Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Do Animals Sin?


  • Please log in to reply
87 replies to this topic

#1 Adanac

Adanac

    Omega

  • On Vacation
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,886 posts

Posted 01 September 2003 - 05:37 PM

The simple answer is no.

The literal talking snake in Genesis was not a sinner. He was cursed as a lesson for Adam and Eve.
Housework has been a snap since I realized... "Hey! I'm a guy!".

#2 Mercia

Mercia

    Pi

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 992 posts

Posted 01 September 2003 - 05:41 PM

If Christadelphian theology has the serpent as a literal taking snake, and God saying "thou art cursed" to the snake, then the answer has to be yes. You believe animals sin :popcorn:

#3 Adanac

Adanac

    Omega

  • On Vacation
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,886 posts

Posted 01 September 2003 - 05:42 PM

If Christadelphian theology has the serpent as a literal taking snake, and God saying "thou art cursed" to the snake, then the answer has to be yes. You believe animals sin :popcorn:

The Bible says there was a literal talking snake. Read Genesis 3.

No, he was not cursed because he sinned. How can an animal sin? He was cursed as an object lesson for all us of where animal instincts lead to.
Housework has been a snap since I realized... "Hey! I'm a guy!".

#4 Mercia

Mercia

    Pi

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 992 posts

Posted 01 September 2003 - 05:49 PM

The simple answer is no.

The literal talking snake in Genesis was not a sinner. He was cursed as a lesson for Adam and Eve.

Then your making it up as you go along again then Amanap. As this is not what the Bible says, this is only what you say (i only believe the Bible, sorry).

The BIBLE says "because thou hast done this YOU ARE CURSED" (Gen 3:14).
Where does it say in the Bible God did not really mean this and it was just a example to Adam or have you just made that bit up from your own imagination because you are desperate to make Satan dissapear?
Please show me where it says what you say.

Also, if it was a literal talking serpent then where is it in the gospels? Seeing Jesus is prophesised to bruise its head? I can see something called "the" Satan tempting Jesus in the gospels, but nowhere do i find this literal 2000 year old talking snake that Jesus is suppossed to bruise the head of. Why is that? Yet I can read about THE Satan with definite article in the gospels that Jesus symbollically destroys the power of, and which surprisingly enough is called "THAT OLD SERPENT" in Revelation chapter 12!!! But alas - no literal talking snake!

So then where has this literal talking snake gone?

Edited by Mercia, 02 September 2003 - 03:44 AM.


#5 Adanac

Adanac

    Omega

  • On Vacation
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,886 posts

Posted 01 September 2003 - 05:59 PM

Why do you think I am making things up? Genesis 3:1 says that the serpent was more subtle than any of the beasts of the field. Therefore he was a beast of the field, a snake.

He was cursed because of what he had done, of course he was! He was the one who did it! But that doesn´t make him a sinner - snakes don´t sin, they are animals.

The serpent then becomes a symbol for sin - see Rom 7 for example where it says "sin, taking opportunity by the commandment, deceived me, and by it slew me" Obviously the original serpent is long dead and gone but what he represents - the thinking of the flesh, remains and is very much a part of each and every one of us. That is what Jesus destroyed (John 3:14) - he was the serpent on the cross, i.e. his flesh was nailed to it and destroyed.
Housework has been a snap since I realized... "Hey! I'm a guy!".

#6 Mercia

Mercia

    Pi

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 992 posts

Posted 01 September 2003 - 06:03 PM

No, he was not cursed because he sinned. How can an animal sin?

So then were the Pharisees literal serpents as well incapable of sinning? And why do you say - how can an animal sin when you believe this was a talking animal so clever it was able to deceive a human!? Well either it was or it was not? And if it was so clever with the power of deception and conversation then of course it was capable of sin.
And if it was, then not only does it talk, outwit a human, but it also is over 4000 years old as its head was not bruised until the promised seed arrived. Yet if the last bit is symbollic, why not the first bit? Where do we have something being literal and symbollic in the same chapter of the Bible? Show me.

Edited by Mercia, 02 September 2003 - 03:47 AM.


#7 Mercia

Mercia

    Pi

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 992 posts

Posted 01 September 2003 - 06:34 PM

The serpent then becomes a symbol for sin - see Rom 7 for example where it says "sin, taking opportunity by the commandment, deceived me, and by it slew me" Obviously the original serpent is long dead and gone but what he represents - the thinking of the flesh, remains and is very much a part of each and every one of us. That is what Jesus destroyed (John 3:14) -

Why do you think I am making things up? Genesis 3:1 says that the serpent was more subtle than any of the beasts of the field. Therefore he was a beast of the field, a snake.

A beast of the field just means he is one of Gods creations, as is Satan (created by God for this purpose as God does not sin - Satan does). In Isaiah 56:9 God calls the wicked "all ye beasts of the field".

He was cursed because of what he had done, of course he was! He was the one who did it! But that doesn´t make him a sinner - snakes don´t sin, they are animals.

There you again, where does it say this is the bible? Where does it say God is not really meaning to condemn this literal snake!? Yet the Bible says "because thou hast done this THOU ART CURSED".
So you have God condeming i.e "you are cursed" forever = a innocent creature that cannot sin, yet it is being held responsible "because THOU HAST DONE THIS"? :bleh: Spot the blatent contradiction here!
And if the serpent is not responible then are those in Revelation 12 represented as "that OLD SERPENT" also not really sinners because they are "that" old Serpent?? :popcorn: So when the Pharisees were called vipers/snakes did Jesus really mean they were not sinners? Infact why on earth would God choose a symbol of something that didnt really sin because it cant as the ultimate symbol of sin? :) Should the serpent really not be the symbol of those who are cursed yet really innocent as your strange theology suggests?

