GCM Home | Bible Search | Rules | Donate | Bookstore | RSS | Facebook | Twitter

Author Topic: Peter the First Pope?  (Read 53707 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline n2thelight

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 726
  • Manna: 34
    • View Profile
Re: Peter the First Pope?
« Reply #540 on: April 18, 2012, 07:09:29 PM »
Gave this to ya once,try reading it again...............

 THE SERPENT OF GENESIS 3.
In Genesis 3 we have neither allegory, myth, legend, nor fable, but literal historical facts set forth, and emphasized by the use of certain Figures of speech (see Ap. 6).

All the confusion of thought and conflicting exegesis have arisen from taking literally what is expressed by Figures, or from taking figuratively what is literal.  A Figure of speech is never used except for the purpose of calling attention to, emphasizing, and intensifying, the reality of the literal sense, and the truth of the historical facts; so that, while the words employed may not be so strictly true to the letter, they are all the more true to the truth conveyed by them, and to the historical events connected with them.

But for the figurative language of verses 14 and 15 no one would have thought of referring the third chapter of Genesis to a snake :  no more than he does when reading the third chapter from the end of Revelation (ch. 20:2).  Indeed, the explanation added there, that the "old serpent" is the Devil and Satan, would immediately lead one to connect the word "old" with the earlier and former mention of the serpent in Gen. 3 :  and the fact that it was Satan himself who tempted "the second man", "the last Adam", would force conclusion that no other than the personal Satan could have been the tempter of "the first man, Adam".

The Hebrew word rendered "serpent" in Gen. 3:1 is Nachash (from the root Nachash, to shine), and means a shining one.  Hence, in Chaldee it means brass or copper, because of its shining.  Hence also, the word Nehushtan, a piece of brass, in 2Kings 18:4.

In the same way Saraph, in Isa. 6:2, 6, means a burning one, and, because the serpents mentioned in Num. 21 were burning, in the poison of their bite, they were called Saraphim, or Saraphs.

But with the LORD said unto Moses, "Make thee a fiery serpent" (Num. 21:8), He said, "Make thee a Saraph", and , in obeying this command, we read in v. 9, "Moses made a Nachash of brass".  Nachash is thus used as being interchangeable with Saraph.

Now, if Saraph is used of a serpent because its bite was burning, and is also used of a celestial or spirit-being (a burning one), why should not Nachash be used of a serpent because its appearance was shining, and be also used of a celestial or spirit-being (a shining one)?

Indeed, a reference to the structure of Gen. 3 (on p. 7) will show that the Cherubim (which are similar celestial or spirit-beings) of the last verse (Gen. 3:24) require a similar spirit-being to correspond with them in the first verse (for the structure of the whole chapter is a great Introversion).  The Nachash, or serpent, who beguiled Eve (2Cor. 11:3) is not spoken of as "an angel of light" in v. 14.  Have we not, in this, a clear intimation that it was not a snake, but a glorious shining being, apparently as angel, to whom Eve paid such great deference, acknowledging him as one who seemed to possess superior knowledge, and who was evidently a being of a superior (not of an inferior) order?  Moreover, in the description of Satan as "the king of Tyre" (*1) it is distinctly implied that the latter being was of a supernatural order when he is called "a cherub" (Ezek. 28:14, 16, read from vv. 11-19).  His presence "in Eden, the garden of 'Elohim" (v. 13), is also clearly stated, as well as his being "perfect in beauty" (v. 12), his being "perfect in his ways from the day he was created till iniquity was found in him" (v. 15), and as being "lifted up because of his beauty" (v. 17).

These all compel the belief that Satan was the shining one (Nachash) in Gen. 3, and especially because the following words could be addressed to him :-- "Thing heart was lifted up because of thy beauty, thou hast corrupted thy wisdom by reason of thy brightness :  I will cast thee to the ground, I will lay thee before kings, that they may behold thee" (v. 17).

Even supposing that these things were spoken to, and of, an exalted human being in later days (in Ezek. 28), still "the king of Tyre" is not compared to a being who was non-existent; and facts and circumstances which never happened are not introduced into the comparison.

