out of four. 25%. That's not a very high score.
 
When you were talking about the fall, did anybody ask how God lost track of His creation so quickly?

Why wasn't God paying attention? What was He doing when it all went "Kablooey"?

How can a deity who is thought of as all-knowing ask "Did you eat the apple?" Why didn't he already know the answer?

How can a deity who is thought of as all-seeing not locate Adam, simply because Adam is crouching down?

Did anybody ask questions like that?
Your questions do illustrate the silliness of literal readings of the Bible. :) earl
 
I think it is quite arrogant of anyone to say , "this is what the authors meant.....here I will interpret it aright for you"...
And I would agree, if that was what I was saying. But I wasn't. My musings and ideas are based on the whole text, the Bible, not just one aspect of it, and on informed commentary ... Your comments were not uncommon — neo-gnostics tend to make the same point.

I don't claim any superiority of interpretation over you, or that I know what the texts mean while you don't, just that my speculations are different.
It's not difference I'm bringing to light, so much as the corrective of error. Speculations are based on assumptions. I was just trying to show the assumptions are erroneous.

God makes a garden within which He places people to tend the place, yet in the midst of it He places also a "tree" which bears "fruit" which will confer the knowledge of good and evil upon those who "eat" of it.
I agree. I would stress however that the garden, whilst a Paradise, is not heaven, and very much on earth, subject to the limitations of its inherent finitude, which must logically include error ... that is an inescapable aspect of the finite, it is not perfect, even though it might well be paradisical. I think the more useful inquiry is what, if God is God, the tree signifies.

Adam and Eve (prototype people) were obviously very innocent and naive as the texts show walking about naked without a thought to any implications which may arise from such a state.
No, there's an assumption for you ... you're assuming your moral values hold for them, which is not the case. I suggest the text infers they were naked and without shame, because they had nothing to be ashamed of. Any 'impications' are yours, not theirs. They are pre-Fall, remember. Shame and other implications are results of the Fall.

Discernment is impossible without such knowledge.
But they had all the knowledge they needed:
1 God is God
2 Not everything is good for you
3 Eat that fruit and you will die.
What more does one need to know?

People in the bible (later on in the book) are told to seek after wisdom and understanding and to cultivate discernment so this is obviously not a sinful thing.
(So how can attempting to learn the basis for morality be defined as an original sin?)
Because the text implicitly assumes an a priori set of moral values held by Adam and Eve — they knew their actions constituted a rejection of the will of God. They weren't discovering something they did not know, they were doing something they knew to be morally wrong.

I think the story is an allegory ... but I also think that an allegory that teaches man nothing about his own nature is not much use really ... so I look for a different interpretation other than the 'it's not my fault' response.

Thomas
 
One answer out of four. 25%. That's not a very high score.

Your questions were all interrelated to the question about the relationship proposed between God and humanity in Genesis, which is a parental type relationship.

My response pretty much answered in a way that indicated the problem is when we assume God's actions were out of ignorance or limitation rather than for other reasons, and I pointed out that in a parental relationship, parents often act in ways that feign ignorance or limitation in order for their offspring to learn and demonstrate their true "colors" so to speak.

Another example is that you ask if God so easily lost track of creation. Parents may know what their kids are doing, but still allow them the freedom of will to choose their own actions. Otherwise, the kid would be a sort of puppet. You assume that God wasn't paying attention. The other possibility is that God knew exactly what was going on but chose the hands-off approach, because if God did not, then humanity would not have free will.

I've never really worked out exactly what I think of Genesis. But I can say that if one approaches it without reading it completely literally, it helps make a lot more sense out of it. And it is fairly obvious that reading it with assumptions one wouldn't rationally make if they were observing a parent and his/her child is probably helpful given the proposition in the Bible that God is an infinite, uncreated Being relating to his/her creation.
 
Your questions were all interrelated to the question about the relationship proposed between God and humanity in Genesis, which is a parental type relationship.

Now I'm not a parent. Somehow I got lucky and managed to avoid that. So I can't speak from personal experience. But I don't recall hearing that parents should banish their children when they misbehave. What would happen to our children if we followed God's example?