The Serpent is "Satan". Thats what the Bible says, and as you keep reminding me God is not the author of confusion -- yet that is what the bible plainly says (that the Old Serpent was Satan), that is the literal talking thing that God created in Gen 3 and the same literal talking thing with the definite article that tempted Jesus in the Gospels, attacked Job in the book of Job, and that Jesus symbollically bruised the head of at Calvary. The ultimate representitive of our animalistic and carnal nature, as that is his created nature and purpose. It as the BIBLE says, "that OLD SERPENT" is "the Devil or Satan", as Matt 4, and the book of Job, as Gen 3 and as Rev 12.

he was the serpent on the cross, i.e. his flesh was nailed to it and destroyed.

No he was not the serpent on the cross, as he had a spiritual mind, not a carnal mind. His flesh was not who He was, His mind was who He was. You see this is the knock on effect of this latter day doctrine unique to Christadelphianism. You have Jesus as "the" Satan, "the" Devil in Matt 4, and on the cross. This is gross blasphemy, what will you do when you realise the truth? And that all this was the result of your unique reductionist Devil theology? And how will you feel when you realise this theolgy ended up calling Jesus "the" Devil with the definite article in Matt 4 when he was NEVER anything of the sort? This is why Satan does not want you to believe he literally exists! Whose triumph is a doctrine that ends up calling Jesus "the" Devil of Matt 4 to benefit? The Glory of the Father and the Son?

Jesus was NEVER the Devil. He was totally obedient/perfect, only false latter day theology dares to make such a claim! Thats why I was allowed to see what I did, for you - as I was told, to make you see before its too late to see anymore!

Yet, most of your (symbollic understanding of the devil) is correct and is spiritually perceptive in a way (you just deny the ultimate sense) which leads to Jesus becoming THE Devil which is a disaster when he was nothing of the of the sort!
Yet in the same way a gnostic or buddhist would deny a literal God and just spiritualise God into one mode of understanding, i.e the God within us, you do the same with the Devil by this reductionism down to the spiritualised level only. Perhaps Jesus was just a name give for grace as well? And God just another word for higher ideals?

But what strikes me as most strange in a way, is that while your theology correctly has the flesh as the ultimate enemy, you fail to fully perceive why - i.e because we shall be (with the will of God and the Holy Spirit) be raised up spiritual beings (the mind is the spirit) immediately upon death "in the twinklling of an eye", and as the mind survives death (if God saves us from the grave), then so He only saves those who are not still controlled mentally by the flesh that as angels without fleshly form (the man from heaven) have mastered that which is to be no more (the body of the flesh), as such fleshly desires can no longer be satisfied after death without a fleshly body of the senses, and one whose mind is still controlled by those lusts would therefore become a castaway, a useless and restless spirit (still controlled by the carnal mind), blown hither and tither by the conlficting wind of desries never mastered on earth, and therefore being useless, appointed to destruction (the rubbish tip).

Yet without realising their are these two ressurections in the NT era, as their are two modes everywhere, you make overcoming the flesh just an ideal as oppossed to the absolute spiritual necessity that it is.
“our SOUL is escaped AS A BIRD out of the snare of the BIRD TRAPPERS; the snare is broken, and we are escaped” (Ps. 124:7). This is called the test of our faith, the race we have to run, “if any man come after me He must DENY himself”; “I press towards the goal for the prize of the upward calling of God in Christ Jesus”; “and every man that striveth for mastery is temperate in all things…I therefore so run and not as uncertainly; so fight I, not as one that beateth the air; but I keep under my body; and bring it into subjection; lest that by any means when I have preached to others, I myself should be a castaway”. Thus, the few who actually did this (and most of Christianity has rejected this), are seen standing “on the sea of glass having the harps of God”. These are the very few “that had gotten the victory over the beast, over his image and over his mark”. (Natural perception = the papacy; natural affections = the mark); and escaped that (mental identity) which has “ensnared the soul”. That is why the mark of the beast is what it is, and that is why the events that immediately proceeded the rebirth of Israel represented one final living example and lesson of this, and what we are called to do as part of our “coming forth out of Egypt”, (and what happened to the Jews in the concentration camps?) Only after they had utterly renounced the world were they brought forth into Israel. The rebirth of natural Israel was a final lesson, a pattern not of the natural but of the spiritual. Tribulation changed them and caused them to renounce the world, as the Great Tribulation that is to come upon all the world will bring millions into Israel (or the spiritual degree). Therefore, it is better we do this ourselves, “for our light AFFLICTION which is but for a moment, worketh for us a far more exceeding and eternal weight of glory” (2 Corin. 4:17).

We shall see - the angel that spoke to me had no fleshly body, yet he was a englishman, he had english mannorisms, accent, he once lived in earth, and not long ago either, though he never told me this, I could tell, he was no different that you and I, just a lovely sensitive and wise man -- you shall see upon death, so dont be too surprised!

Edited by Mercia, 02 September 2003 - 03:53 AM.


#8 Fortigurn

Fortigurn

    Omega

  • Christadelphian MD
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 34,244 posts

Posted 01 September 2003 - 08:25 PM

Mercia, why do you not believe what the Bible clearly says? :popcorn:
Miserere mei Deus,
Secundum magnam misericordiam tuam.
Et secundum multitudinem miserationum tuarum
dele iniquitatem meam.

______________________________________________________________________
target="_blank">I am a Christadelphian. Click here to see my confession of faith.
______________________________________________________________________
‘John Wesley once received a note which said, “The Lord has told me to tell you that He doesn’t need your book-learning, your Greek, and your Hebrew.”