There is more about "the king of Tyre" in Ezek. 28:11-19 than was literally true of "the prince of Tyre" (vv. 1-10).  The words can be understood only of the mightiest and most exalted supernatural being that God ever created; and this for the purpose of showing how great would be his fall.  The history must be true to make the prophecy of any weight.

Again, the word rendered "subtle" in Gen. 3:1 (see note) means wise, in a good sense as well as in a bad sense.  In Ezek. 28:12 we have the good sense, "Thou sealest up the sum, full of wisdom"; and the bad sense in v. 17, "thou hast corrupted thy wisdom" (referring, of course, to his fall).  So the word rendered "subtle" is rendered "prudent" in Prov. 1:4; 8:12; 12:23; 14:8; and in a bad sense in Job 15:5.  1Sam. 23:22.  Ps. 83:3.

The word "beast" also, in Gen. 3:1, chay, denotes a living being, and it is as wrong to translate zoa "beasts" in Rev. 4, as it is to translate chay "beast" in Gen. 3.  Both mean living creature.  Satan is thus spoken of as being "more wise than any other living creature which Jehovah Elohim had made".  Even if the word "beast" be retained, it does not say that either a serpent or Satan was a "beast", but only that he was "more wise" than any other living being.

We cannot conceive Eve as holding converse with a snake, but we can understand her being fascinated (*2) by one, apparently "an angel of light" (i.e. a glorious angel), possessing superior and supernatural knowledge.

When Satan is spoken of as a "serpent", it is the figure Hypocatastasis (see Ap. 6) or Implication; it no more means snake than it does when Dan is so called in Gen. 49:17; or an animal when Nero is called a "lion" (2Tim. 4:17), or when Herod is called a "fox" (Luke 13:32); or when Judah is called "a lion's whelp".  It is the same figure when "doctrine" is called "leaven" (Matt. 16:6).  It shows that something much more real and truer to truth is impressively; and is intended to be a figure of something much more real than the letter of the word.

Other Figures of speech are used in vv. 14, 15, but only for the same purpose of emphasizing the truth and the reality of what is said.

When it is said in v. 15, "thou shalt bruise His heel", it cannot mean His literal heal of flesh and blood, but suffering, more temporary in character.  When it is said (v. 15), "He shall crush thy head", it means something more than a skull of bone, and brain, and hair.  It means that all Satan's plans and plots, policy and purposes, will one day be finally crushed and ended, never more to mar or to hinder the purposes of God.  This will be effected when Satan shall be bruised under our feet (Rom. 16:20).  This again, will not be our literal feet, but something much more real.

The bruising of Christ's heel is the most eloquent and impressive way of foretelling the most solemn events; and to point out that the effort made by Satan to evade his doom, then threatened, would become the very means of insuring its accomplishment; for it was through the death of Christ that he who had the power of death would be destroyed; and all Satan's power and policy brought to an end, and all his works destroyed (Heb. 2:14.  1John 3:8.  Rev. 20:1-3, 10).  What literal words could portray these literal facts so wonderfully as these expressive Figures of speech?

It is the same with the other Figures used in v. 14, "On thy belly shalt thou go".  This Figure means infinitely more than the literal belly of flesh and blood; just as the words "heel" and "head" do in v. 15.  It paints for the eyes of our mind the picture of Satan's ultimate humiliation; for prostration was ever the most eloquent sign of subjection.  When it is said "our belly cleaveth unto the ground" (Ps. 44:25), it denotes such a prolonged prostration and such a depth of submission as could never be conveyed or expressed in literal words.

So with the other prophecy, "Dust shalt thou eat".  This is not true to the letter, or to fact, but it is all the more true to truth.  It tells of constant, continuous disappointment, failure, and mortification; as when deceitful ways are spoken of as feeding on deceitful food, which is "sweet to a man, but afterward his mouth shall be filled with gravel" (Prov. 20:17).  This does not mean literal "gravel", but something far more disagreeable.  It means disappointment so great that it would gladly be exchanged for the literal "gravel".  So when Christians are rebuked for "biting and devouring one another" (Gal. 3:14, 15), something more heart-breaking is meant than the literal words used in the Figure.

