It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Body and Blood of Christ

page: 4
5
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 23 2017 @ 07:00 PM
link   
a reply to: ChesterJohn



Snake is never found in the AV.


So if only the word serpent is used in the AV and not snake then wouldn't that just mean that any mention of a "snake" in any other version corresponds to "serpent" in the AV? If so, how does that disprove what I said at all? You've basically built your argument on the fact that the word snake isn't used in one version of the bible, I don't see how that has any affect on my ideas.

You've basically come up with a non-sensical argument that doesn't really address anything I've said and instead you are falling back on semantics. If your argument is about semantics then you don't really have much of an argument at all.
edit on 5/23/2017 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)




posted on May, 24 2017 @ 05:10 PM
link   
a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

this is why you are told to study to shew yourself approved.

The serpent was not a snake at the time Even had her encounter it wasn't until God cursed the serpent that snakes became belly crawlers. Now as I suggested earlier cross reference all the uses of serpent, cross out the ones that are snakes and you are left with something not a snake at all.

Don't fall for the false narrative of a talking snake before the serpent was condemned to crawl on it belly. It was a Serpent, known as that old serpent the Devil and Satan.

There is also references to a sea creature called a serpent and something that was able to fly through space as well.

Men in their other versions, created to make money, change words like serpent and you lose all the cross references to a being that is not a snake at all.

In short not all serpents are snakes and that comes from study not men.
edit on 24-5-2017 by ChesterJohn because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 24 2017 @ 05:15 PM
link   
a reply to: Joecroft

I have yet to see Satan crawl or be described as crawling on his belly. The Serpent, which could be a snake today was cursed because it allowed itself to be used of the devil to deceive.

However there is a spiritual being that is a serpent and it does not crawl on it's belly.



posted on May, 24 2017 @ 05:23 PM
link   
a reply to: TerryDon79

actually you are incorrect.

your idea of an X as a cross was never defined by you as the cross upon which Christ was crucified. You wished only to used simantics and not actual instruments of death.

What you are failing to tell people is I described the X the I the T and how the Romans developed their final instrument of death after trying the X and the I which did not give them their desired affect. In the end they settled for the one that looks like a lowercase t and that is what Cross I was speaking off.

You wanted to argue TOE-MAY-TOE TOE-MA-TOE of dictionary meanings that had no bearing on the topic of Christ's Cross which was a small t looking instrument of death developed by the Romans after their failed I's and X's.

I never said a serpent is not a snake I said not all references of a serpent are a snake. A talking snake was not what Eve spoke to in Gen 3. That serpent was not on it's belly until later. So up until that time possible millions of years a serpent was not a snake. It is a very important point to those of Biblical knowledge.


edit on 24-5-2017 by ChesterJohn because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 24 2017 @ 05:34 PM
link   
a reply to: ChesterJohn

Of course I'm incorrect. Only you, the great ChesterJohn, can ever be correct.

But you keep on ignoring history and definitions. I'm sure that'll help you be a good little Paulian, I mean, Xtian.



posted on May, 24 2017 @ 06:28 PM
link   
a reply to: ChesterJohn



Originally posted ChesterJohn
I have yet to see Satan crawl or be described as crawling on his belly. The Serpent, which could be a snake today was cursed because it allowed itself to be used of the devil to deceive.


“Which could be a snake today”

That’s the whole point though…the serpent word describes it’s past state…where as the snake, is it’s present state…

Since the Serpent was cursed…it’s now a called/termed a snake…

When people say snake, they are still talking about the same old serpent…but just in it's present state...




Originally posted ChesterJohn
However there is a spiritual being that is a serpent and it does not crawl on it's belly.


When the Bible (not the AV version obviously) uses the word serpent it’s talking about the time before the serpent was cursed.

When they use snake, they’re talking about the serpents condition today after it was cursed…i.e. crawling on it’s belly…

That’s why the NIV version makes that distinction…between serpent and snake…

- JC



posted on May, 24 2017 @ 08:13 PM
link   
a reply to: ChesterJohn


I never said a serpent is not a snake I said not all references of a serpent are a snake. A talking snake was not what Eve spoke to in Gen 3. That serpent was not on it's belly until later. So up until that time possible millions of years a serpent was not a snake. It is a very important point to those of Biblical knowledge.

I do believe you are right Chester--

An article I read in this months “SKYWATCH”
By Derek P. Gilbert
Quote
So who was the serpent? Most of us assume it was Satan, but the serpent isn’t named in the book of Genesis. The adversary in the Garden was the nachash, the word translated into English as “serpent.” It’s based on an adjective that means bright or brazen, like shiny brass. The noun nachash can mean snake, but it also means “one who practices divination.”
In Hebrew, it’s not uncommon for an adjective to be converted into a noun--- the term is substantivized.” If that’s the case here, nachash could mean “shining one.” And that’s constant with other descriptions of the Satan figure in the old testament.

Again, the root word of seraphim is saraph, the same word translated “serpent” in Numbers and Deuteronomy. In fact, aside from Isaiah 6 passage above, (which I did not copy in this article) every single mention of seraphim in the old testament refers to serpentine beings!
The bottom line is this: What Adam and Eve saw in the Garden wasn’t a talking snake, but a nachash ---- a radiant, divine entity, probably of serpentine appearance.
Unquote

The above was not my opinion, of course, but along with that above opinion I wonder if it was not close to the truth. Tradition tells us that the beast who had appeared to Eve was punished by losing its limbs and became as we now identify it as a snake. Also consider that the Satan’s who rebelled and were cast from the celestial realm were celestial entities and not terrestrial entities. Could that mean that the beast of the Garden was possessed the Satan?

edit on 24-5-2017 by Seede because: mispelled key word



posted on May, 24 2017 @ 10:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: dfnj2015

I don't have a problem with this conceptually. I just have problem with the rituals of it.



actually Jesus was a human sacrifice to please the God(s) the sacrificial scapegoat laughing stock, its in the archetypes of humans, look at the Inca's they human sacrificed 6,000 people in a month or so, only because the harvest was a failure



posted on May, 25 2017 @ 05:33 PM
link   
a reply to: Seede

one translation of the English transliteration of the Latin word Lucifer is "Bright shining one".

And just think I got my info about serpents from studying my AV Bible Only and the article you quote agrees with my study that is from no outside sources.

One of the things being missed by some is that Old Serpent and those like him still exist and they are not snakes

Thumbs up Seede!


edit on 25-5-2017 by ChesterJohn because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 26 2017 @ 01:18 PM
link   
a reply to: dfnj2015

Son of man is the Tree of life.



posted on Jun, 30 2017 @ 05:55 PM
link   
a reply to: EhYehEsherEhYeh

And you have carved and idol from that tree in your imagination of what and who the son of man/son of God is.



posted on Jul, 6 2017 @ 03:45 AM
link   
I never thought of the Holy Communion from the oral sex perspective before, but I certainly have been wondering about the depiction of consuming blood and flesh - either way it just seems so wrong. You see, the “Tree of Knowledge” is DNA; thus it could apply to cannibalism, vampirism and also immoral sexual conduct. It’s pretty clear really, the Bible warns us against becoming abominations - so we should proffer some due diligence to the matter.




top topics



 
5
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join