Wesley answered “Thank you, sir. Your letter was superfluous, however, as I already knew the Lord has no need for my ‘book-learning,’ as you put it. However—although the Lord has not directed me to say so—on my own responsibility I would like to say to you that the Lord does not need your ignorance, either.”

Osborne & Woodward, ‘Handbook for Bible study’, pp. 13-14 (1979)

______________________________________________________________________
target="_blank">Apologetics

#9 Mercia

Mercia

    Pi

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 992 posts

Posted 01 September 2003 - 08:39 PM

Mercia, why do you not believe what the Bible clearly says?   :popcorn:


Fortigurn is using my words against me I see. :bleh:

Hello fortigurn, would you elaborate on that then please so I can answer.

#10 Adanac

Adanac

    Omega

  • On Vacation
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,886 posts

Posted 01 September 2003 - 09:39 PM

:popcorn: could we use the rest of the Bible to interpret Revelation and not Revelation to interpret the rest of the Bible? Thanks!

Fact: Genesis 3:1 says -

Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?

Question: if the serpent is anything more than a snake then why say "more subtil than any beast?" If he was the fallen angel of paganized-Christianity then surely this would go without saying? Let's see, which is more intelligent? A snake or an angel? Hmm, difficult one that.

In saying that the serpent is Satan (or rather your interpretation of what Satan is) you are going against your two modes idea anyway. We have no reason to suppose that Genesis 1-4 is anything else but literal. It is not written in the style of obviously figurative passages. But underlying the literal goings-on are profound Scriptural lessons. For example:
  • We are to be fruitful (have children) - but this also means to bring forth the fruit of the spirit
  • We are to subdue the earth (have gardens) - but this also means to overcome the flesh
  • We are to have dominion over the animals (have pets) - but this also means to ovecome our animal instincts
And so it goes on. Now when God cursed the ground he did it for Adam's sake. The ground had done nothing wrong - it is just ground. But it was cursed for Adam's sake to teach him a lesson, that of our own selves we can only produce spiritual weeds, sin, and we need to plant the seed of the Word of God in our hearts in order to produce fruit.

The same goes for the serpent. It was a literal snake, as Genesis 3:1 is quite clear on. Why should this be important? Because Eve was talking to it and it made sense to her! In other words man is like the beasts that perish and left to his animal instincts, his carnal way of thinking, he will disobey God. The serpent didn't disobey God. It simply, having diligently observed things, learned by experience that you don't die from eating fruit and he passed on his animal logic to the woman. Animal logic breaks down immediately because it denies the Word of God. Animals are amoral beasts that give glory to God for living according to their instincts. But human beings were made in God's image and are to subdue the earth and have dominion over their animal instincts in order to give glory to God.

So by cursing the serpent God is saying that animal instincts are for the chop and Genesis 3:15 says that what the serpent represents will be destroyed.

John records that as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness so should the son of Man be lifted up. Jesus destroyed the serpent power of sin in his death. He always subdued the earth and had dominion over his animal instincts and delivered the final blow on the cross.

This is consistent teaching from Genesis to Revelation and the Bible simply does not teach about supernatural sin. Angels cannot fall, spirit beings cannot sin. Sin comes from the flesh, from natural animal instincts which are obeyed instead of listening to God. A spirit being cannot sin. The popular Satan cannot exist - that doctrine is for the scrapheap.

Peter is called Satan - do you think he is the serpent?
Housework has been a snap since I realized... "Hey! I'm a guy!".

#11 Evangelion

Evangelion

    Omega

  • Christadelphian MD
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 22,351 posts

Posted 01 September 2003 - 10:23 PM

:popcorn:  could we use the rest of the Bible to interpret Revelation and not Revelation to interpret the rest of the Bible?


Well, we could use the Christadelphian Expostulator instead. :bleh:

Oh, wait - it amounts to the same thing. :)

:hilarious:
In necessariis unitas, in dubiis libertas, in omnibus caritas
Imago
Credo

#12 Tarkus

Tarkus

    Sigma

  • Christadelphian MD
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,560 posts

Posted 02 September 2003 - 02:30 AM

Your argument assumes that something can only be cursed if it sins. Can you please prove that your assumption is, Biblically,valid.

Quite obviously it isn't.

And he called his name Noah, saying, This same shall comfort us concerning our work and toil of our hands, because of the ground which the LORD hath cursed.


Etcetera

T

#13 Mercia

Mercia

    Pi

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 992 posts

Posted 02 September 2003 - 02:47 AM

If he was the fallen angel of paganized-Christianity then surely this would go without saying?

Amanap, you do make me smile when you start of like this! So then is God using a pagan belief to support a Christian concept :) does that make any more sense? No obviously not. Its not pagan its fundamental to every Christian in every age except a few in the last.

Question: if the serpent is anything more than a snake then why say "more subtil than any beast?" If he was the fallen angel of paganized-Christianity then surely this would go without saying? Let's see, which is more intelligent? A snake or an angel? Hmm, difficult one that.