When "His enemies shall lick the dust" (Ps. 72:9) they will not do it on their knees with their literal tongues; but they will be so prostrated and so utterly defeated, that no words could literally depict their overthrow and subjugation.

If a serpent was afterward called a nachash, it was because it was more shining than any other creature; and if it became known as "wise", it was not because of its own innate positive knowledge, but of its wisdom in hiding away from all observation; and because of its association with one of the names of Satan (that old serpent) who "beguiled Eve" (2Cor. 11:3, 14).

It is wonderful how a snake could ever be supposed to speak without the organs of speech, or that Satan should be supposed able to accomplish so great a miracle (*3).

It only shows the power of tradition, which has, from the infancy of each one of us, put before our eyes and written on our minds the picture of a "snake" and an "apple" :  the former being based on a wrong interpretation, and the latter being a pure invention, about which there is not one word said in Holy Scripture.

Never was Satan's wisdom so craftily used as when he secured universal acceptance of this traditional belief :  for it has succeeded in fixing the attention of mankind on the letter and the means, and thus blinding the eyes to the solemn fact that the Fall of man had to do solely with the Word of God, and is centered in the sin of believing Satan's lie instead of Jehovah's truth.

The temptation of "the first man Adam" began with the question "Hath God said?"  The temptation of "the second man, the Lord from heaven" began with the similar question "If thou be the Son of God", when the voice of the Father had scarcely died away, which said "This IS My beloved Son".

All turned on the truth of what Jehovah had said.

The Word of God being questioned, led Eve, in her reply, (1) to omit the word "freely" (3:2, cp. 2:16); then (2) to add the words "neither shalt thou touch it" (3:3, cp. 2:17); and finally (3) to alter a certainty into a contingency by changing "thou SHALT SURELY die" (2:17) into "LEST ye die" (3:3).

It is not without significance that the first Ministerial words of "the second Man" were "It is written", three times repeated; and that His last Ministerial words contained a similar threefold reference to the written Word of God (John 17:8, 14, 17).

The former temptation succeeded because the Word of God was three times misrepresented; the latter temptation was successfully defeated because the same Word was faithfully repeated.

The history of Gen. 3 is intended to teach us the fact that Satan's sphere of activities is in the religious sphere, and not the spheres of crime and immorality; that his battlefield is not the sins arising from human depravity, but the unbelief of the human heart.  We are not to look for Satan's activities to-day in the newspaper press, or the police courts; but in the pulpit, and in professors' chairs.  Whenever the Word of God is called in question, there we see the trail of "that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan".  This is why anything against the true interests of the Word of God (as being such) finds a ready admission into the newspapers of the world, and is treated as "general literature".  This is why anything in favor of its inspiration and Divine origin and its spiritual truth is rigidly excluded as being "controversial".

This is why Satan is quite content that the letter of Scripture should be accepted in Gen. 3, as he himself accepted the letter of Ps. 91:11.  He himself could say "It is written" (Matt. 4:6) so long as the letter of what is "written" could be put instead of the truth that is conveyed by it; and so long as it is misquoted or misapplied.

This is his object in perpetuating the traditions of the "snake" and the "apple", because it ministers to the acceptance of his lie, the hiding of God's truth, the support of tradition, the jeers of the infidel, the opposition of the critics, and the stumbling of the weak in faith.



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

(*1)  Ezek. 28:11-19, who is quite a different being from "the Prince of Tyre", in vv. 1-10, who is purely human.
(*2)  It is remarkable that the verb nachash always means to enchant, fascinate, bewitch; or of one having and using occult knowledge.  See Gen. 30:27; 44:5, 15.  Lev. 19:26.  Deut. 18:10.  1Kings 20:33.  2Kings 17:17; 21:6.  2Chron. 33:6.  So also is the noun used in Num. 23:23; 24:1.

(*3)  Greater than that wrought by God Himself, who opened the mouth of Balaam's ass.