I know that somebody might say that Adam and Eve were adults and we kick our adult children out into the world. But A&E were adult in body only. Their life knowledge was minimal, everything had been given to them, their only human interaction was with each other. These were two very naive people. I daresay that today's six year old is vastly more worldly and savvy than A&E. Yet God booted them for one mistake.

What parent would treat their child like that? What would you think of a parent who said, "The kid broke my Ming vase, so I sent him to live with his uncle?" If this was a parental relationship it was a dysfunctional one. If there was a universal social service, they'd have a thing or two to say to God about raising his kids.
 
Now I'm not a parent. Somehow I got lucky and managed to avoid that. So I can't speak from personal experience. But I don't recall hearing that parents should banish their children when they misbehave. What would happen to our children if we followed God's example?
I know that somebody might say that Adam and Eve were adults and we kick our adult children out into the world. But A&E were adult in body only. Their life knowledge was minimal, everything had been given to them, their only human interaction was with each other. These were two very naive people. I daresay that today's six year old is vastly more worldly and savvy than A&E. Yet God booted them for one mistake.
What parent would treat their child like that? What would you think of a parent who said, "The kid broke my Ming vase, so I sent him to live with his uncle?" If this was a parental relationship it was a dysfunctional one. If there was a universal social service, they'd have a thing or two to say to God about raising his kids.
What about if your own daughter as a teenager was becoming a prostitute, going out with the worst drug dealer from a maffia family and having a baby out of wedlock. Would you keep her in your home and give her your estate (assuming you were God)
The human fall was not about breaking one vase. It affected the blood lineage of all humanity.
 
The human fall was not about breaking one vase. It affected the blood lineage of all humanity.

So why didn't God just end it with A&E? If the blood lineage was tainted for all humanity why did he let it proceed? He is all knowing isn't He? Apparently Cain killing Abel wasn't a strong enough clue. It took all the way to Noah for God to wipe the slate clean. God had to wipe out every man, woman, child and living creature on the Earth. Why not just deal with it when He have just two to destroy?

As I've said before... why people don't see this as God's fault is beyond me.
 
What about if your own daughter as a teenager was becoming a prostitute, going out with the worst drug dealer from a maffia family and having a baby out of wedlock.

BTW, I think it's very interesting that you escalated the sins of the offspring to the level that you did. Like I said, A&E were in a most naive state. They weren't drug using prostitutes, they were just children who didn't listen to their parent. What child doesn't do that 10,000 times over?

Nice of you to dress them up with tattoos, venereal disease and criminal records. Where DO you come up with this stuff?
 
Thomas
It's not difference I'm bringing to light, so much as the corrective of error. Speculations are based on assumptions. I was just trying to show the assumptions are erroneous.
What is humorous on one hand is the fact that so many people who have had anything to do with christianity for any length of time, either as studious laymen or in a professional capacity, acquire this attitude of "I know what the meaning of this is and now am able to correct any who stray from the true understanding".
On the other hand it is not humorous at all, as I see people who have only a theory and speculation, yet they believe that they have it straight from the mouth of God, if you will.
I understand that people think it is their faith, which is the conviction of things not seen.
But I see it as people with conviction in things in error.
Historically this has caused lots of social discord and much mayhem and destruction.
We do need to grow up at some point and stop repeating all the mistakes of history again and again.

Really all you are doing is correcting my assumptions and speculations with those of your fancy, which are just as assumptive and speculative.
But they had all the knowledge they needed:
1 God is God
2 Not everything is good for you
3 Eat that fruit and you will die.
What more does one need to know?
What more does one need to know?:eek:
Wow.:eek:
Where to begin?
This is so obvious that I don't need to enumerate a shopping list.
 
BTW, I think it's very interesting that you escalated the sins of the offspring to the level that you did. Like I said, A&E were in a most naive state. They weren't drug using prostitutes, they were just children who didn't listen to their parent. What child doesn't do that 10,000 times over?
Nice of you to dress them up with tattoos, venereal disease and criminal records. Where DO you come up with this stuff?
My point is that for God to do what he did was not because they just misbehaved.
Yes they were initially pure and innocent. This is why the fall was such a tragedy.
You are the one who challenged God for his over reaction instead of to try to understand what kind of fault whould cause such a consequence.

God lost his children in the process. It was such a tragedy
 
Back
Top