Anamap! what do you think God is comparing this subtlety with? Other animals? :popcorn: since when have you ever heard of an animal described as being subtle? and another more subtle than the other? What? More subtle than a monkey? An Orangatang? More subtle than a hedghog, or a rabbit? I am being serious here as this is what you believe? Can any of those or any other animals you can think of be regarded as being subtle? hmmm, I am not so sure are you?
And when God said we are to be as "wise as serpents", did He therefore mean as wise as this mythological 4000 year old talking literal snake? Or as wise as literal everyday snakes? hmm, what do you think God expects us to think He means by that, or Jesus means by that? Do you really think He is asking us to be as wise as a literal snake, or the master of deception himself?
Ok, so you believe then that approx 6000 years ago their was a literal clever "subtle" talking snake that Revelation 12 calls Satan and was cast from heaven? And if this was not a literal serpent being cast from heaven, nor Satan as the bible says, then when exactly in the last two thousand years has corporate wickeness been cast down from heavenly places? If it was the council of Constantine, thats where they adopted the trinity, so is God saying in Revelation 12" now has come the Kingdom of our God" at the adoption of the trinity doctrine? Yes or no? So then when is Satan "that old serpent" being cast down and the Kingdom of God being heralded in Revelation 12 if its all symbollic of corporate wickedness or paganism being overthrown???

The serpent didn't disobey God. It simply, having diligently observed things, learned by experience that you don't die from eating fruit and he passed on his animal logic to the woman. Animal logic breaks down immediately because it denies the Word of God. Animals are amoral beasts that give glory to God for living according to their instincts. But human beings were made in God's image and are to subdue the earth and have dominion over their animal instincts in order to give glory to God.

This is all very interesting Amanap, complete theory of course. Not that I dont agree with alot of it. However, you still have God cursing a innocent creature that in Gen 3:14 you tell me is literal, and in Gen 3:15 you tell me is not literal but symbollic. Hmm whenever we have a context change in one verse of the same chapter from literal to symbollic we have a problem, as it means one is being reduced to one level of understanding (literal or symbollic only and the other denied), i.e selective reductionism, or one is wrong and the other is right.
This will just not do at all. If its literal in verse 14, then you cant have it not literal in verse 15. Yet if you have it literal in verse 15 then it suddenly becomes the same serpent in verse 14 thats still around 4000 years later at the time of Christ! Well of course Satan is, but because you cant have that, and neither can you have a 4000 year old literal talking snake, not least as one does not turn up in the gospels, but rather something called "the" Satan does. (That just incidently ofcourse Revelation 12 tells is that "old Serpent"), but no we wont accept this plain revelation we shall juggle about some more changing the plain meaning hither and tither so we have a literal serpent in Gen 3:14, a non literal serpent in Gen 3:15 yet one verse later in the same chapter its become ONLY symbollic (selective reductionism again), and yet corporate evil/paganism in Revelation 12, and then accuse everyone else of paganism for accepting the plain words of the Bible in Revelation 12 that the "old serpent" is the "Devil or Satan"!!!

Hence the same Devil or Satan that does indeed turn up 4000 years later in the gospels to tempt Jesus as he tempted Adam (Matt 4). Is the same one that everyone else in Christianity sees coming before God in with "the sons of God", i.e the angels in the book of Job, and is the same one with the definite article (i.e the Satan we all know) that the New Testament has falling from the sky(how does corporate sin do that?), changing into an angel of light, disputing with an Archangel over the body of Moses, asking to enter in and sift the apostles as wheat (as he wished to sift Job), and yet oh silly us! For not working out after 19 centuries of Christians of every generation had passed that this was not the Satan who was the angel of paganised Christianity, what on earth could have ever gave us that impression in the first place :bleh:
Obviously not the Bible then in about 30 places??
So after all that it he was just a big allegorical overwhelmingly paganised impression that God was giving us on purpose that deceived every generation of Christians up until the last! :bleh:
Of course! How obvious!

Hmmm, sarcasm aside Amanap - I do admire your symbollism, I always have, its good work. But you are wrong about the literal Satan - as one day you will find out, i dont have to guess about that, and I am not deceived.
It is as you say anyway - God is in control, He has no adversary in plan only in nature.

The same goes for the serpent. It was a literal snake, as Genesis 3:1 is quite clear on. Why should this be important? Because Eve was talking to it and it made sense to her!

It was certainly a literal something. If Satan can transform into an angel of light, not doubt also a serpent, but the serpent here is not innocent, it is cursed, and one verse later its around 4000 years later, as he was in Matt 4.

So by cursing the serpent God is saying that animal instincts are for the chop and Genesis 3:15 says that what the serpent represents will be destroyed.

John records that as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness so should the son of Man be lifted up. Jesus destroyed the serpent power of sin in his death. He always subdued the earth and had dominion over his animal instincts and delivered the final blow on the cross.

I totally agree with all this symbollism, and its meaning. But God symbollises people as animals (vipers in the Gospels) and other beasts of the field elsewhere, just as he likens Satan to a serpent, so to He likened the Pharisees to the same. None where literal serpents, but all symbollically slithered along the earth, as they were so close to its affections (as oppossed to the symbollic birds or Christlike angels who fly so high above the earth and its affections).

Amanap - for an understanding of how the early Jews saw the symbol of the serpent in Genesis read the Book of Enoch. Their the angels are symbolllised as serpents, but it is made clear they are not really serpents but as men/angels.

This is consistent teaching from Genesis to Revelation and the Bible simply does not teach about supernatural sin.

Whats supernatural sin?

Angels cannot fall, spirit beings cannot sin. Sin comes from the flesh, from natural animal instincts which are obeyed instead of listening to God. A spirit being cannot sin. The popular Satan cannot exist - that doctrine is for the scrapheap.