"When we come to ask ourselves, and say, "Where did I learn this?" "How did I get this?" "Who taught me this?" it is astonishing to find how much we have imbibed from man, and from tradition; and not directly and for ourselves, from the Word of God. "


How to Enjoy the Bible
E. W. Bullinger
1916


*Link Removed*

Christian Forums and Message Board

Re: Peter the First Pope?
« Reply #540 on: April 18, 2012, 07:09:29 PM »

Offline Insight

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 2379
  • Manna: 50
    • View Profile
Re: Peter the First Pope?
« Reply #541 on: April 18, 2012, 08:25:40 PM »
Gave this to ya once,try reading it again...............

 THE SERPENT OF GENESIS 3.
In Genesis 3 we have neither allegory, myth, legend, nor fable, but literal historical facts set forth, and emphasized by the use of certain Figures of speech (see Ap. 6).

All the confusion of thought and conflicting exegesis have arisen from taking literally what is expressed by Figures, or from taking figuratively what is literal.  A Figure of speech is never used except for the purpose of calling attention to, emphasizing, and intensifying, the reality of the literal sense, and the truth of the historical facts; so that, while the words employed may not be so strictly true to the letter, they are all the more true to the truth conveyed by them, and to the historical events connected with them.

But for the figurative language of verses 14 and 15 no one would have thought of referring the third chapter of Genesis to a snake :  no more than he does when reading the third chapter from the end of Revelation (ch. 20:2).  Indeed, the explanation added there, that the "old serpent" is the Devil and Satan, would immediately lead one to connect the word "old" with the earlier and former mention of the serpent in Gen. 3 :  and the fact that it was Satan himself who tempted "the second man", "the last Adam", would force conclusion that no other than the personal Satan could have been the tempter of "the first man, Adam".

The Hebrew word rendered "serpent" in Gen. 3:1 is Nachash (from the root Nachash, to shine), and means a shining one.  Hence, in Chaldee it means brass or copper, because of its shining.  Hence also, the word Nehushtan, a piece of brass, in 2Kings 18:4.

In the same way Saraph, in Isa. 6:2, 6, means a burning one, and, because the serpents mentioned in Num. 21 were burning, in the poison of their bite, they were called Saraphim, or Saraphs.

But with the LORD said unto Moses, "Make thee a fiery serpent" (Num. 21:8), He said, "Make thee a Saraph", and , in obeying this command, we read in v. 9, "Moses made a Nachash of brass".  Nachash is thus used as being interchangeable with Saraph.

Now, if Saraph is used of a serpent because its bite was burning, and is also used of a celestial or spirit-being (a burning one), why should not Nachash be used of a serpent because its appearance was shining, and be also used of a celestial or spirit-being (a shining one)?

Indeed, a reference to the structure of Gen. 3 (on p. 7) will show that the Cherubim (which are similar celestial or spirit-beings) of the last verse (Gen. 3:24) require a similar spirit-being to correspond with them in the first verse (for the structure of the whole chapter is a great Introversion).  The Nachash, or serpent, who beguiled Eve (2Cor. 11:3) is not spoken of as "an angel of light" in v. 14.  Have we not, in this, a clear intimation that it was not a snake, but a glorious shining being, apparently as angel, to whom Eve paid such great deference, acknowledging him as one who seemed to possess superior knowledge, and who was evidently a being of a superior (not of an inferior) order?  Moreover, in the description of Satan as "the king of Tyre" (*1) it is distinctly implied that the latter being was of a supernatural order when he is called "a cherub" (Ezek. 28:14, 16, read from vv. 11-19).  His presence "in Eden, the garden of 'Elohim" (v. 13), is also clearly stated, as well as his being "perfect in beauty" (v. 12), his being "perfect in his ways from the day he was created till iniquity was found in him" (v. 15), and as being "lifted up because of his beauty" (v. 17).

These all compel the belief that Satan was the shining one (Nachash) in Gen. 3, and especially because the following words could be addressed to him :-- "Thing heart was lifted up because of thy beauty, thou hast corrupted thy wisdom by reason of thy brightness :  I will cast thee to the ground, I will lay thee before kings, that they may behold thee" (v. 17).

Even supposing that these things were spoken to, and of, an exalted human being in later days (in Ezek. 28), still "the king of Tyre" is not compared to a being who was non-existent; and facts and circumstances which never happened are not introduced into the comparison.

