I think another good questions is “Which Bible?”
I do appreciate all the insight you all are giving here, I did have another question.
I think it was in another thread, I believe that Polycarp said that there was a passage in the bible that said that genesis was a fable (or something to that effect).
I can’t find it, but I am really curious as to an explanation to this (whether my memory is correct, and if it is, what are the conflicting thoughts on the matter).
In 2 Peter 2:4, Peter mentions “the angels that sinned” being cast down to Tartarus, as it’s named in more modern translations. (Note also entry #5020 in the Greek Dictionary of the New Testament, in James Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance.
Isaiah mentions angles as having six wings (Isa. 6:2).
Revelation 20:2 mentions Satan as “the original serpent” or “that old serpent.”
True enough, the Bible never say Adam and Eve ate an apple, only that they ate the “fruit” from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
So, where did people get the idea it was an apple? Probably when the Scriptures were translated into Latin. By coincidence, the Latin word for apple is “malum,” which is also the Latin word for evil.
So, a fruit brought evil into the world? To Latin speakers, it must have been natural to picture a “malum” (apple).
Oh, here’s one I recall Cecil dealing with:
Almost everyone seems to believe that Mary Magdalene was a prostitute… but there is absolutely nothing in the Gospels that suggests she was. There are certainly prostitutes mentioned in the Gospels, including one repentant, weeping prostitute who washes Jesus’ feet and dries them with her hair. But, again, there absoutely NOTHING that suggests she’s Mary Magdalene.
If people think Mary Magdalene WAS a prostitute, they probably got that from movies or from “Jesus Christ Superstar,” not from the Bible itself.
spoke-
You’re absolutely correct…I never said there was. I was merely talking about how that inference was taken, since the Judaic definition of Satan is rather different from the popular (Christian/Milton/Dante) version thereof.
I recall there was a thread on the book of Job in Great Debates a while back, in which someone (Fenris, maybe?) was referring to the exchange between Satan and G-d as a callous “bar bet”. That interpretation is only possible when Satan is thought of as an independent agent, not as a servant of G-d with a job to do. Ditto for this serpent business.
Excellent question - one which speaks to the very nature of animals in Judaic belief. Judaism does not believe that animals have any purpose in existence except to be used by human beings - specifically, to be used by humans in a righteous manner. Since the snake was so easily turned to man’s detriment by being used as Satan’s vehicle for temptation, G-d had to alter the snake to fix that - and specifically, in ways that would remind man of that first sin.
Naturally, what I just said is not explicit in the text, it’s merely an answer to your question according to the points of view which explain the snake as being Satan or his agent.
Fair enough, cmkeller.
I’m curious, though. In your view, was the snake=Satan idea what the author of the passage had in mind all along, or do you think it is a later interpretation of the passage?
Well, since I believe that the author of the passage was G-d himself, it should be pretty obvious that I believe that that was a subtext he intended to be in there.
Chaim Mattis Keller
Is the role of Satan finished once the messiah comes in Judiac tradition? The reason why I ask is the NT verses quoted. If there is no need for that Heavenly Prosecutor after the Messiah comes, could Jesus have been claiming poetically that he fancied himself the messiah?
Probably not.
The primary salvation that the messiah will provide will be a political salvation. His main task is to gather in the exiles and rebuild the Temple.
Maimonides writes about the post-messianic state that there will be no difference betwen this world and the next except for the subjugation of Jews to other nations. The various verses of “lion shall lay with the lamb” and others are allagories, according to Maimonides.
Even if Maimonides is wrong on the matter, I find it hard to believe that we will live free from sin and tempation entirely. If that were the case, then God would have no more need for people – he already has such beings. They are called angels. Thus while the messiah may spark a worldwide repentence movement and cause Jews to begin observing the commandments, I don’t think that they will become automotons, simply doing good.
Disclaimer: The above is simply my thought on the matter and is not necessarily endorsed by any rabbinic authority. For further information, contact your local rabbi
Zev Steinhardt
I agree that there wasn’t a “Pope” per se, but this:
Matthew 16
17Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. 18And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”
does bring to mind a human who is a head of the church.
I thought there were two, the other being the Immaculate Conception, which is also not mentioned on the Bible.
Not to hijack the thread, but if that is the case, then what the heck is “heaven” like? And is the term heaven substantially different from “Gan Eden”, the world to come?
To try keeping it in perspective, is heaven as a place where the good and faithful dead congregate, even in the bible? I recall reading people ascending into heaven and angels coming down from there, but is the common notion of “heaven” found there?