What desperate floored logic and mis-representation of the Bible.
1. Angels cannot fall - I do not believe Satan is Lucifer. Or an angel that fell. He certainly was not beautful. Not unless you consider something that looks like a humanoid raven beautiful. Satan was created with a adversarial nature to serve a purpose (as he did in Gen 3, as he did in the book of Job, as he did in Matt 4), why? Because God does not sin - think about it Amanap, what happened in the Book of Job?.
2. Sin comes from the flesh - absolutely, for somereason you have been made to believe that those who believe in a literal Satan do not believe the former. Satan is not omnipresent so it is very unlikely he is to bother you much, unless as in Job God permits it for a reason.
3. Spirit beings cant sin - He is not, nor was not a Christlike angel. Atleast I do not believe he is Lucifer. Or a covering Cherub, or ever was. As for angels not sinning, well Jude mentions angels not men. It makes no sense when read as men, and all theory that attempts to show Jude is talking about men comes across to me as a twist on the plain meaning and floored in many areas. Christadelphians seem to believe the Bible is purposfully misleading us, which then means God is by giving so called pagan impressions here and their (and sometimes overwhelmingly so), like the demons that are shot right through the gospels of Luke, Mark and Matt for example, yet at the same time you like quoting me "God is not the author of confusion", I sometimes wonder if you ever question what you are saying, or seriously think about it in this way? I have always thought it completely rediculous to believe God and Jesus are upholding pagan beliefs if not true, i honestly cannot understand why you do not think the same? As for angels that sin, well I have no axe to grind here as I dont believe Satan is a fallen angel, like I say I believe he was created that way for a purpose (as in the book of Job - God does not sin in First principles).


Peter is called Satan - do you think he is the serpent?

If I had a pound for the amount of times a christadelphian told me this, I would be able to donate a lot of money to charity!
Satan had asked to sift one of the apostles, and enter him. What I saw in 1982, was an exact (EXACT) parallel of what happened to Peter. Satan overshadowed him, and thats what he did to pope during that papal mass, and I have that image burnt into my mind as if it happened yesterday, or rather a few moments ago - as has been the intention for this reason.
Amanap, you have years of indoctrination, albeit willful to overcome. I realise you will not here my witness, or re-examine the Bible.
But as God is my witness, you shall find out every word i spoke to you was true.
And that this message was for you, and all those destined to read it, so please examine the implications of that knowing that I know and stake my salvation before God and man that this is so.

Russell.

Edited by Mercia, 02 September 2003 - 04:25 AM.


#14 Dianne

Dianne

    Upsilon

  • On Vacation
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,082 posts

Posted 02 September 2003 - 03:20 AM

Mercia -

It has just occurred to me Christadelphian theology has a literal talking snake that is condemned by God in Gen3!!


I'd like to point out, Mercia, that Eve didn't think anything strange about a 'snake' talking to her. Shouldn't she have been 'shocked' to hear a serpent speak?

She even put the blame on it when God passed down judgement.

Genesis 3:13
And the LORD God said unto the woman, What is this that thou hast done? And the woman said, The serpent beguiled me, and I did eat.


So, if Eve didn't see anything strange about a literal talking snake, why should you? :popcorn:
"If it's not in the Bible, then why do you believe it?"
"I AM SPARTACUS!"
"It's the VIBE..."

#15 Mercia

Mercia

    Pi

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 992 posts

Posted 02 September 2003 - 03:30 AM

I'd like to point out, Mercia, that Eve didn't think anything strange about a 'snake' talking to her.  Shouldn't she have been 'shocked' to hear a serpent speak?

Thats because I dont believe it was a literal taking snake. I believe Satan presented himself in human form but was allegorised as a serpent as to his affection, like in the book of Enoch Jude quotes from, their the angels/men are also represented as serpents in Genesis but are really just men. Its an allegory as to their affections. Just as it was when Jesus called the Pharisees vipers/serpents.

Edited by Mercia, 02 September 2003 - 03:32 AM.


#16 Cool Spot

Cool Spot

    Pi

  • Christadelphian
  • PipPipPip
  • 730 posts

Posted 02 September 2003 - 04:36 AM

Like Mercia, I do not believe that animals are capable of sinning (Jonah 4:11 aside).

But, unlike Mercia, I lean towards a less allegorical interpretation of the serpent.

I believe that the Genesis account of the fall is a parable, and is the writer's way of explaining why:

1) Man is estranged from God (due to sin)
2) The world in which we live is such a tough place to live (God cursed it).

The characters of Adam, Eve and the serpent were convenient characters to employ in this story in order to get his point across.

So, if Eve didn't see anything strange about a literal talking snake, why should you?

I believe that a clue that this story is not historical is that we indeed have a talking snake.

Edited by Cool Spot, 02 September 2003 - 04:41 AM.


#17 Phil

Phil

    Rho

  • Christadelphian MD
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,779 posts

Posted 02 September 2003 - 06:02 AM

Awman,

Brilliant last post. With you all the way on that one. I think you've identified Mercia's chief problem in dealing with symbolism.

Mercia,

Like Awman, i have always enjoyed reading your posts. I think you add a lot to our discussions here, but i do have some reservations about your approach to biblical symbols. Awman made some great points in his last post, and i'd love to see you consider them at least.
"I am crucified with Christ, nevertheless i live; yet not i, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which i now live in the flesh i live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.
- Gal 2:20

-----------------

"She was one in a million, so there's FIVE MORE JUST IN NEW SOUTH WALES!!"
- The Whitlams

#18 Fortigurn

Fortigurn

    Omega

  • Christadelphian MD
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 34,244 posts

Posted 02 September 2003 - 07:11 AM

Hello fortigurn, would you elaborate on that then please so I can answer.

I am asking you why you do not believe that it was a serpent, when Genesis says it was a serpent (a beast of the field), and so does Paul.
Miserere mei Deus,
Secundum magnam misericordiam tuam.
Et secundum multitudinem miserationum tuarum
dele iniquitatem meam.