There is more about "the king of Tyre" in Ezek. 28:11-19 than was literally true of "the prince of Tyre" (vv. 1-10).  The words can be understood only of the mightiest and most exalted supernatural being that God ever created; and this for the purpose of showing how great would be his fall.  The history must be true to make the prophecy of any weight.

Again, the word rendered "subtle" in Gen. 3:1 (see note) means wise, in a good sense as well as in a bad sense.  In Ezek. 28:12 we have the good sense, "Thou sealest up the sum, full of wisdom"; and the bad sense in v. 17, "thou hast corrupted thy wisdom" (referring, of course, to his fall).  So the word rendered "subtle" is rendered "prudent" in Prov. 1:4; 8:12; 12:23; 14:8; and in a bad sense in Job 15:5.  1Sam. 23:22.  Ps. 83:3.

The word "beast" also, in Gen. 3:1, chay, denotes a living being, and it is as wrong to translate zoa "beasts" in Rev. 4, as it is to translate chay "beast" in Gen. 3.  Both mean living creature.  Satan is thus spoken of as being "more wise than any other living creature which Jehovah Elohim had made".  Even if the word "beast" be retained, it does not say that either a serpent or Satan was a "beast", but only that he was "more wise" than any other living being.

We cannot conceive Eve as holding converse with a snake, but we can understand her being fascinated (*2) by one, apparently "an angel of light" (i.e. a glorious angel), possessing superior and supernatural knowledge.

When Satan is spoken of as a "serpent", it is the figure Hypocatastasis (see Ap. 6) or Implication; it no more means snake than it does when Dan is so called in Gen. 49:17; or an animal when Nero is called a "lion" (2Tim. 4:17), or when Herod is called a "fox" (Luke 13:32); or when Judah is called "a lion's whelp".  It is the same figure when "doctrine" is called "leaven" (Matt. 16:6).  It shows that something much more real and truer to truth is impressively; and is intended to be a figure of something much more real than the letter of the word.

Other Figures of speech are used in vv. 14, 15, but only for the same purpose of emphasizing the truth and the reality of what is said.

When it is said in v. 15, "thou shalt bruise His heel", it cannot mean His literal heal of flesh and blood, but suffering, more temporary in character.  When it is said (v. 15), "He shall crush thy head", it means something more than a skull of bone, and brain, and hair.  It means that all Satan's plans and plots, policy and purposes, will one day be finally crushed and ended, never more to mar or to hinder the purposes of God.  This will be effected when Satan shall be bruised under our feet (Rom. 16:20).  This again, will not be our literal feet, but something much more real.

The bruising of Christ's heel is the most eloquent and impressive way of foretelling the most solemn events; and to point out that the effort made by Satan to evade his doom, then threatened, would become the very means of insuring its accomplishment; for it was through the death of Christ that he who had the power of death would be destroyed; and all Satan's power and policy brought to an end, and all his works destroyed (Heb. 2:14.  1John 3:8.  Rev. 20:1-3, 10).  What literal words could portray these literal facts so wonderfully as these expressive Figures of speech?

It is the same with the other Figures used in v. 14, "On thy belly shalt thou go".  This Figure means infinitely more than the literal belly of flesh and blood; just as the words "heel" and "head" do in v. 15.  It paints for the eyes of our mind the picture of Satan's ultimate humiliation; for prostration was ever the most eloquent sign of subjection.  When it is said "our belly cleaveth unto the ground" (Ps. 44:25), it denotes such a prolonged prostration and such a depth of submission as could never be conveyed or expressed in literal words.

So with the other prophecy, "Dust shalt thou eat".  This is not true to the letter, or to fact, but it is all the more true to truth.  It tells of constant, continuous disappointment, failure, and mortification; as when deceitful ways are spoken of as feeding on deceitful food, which is "sweet to a man, but afterward his mouth shall be filled with gravel" (Prov. 20:17).  This does not mean literal "gravel", but something far more disagreeable.  It means disappointment so great that it would gladly be exchanged for the literal "gravel".  So when Christians are rebuked for "biting and devouring one another" (Gal. 3:14, 15), something more heart-breaking is meant than the literal words used in the Figure.