______________________________________________________________________
target="_blank">I am a Christadelphian. Click here to see my confession of faith.
______________________________________________________________________
‘John Wesley once received a note which said, “The Lord has told me to tell you that He doesn’t need your book-learning, your Greek, and your Hebrew.”

Wesley answered “Thank you, sir. Your letter was superfluous, however, as I already knew the Lord has no need for my ‘book-learning,’ as you put it. However—although the Lord has not directed me to say so—on my own responsibility I would like to say to you that the Lord does not need your ignorance, either.”

Osborne & Woodward, ‘Handbook for Bible study’, pp. 13-14 (1979)

______________________________________________________________________
target="_blank">Apologetics

#19 Kremlin

Kremlin

    Sigma

  • Christadelphian MD
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,159 posts

Posted 02 September 2003 - 01:55 PM

Ok, so you believe then that approx 6000 years ago their was a literal clever "subtle" talking snake that Revelation 12 calls Satan and was cast from heaven?


I believe the Revelation account was written concerning things yet future to John. Therefore the occurence of the War in Heaven and the casting out of the dragon must have been future from John's times, not past.

The serpent didn't disobey God. It simply, having diligently observed things, learned by experience that you don't die from eating fruit and he passed on his animal logic to the woman. Animal logic breaks down immediately because it denies the Word of God. Animals are amoral beasts that give glory to God for living according to their instincts. But human beings were made in God's image and are to subdue the earth and have dominion over their animal instincts in order to give glory to God.


This is all very interesting Amanap, complete theory of course. Not that I dont agree with alot of it. However, you still have God cursing a innocent creature that in Gen 3:14 you tell me is literal, and in Gen 3:15 you tell me is not literal but symbollic. Hmm whenever we have a context change in one verse of the same chapter from literal to symbollic we have a problem, as it means one is being reduced to one level of understanding (literal or symbollic only and the other denied), i.e selective reductionism, or one is wrong and the other is right.


Looking at the terms used in Genesis 3:15, we see that there will be emnity between the woman and the serpent (ok this is fine in 'both modes' as you say), and between her seed and the serpent's seed (still ok from 'both modes') - you say the problem comes when we get to the part about Christ crushing the serpent's head.

However, the word used for "head" there is rosh, which I'm sure many of you are familiar with :rolleyes: And this word doesnt always mean head. Sure, we can interpret this word as head, and then we have a literal serpent's head being crushed by a literal foot. If we take another of the word's meanings (such as chief, or principal, beginning, etc) we start to see something else emerging.

The serpent's leader - his subtle mind by which reasoned, was to be crushed and ultimately destroyed by Christ. This is not discarding the literal interpretation - not only is the symbolic "Serpent thinking" destroyed by Christ, but the serpent's literal rosh is, as well.

Just some thoughts :)

I could be wrong, but hey... I'm sure you'll tell me if I am.

Krem ^_^

I have restored this post to its original position. :book:

Edited by Evangelion, 03 September 2003 - 05:53 AM.


#20 Evangelion

Evangelion

    Omega

  • Christadelphian MD
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 22,351 posts

Posted 02 September 2003 - 06:38 PM

Erm, I can't remember what the word is, but it is when you have a story that has two meanings (like Animal Farm).


"Allegorical", perhaps? :rolleyes:
In necessariis unitas, in dubiis libertas, in omnibus caritas
Imago
Credo

#21 Evangelion

Evangelion

    Omega

  • Christadelphian MD
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 22,351 posts

Posted 02 September 2003 - 06:47 PM

:rolleyes:
In necessariis unitas, in dubiis libertas, in omnibus caritas
Imago
Credo

#22 Adanac

Adanac

    Omega

  • On Vacation
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,886 posts

Posted 02 September 2003 - 07:14 PM

I think you can look at the Gen 3-Rev 12 thing in two ways:

1. The serpent is Satan! That means the serpent was a supernatural being of evil!

2. Satan is the serpent! That means the adversary is something that comes from those animal instincts we all possess!

(1) inteprets the rest of the Bible using Revelation while (2) inteprets Revelation using the rest of the Bible.

Therefore (2) is correct.
Housework has been a snap since I realized... "Hey! I'm a guy!".

#23 Mercia

Mercia

    Pi

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 992 posts

Posted 02 September 2003 - 07:44 PM

A APPEAL TO THE READERS WHO REPLIED

Brilliant last post. With you all the way on that one. I think you've identified Mercia's chief problem in dealing with symbolism.


Phil, Fortigurn, Ev, Amanap I need you to re-read my latest post, as by your replies to Awmans post, it has become evident that none of you yet understand what I am trying to say at all. Far from Awmans post actually revealing "my chief problem" in Phils words, it actually revealed yours.

Again - Awman, Phil, Fortigurn and others, you have not yet understood the point I have been making right from the beginning. The point is SELECTIVE REDUCTIONISM from literal to symbollic (switiching modes from one verse to another to avoid Satan as literal and external in Matt 4, annd a 4000 year old Serpent in Gen 3:15), then denying that mode, (the literal mode) and appealing to the symbollic mode and giving the impression that when you come accross 'problem' verseslike this, or that imply a literal Satan, suddently only one mode applies (the spiritualised mode that then means you can make what is literal mean what is something else), even if this means changing from two modes (spiritual/literal) from one verse in the same chapter to just spiritualised in the very next verse!

You all seem to think that I am claiming you deny two modes, and so as Awman showed you do not deny two modes, that somehow that solves the problem. Yet I have said from day one that it is not the you deny two modes (literal AND Symbollic), as if you did then I would not be able to claim you REDUCE down to one mode only in places of your choosing.