When "His enemies shall lick the dust" (Ps. 72:9) they will not do it on their knees with their literal tongues; but they will be so prostrated and so utterly defeated, that no words could literally depict their overthrow and subjugation.

If a serpent was afterward called a nachash, it was because it was more shining than any other creature; and if it became known as "wise", it was not because of its own innate positive knowledge, but of its wisdom in hiding away from all observation; and because of its association with one of the names of Satan (that old serpent) who "beguiled Eve" (2Cor. 11:3, 14).

It is wonderful how a snake could ever be supposed to speak without the organs of speech, or that Satan should be supposed able to accomplish so great a miracle (*3).

It only shows the power of tradition, which has, from the infancy of each one of us, put before our eyes and written on our minds the picture of a "snake" and an "apple" :  the former being based on a wrong interpretation, and the latter being a pure invention, about which there is not one word said in Holy Scripture.

Never was Satan's wisdom so craftily used as when he secured universal acceptance of this traditional belief :  for it has succeeded in fixing the attention of mankind on the letter and the means, and thus blinding the eyes to the solemn fact that the Fall of man had to do solely with the Word of God, and is centered in the sin of believing Satan's lie instead of Jehovah's truth.

The temptation of "the first man Adam" began with the question "Hath God said?"  The temptation of "the second man, the Lord from heaven" began with the similar question "If thou be the Son of God", when the voice of the Father had scarcely died away, which said "This IS My beloved Son".

All turned on the truth of what Jehovah had said.

The Word of God being questioned, led Eve, in her reply, (1) to omit the word "freely" (3:2, cp. 2:16); then (2) to add the words "neither shalt thou touch it" (3:3, cp. 2:17); and finally (3) to alter a certainty into a contingency by changing "thou SHALT SURELY die" (2:17) into "LEST ye die" (3:3).

It is not without significance that the first Ministerial words of "the second Man" were "It is written", three times repeated; and that His last Ministerial words contained a similar threefold reference to the written Word of God (John 17:8, 14, 17).

The former temptation succeeded because the Word of God was three times misrepresented; the latter temptation was successfully defeated because the same Word was faithfully repeated.

The history of Gen. 3 is intended to teach us the fact that Satan's sphere of activities is in the religious sphere, and not the spheres of crime and immorality; that his battlefield is not the sins arising from human depravity, but the unbelief of the human heart.  We are not to look for Satan's activities to-day in the newspaper press, or the police courts; but in the pulpit, and in professors' chairs.  Whenever the Word of God is called in question, there we see the trail of "that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan".  This is why anything against the true interests of the Word of God (as being such) finds a ready admission into the newspapers of the world, and is treated as "general literature".  This is why anything in favor of its inspiration and Divine origin and its spiritual truth is rigidly excluded as being "controversial".

This is why Satan is quite content that the letter of Scripture should be accepted in Gen. 3, as he himself accepted the letter of Ps. 91:11.  He himself could say "It is written" (Matt. 4:6) so long as the letter of what is "written" could be put instead of the truth that is conveyed by it; and so long as it is misquoted or misapplied.

This is his object in perpetuating the traditions of the "snake" and the "apple", because it ministers to the acceptance of his lie, the hiding of God's truth, the support of tradition, the jeers of the infidel, the opposition of the critics, and the stumbling of the weak in faith.



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

(*1)  Ezek. 28:11-19, who is quite a different being from "the Prince of Tyre", in vv. 1-10, who is purely human.
(*2)  It is remarkable that the verb nachash always means to enchant, fascinate, bewitch; or of one having and using occult knowledge.  See Gen. 30:27; 44:5, 15.  Lev. 19:26.  Deut. 18:10.  1Kings 20:33.  2Kings 17:17; 21:6.  2Chron. 33:6.  So also is the noun used in Num. 23:23; 24:1.

(*3)  Greater than that wrought by God Himself, who opened the mouth of Balaam's ass.



Yes - this has been read and found extremely wanting of Scriptural support. You know this is true although you resigned yourself to this mess of lies long before you ever had the integrity to search the Word of God for yourself.

These type of posts support the imaginations of men.

Its rather amusing in one way; Gen 3:1 is so clear and if you approached it without the church dogma you would never suggest such fantastical notions as you do.

Those notions are there not because of the Word of God but men speaking falsely place that spiritual wickedness into your mind and now you are taken captive by its thinking.

Not much you can do really.

Sorry.
And now, Christians, what doth the LORD thy God require of thee, but to fear the LORD thy God, to walk in all his ways, and to love him, and to serve the LORD thy God with all thy heart and with all thy soul.

Christian Forums and Message Board

Re: Peter the First Pope?
« Reply #541 on: April 18, 2012, 08:25:40 PM »

Offline Insight

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 2379
  • Manna: 50
    • View Profile
Re: Peter the First Pope?
« Reply #542 on: April 18, 2012, 08:31:27 PM »
Take your example of the serpent in the wilderness.

We know in the wilderness the serpent was lifted up and fastened to a pole, "so must the Son of man be lifted up", i.e. die by crucifixion...by being impaled on a cross.

In Num 21 you will see the urgency being implied in Num 21:7-9. The Israelites were dying in great numbers from the venomous bites which is the same today of the nations. Mortal man is dying from the bite of sin Num 21:7 - a sting which produced death (1 Cor 15:55-56). Jesus (the Son of Man) must (an urgent necessity) be 'lifted up meaning die by crucifixion in order to save a perishing world.
 
In John 3:13-15 Jesus is saying you need faith in the bronze serpent (Christ) and if you ignor him, you will perish in unbelief.

Can you see how Christ relates himself with the Serpent of Num 21?

If not look closer!

The bronze serpent (Jesus) is a provision by God outside the scope of the Mosaic Law for it wasn’t mentioned once therein. In this respect it was a pattern of Christ, who was provided by God outside the scope of the Mosaic Law.

The Greek word for 'lifted up is 'hupsoo', and means 'to exalt, elevate, set on high', This word refers to Christ's crucifixion. This is proven by John.12:32-33: "And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me. This he said, signifying what death he should die." Since Christ died by crucifixion, to be 'lifted up' must mean death by crucifixion.

A as side note you may find it of interest the hebrew word 'nes' for 'pole' in Num.21:8 means a 'sign, banner'. The serpent was not hidden in Moses tent to be secretly viewed by only a fewv but publicly exhibited for all to behold. Likewise in the crucifixion of Christ, the Divine principles were demonstrated publicly Gal 3:1.
 
And finally, the serpent in Gen.3 while a literal serpent is used as a figurative lineage to mean a "seed", and or sin...
 
(Gen.3:15).See Matt.23:33; Rev.12:9, 20:2. You may like to consider the make up of the serpent in the wilderness. You see they didn’t use a fiery serpent killed and fastened to a pole to signify SIN, this would not foreshadow the work of Jesus Christ. However a bronze (flesh) serpent was venomless. This is the perfect parallel with Jesus Christ who never yielded to sin. Rather the "prince of this world" Jn.12:31 was cast out in the life and death of the Son of God. Jesus possessed human nature, with its proneness to sin, and mortal constitution. This nature is sinful in its tendencies, and is therefore appropriately depicted by a serpent, but a venomless one, since Jesus overcame the impulses to sin.
 
Rather simple really but I am sure you will endeavour to add the mystical and mysterious nonsense that Christians with devilish minds love to do   ::frown::
« Last Edit: April 18, 2012, 09:13:38 PM by Insight »
And now, Christians, what doth the LORD thy God require of thee, but to fear the LORD thy God, to walk in all his ways, and to love him, and to serve the LORD thy God with all thy heart and with all thy soul.

Offline Insight

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 2379
  • Manna: 50
    • View Profile
Re: Peter the First Pope?
« Reply #543 on: April 18, 2012, 09:18:32 PM »
Fancy the truth of this...

You say the serpent was actually some evil demonic being and yet Christ likens himself to this creature.

What this means is you do not understand how Christ applied the symbol of the serpent or do you appreciate how Christ relates to sin's flesh which is the place sin gains it power.