Its that you deny these two modes SELECTIVLY (i.e selective reductionism down to one level of understanding, i.e the spiritualised) when you want the literal Satan or literal Serpent as the case maybe in verse 15 of Gen 3 to dissapear, or you want a Spirit to mean just a bad feeling in 1 Sam (because you dont believe in literal spirits whcih is false theology as well), and in all these cases your theology is in error (spirits/Satan) you employ these chaotic and crafty selective reductionism techniques from literal in one verse to JUST spiritualised in the next verse in order to deny what the Bible is actually telling you in the literal sense, and then give yourselves the false impression that only the symbollic mode applies.

Yet unless someone points this out to you, you are never going to perceive the self deception you are perpetuating upon yourselves via these techniques.

You use SELECTIVE REDUCTIONISM in this chaotic and crafty way to uphold the false Satan doctrine, and use it wherever you need to 'spiritualise' away a literal Serpent/Satan. The reason you dont think you are wrong, is because you are not wrong in the spiritualised sense (i.one mode is right), which is why I keep agreeing with Amanaps symbollism, but you have denied the literal mode by pretending it does not exist selectively! (this is selective reductionism). Yet to do this you have to oppose Awamans own philiosophy of consistancy based upon the very post of his you are all applauding!!

Please = re-read my last post, slowly and carefully, examaning Matt 4 and Gen 14, 15 and 1 Sam and then try and to perceive what I actually mean, and what you have done (PLEASE), otherwise I will. be replying to posts that are not replying to my argument, as no one has bothered to properly understand it in the first place.

Thanks
Russell.

#24 Mercia

Mercia

    Pi

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 992 posts

Posted 02 September 2003 - 07:55 PM

I think you can look at the Gen 3-Rev 12 thing in two ways:

1. The serpent is Satan! That means the serpent was a supernatural being of evil!

2. Satan is the serpent! That means the adversary is something that comes from those animal instincts we all possess!

(1) inteprets the rest of the Bible using Revelation while (2) inteprets Revelation using the rest of the Bible.

Therefore (2) is correct.


Amanap, cant you see that both are right!

There is ony ONE way to discover the REAL truth on Gen 3, and thats to read verse 15 IN THE SAME CONTEXT as verse 14 without switching from a literal serpent in verse 14 and a non literal serpent in the VERY NEXT VERSE. You simply cannot change the serpent from literal to symbollic only in ONE VERSE. This is a appallingly crafty way to interpret the Bible. Re-read my posts showing where you have done it elsewhere you are in error like Matt 4.

When you accept the SAME literal entity that is being spoken of in verse 14 is the SAME literal entity (as well as symbollic one in both verses, i.e the two modes) that is being spoken of in verse 15. Then you have a 4000 year old literal entity still tempting the seed at the time of Christ, the very same one that was in Eden - DO YOU NOT? And who was attempting to beguile Christ 4000 years later as he beguiled Eve?

Well that is the hard fact you have to accept I am afraid, as you simply cannot selectivly reduce from literal to a purely symbollic serpent in ONE VERSE (i.e verse 14 to verse 15 of Gen 3).

Please open your eyes!

#25 Mercia

Mercia

    Pi

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 992 posts

Posted 02 September 2003 - 07:58 PM

Hello fortigurn, would you elaborate on that then please so I can answer.

I am asking you why you do not believe that it was a serpent, when Genesis says it was a serpent (a beast of the field), and so does Paul.

Re-read my previous posts where I show God ccalls men/sinners beasts of the field.

#26 Evangelion

Evangelion

    Omega

  • Christadelphian MD
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 22,351 posts

Posted 02 September 2003 - 08:08 PM

*sigh*

:shy:

Mercia, in light of our radically different epistemological premises, I have come to the conclusion that we're going to keep talking past each other. :bye:

I therefore propose :book: that the participants of this thread should make a few closing statements :closed: "agree to disagree" on those issues which still prove contentious :rolleyes: and try not to get bogged down in too many more of these pointless exchanges. :argue:

They just leave everyone feeling frustrated :frustration: exhausted :sleepy: and unfriendly. :sorry:

:)
In necessariis unitas, in dubiis libertas, in omnibus caritas
Imago
Credo

#27 Fortigurn

Fortigurn

    Omega

  • Christadelphian MD
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 34,244 posts

Posted 02 September 2003 - 08:20 PM

Re-read my previous posts where I show God ccalls men/sinners beasts of the field.

I read it, but you still don't get the point. Why does He call them beasts of the field? :rolleyes:
Miserere mei Deus,
Secundum magnam misericordiam tuam.
Et secundum multitudinem miserationum tuarum
dele iniquitatem meam.

______________________________________________________________________
target="_blank">I am a Christadelphian. Click here to see my confession of faith.
______________________________________________________________________
‘John Wesley once received a note which said, “The Lord has told me to tell you that He doesn’t need your book-learning, your Greek, and your Hebrew.”

Wesley answered “Thank you, sir. Your letter was superfluous, however, as I already knew the Lord has no need for my ‘book-learning,’ as you put it. However—although the Lord has not directed me to say so—on my own responsibility I would like to say to you that the Lord does not need your ignorance, either.”

Osborne & Woodward, ‘Handbook for Bible study’, pp. 13-14 (1979)

______________________________________________________________________
target="_blank">Apologetics

#28 Mercia

Mercia

    Pi

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 992 posts

Posted 02 September 2003 - 08:49 PM

And of course this angel who you call Satan was then condemned to roam around on his belly all the days of his life?? :)

This is symbollic. Do you really think God is telling us about the fate of a snake! :book:
Satan has been roaming to and fro throughout the earth. Those who are sensual symbollically lick dust, and crawl along the floor so close to the affections of the earth, (as oppossed to the spiritual who fly like eagles in the midst of heaven). I have presented all these allegorys many times before Dave on other threads.

Hmmmm, could you please point out to me where it says "angel" here. Even a child could tell you that this passage is talking about a serpent for the simple reason that this is what it says. It just seems a bit odd that God talks in depth here about the animal kingdom and then we are supposed to believe that he is in fact talking about rebel angels in disguise. :rolleyes:

Dave, you cannot have a literal Serpent in verse 14 becoming a symbollic serpent (i.e not the one spoken of in the previous verse) from verse 14 to verse 15.

So then what you are left with is this entity that beguiled Eve literallly being alive 4000 years later and still beguiling the seed of the women in the gospels. And just to confirm this is so, Revelation 12 plainly tells us "that OLD SERPENT" is "Satan", hence the same entity with the sons of God in Job is the same entity 4000 years later beguiling Christ in Matthew 4.

And as for the charge that the Revelation is symbollic (which of course it is), that does not get away from the fact that the Revelation speaks literally in this very context revealing things to us that where previously poetic or symbollic in the Psalms and OT, such as the "waters" that encompassed David which the Revelation plainly gives us the symbollic meaning of in the same way the Revelation reveals to us who was really in Eden by statements such as "the waters you see are multitudes, nations and tongues". And that "women is the great city that rules over the kings of the earth", as it tells us "that OLD SERPENT" was "the Devil or Satan". In other words it is not the OT that interprets such things but the Revelation itself in these examples that reveals such things, in the same way it reveals that the old Serpent in Eden was the Devil or Satan! (i.e hence we now understand why that same Serpent, is the same Satan that was indeed still alive 4000 years later and was beguiling Christ 4000 years later in the Gospels).

Since when has Enoch been a book of the Bible? It isnt, its appocryphal. Secondly, the only thing that Jude quotes from the book of Enoch is verse 14 which talks about the Lord coming with ten thousand of his saints. So you cant really bring support from a non Biblical book!

I take a very dim view indeed of Christiadelphians attitude to this. You exalt your own wisdom over the wisdom of an apostle. Jude would NOT quote from a apostate book. And if the book is inspired in parts, then its inspired PERIOD!

I do not lean on the book of Enoch, but I because of the apostles use of it, I greatly respect it, unlike you. If its good enough for the apostles of Christ, it is certainly good enough for me. Christadelphians are taught to despise it as it exposes your theology is in error, especially as to fallen angels. Yet Jude would not have quoted from a book that he knew propogated a major false belief. You should realise that, its obvious.
The book of Enoch could not have been included as part of the Bible as it was lost until fairly recently. Had it beeen around at the time the Bible was put together they would certainly have included it based upon Judes use of it.

Edited by Mercia, 03 September 2003 - 04:43 PM.


#29 Adanac

Adanac

    Omega

  • On Vacation
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,886 posts

Posted 02 September 2003 - 10:01 PM

*sigh*

:shy:

Mercia, in light of our radically different epistemological premises, I have come to the conclusion that we're going to keep talking past each other. :bye:

I therefore propose :book: that the participants of this thread should make a few closing statements :closed: "agree to disagree" on those issues which still prove contentious :rolleyes: and try not to get bogged down in too many more of these pointless exchanges. :argue:

They just leave everyone feeling frustrated :frustration: exhausted :sleepy: and unfriendly. :sorry:

:)

That is a good idea, although I do not read many of Mercia´s posts since I haven´t the foggiest what he is on about half the time.
Housework has been a snap since I realized... "Hey! I'm a guy!".

#30 Awman

Awman

    Iota

  • Christadelphian MD
  • PipPip
  • 104 posts

Posted 03 September 2003 - 12:24 AM

Mercia,

You still obviously feel as if you have not been understood. I do not wish to argue past you…..So, I have tried to outline what I perceive, to be your argument. Can you please peruse what I have written below. Please confirm that this does indeed accurately reflect your case. Please correct me in the places where you feel I am mis-representing your case.

YOUR reasoning is as follows: (I will use the terms “Literal” and “Natural” as synonyms, as you do, and the terms “Symbolic” and “Spiritual” as synonyms, as you do, for purposes of our argument here).

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

You see that:
The Literal Israel maps to  Symbolic Israel
And That:
The Literal Egypt maps to  Symbolic Egypt
And that
Many Literal things map to  Symbolic things
So
You conclude that, always: Literal maps to  Symbolic

THEREFORE:

Everything that is Symbolic MUST have a Literal counterpart

THEREFORE:

IF there is a Symbolic Devil there MUST be a Literal Devil

YOU THEN CONCLUDE THAT:

IF there is a Literal Devil then this Literal Devil IS your conception of a real, live being that corresponds to your claimed experience of that being. I will label this being “DEVILA”.

FURTHERMORE and IN ADDITION:

IF there is a Symbolic Serpent there MUST be a Literal “Serpent”
AND
Because The Symbolic Devil is the SAME as the Symbolic Serpent ***(refer note at end)
THEN
The Literal Devil MUST be the SAME as the Literal Serpent

SO THEREFORE YOU CONCLUDE THAT:

The Serpent in Gen 3 is………… DEVILA.

***note
(I NOTE that you equate the Symbolic Devil to be equivalent to the Symbolic Serpent and that both are Symbols for mans own sinful tendency. – and that thus IN THIS RESPECT, you hold the same understanding of mankind as we do)

regards
A




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users