Your doctrine is like scamble eggs - a real mess!

Insight
« Last Edit: April 18, 2012, 09:39:42 PM by Insight »
And now, Christians, what doth the LORD thy God require of thee, but to fear the LORD thy God, to walk in all his ways, and to love him, and to serve the LORD thy God with all thy heart and with all thy soul.

Christian Forums and Message Board

Re: Peter the First Pope?
« Reply #543 on: April 18, 2012, 09:18:32 PM »

Offline n2thelight

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 726
  • Manna: 34
    • View Profile
Re: Peter the First Pope?
« Reply #544 on: April 18, 2012, 09:39:57 PM »
Fancy the truth of this...

You say the serpent was actually some evil demonic being and yet Christ likens himself to this creature.

What this means is you do not understand like Christ the symbol of the serpent or do you appreciate how Christ relates to sin's flesh which is the place sin gains it power.

Your doctrine is like scamble eggs - a real mess!

Insight

What you don't understand is that had satan never sinned,we would not have been made flesh......In other words,sin came before flesh!!!!
"When we come to ask ourselves, and say, "Where did I learn this?" "How did I get this?" "Who taught me this?" it is astonishing to find how much we have imbibed from man, and from tradition; and not directly and for ourselves, from the Word of God. "


How to Enjoy the Bible
E. W. Bullinger
1916


*Link Removed*

Christian Forums and Message Board

Re: Peter the First Pope?
« Reply #544 on: April 18, 2012, 09:39:57 PM »



Offline Insight

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 2379
  • Manna: 50
    • View Profile
Re: Peter the First Pope?
« Reply #545 on: April 19, 2012, 12:32:08 AM »
Fancy the truth of this...

You say the serpent was actually some evil demonic being and yet Christ likens himself to this creature.

What this means is you do not understand like Christ the symbol of the serpent or do you appreciate how Christ relates to sin's flesh which is the place sin gains it power.

Your doctrine is like scamble eggs - a real mess!

Insight

What you don't understand is that had satan never sinned,we would not have been made flesh......In other words,sin came before flesh!!!!

Book, Chapter and verse  ::smile::
And now, Christians, what doth the LORD thy God require of thee, but to fear the LORD thy God, to walk in all his ways, and to love him, and to serve the LORD thy God with all thy heart and with all thy soul.

Offline Insight

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 2379
  • Manna: 50
    • View Profile
Re: Peter the First Pope?
« Reply #546 on: April 19, 2012, 01:24:42 AM »
I thought so....
And now, Christians, what doth the LORD thy God require of thee, but to fear the LORD thy God, to walk in all his ways, and to love him, and to serve the LORD thy God with all thy heart and with all thy soul.

Offline n2thelight

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 726
  • Manna: 34
    • View Profile
Re: Peter the First Pope?
« Reply #547 on: April 19, 2012, 06:09:49 PM »
I thought so....

Gave you plenty,you just can't see it,as you mistake man from satan,example,king of tyree........Until you figure that out,you won't see a thing............


And when satan comes pretendibg to be Christ,you shall follow him.........
"When we come to ask ourselves, and say, "Where did I learn this?" "How did I get this?" "Who taught me this?" it is astonishing to find how much we have imbibed from man, and from tradition; and not directly and for ourselves, from the Word of God. "


How to Enjoy the Bible
E. W. Bullinger
1916


*Link Removed*

Offline Insight

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 2379
  • Manna: 50
    • View Profile
Re: Peter the First Pope?
« Reply #548 on: April 19, 2012, 07:13:15 PM »
Fancy the truth of this...

You say the serpent was actually some evil demonic being and yet Christ likens himself to this creature.

What this means is you do not understand like Christ the symbol of the serpent or do you appreciate how Christ relates to sin's flesh which is the place sin gains it power.

Your doctrine is like scamble eggs - a real mess!

Insight

What you don't understand is that had satan never sinned,we would not have been made flesh......In other words,sin came before flesh!!!!

Book chapter and verse
And now, Christians, what doth the LORD thy God require of thee, but to fear the LORD thy God, to walk in all his ways, and to love him, and to serve the LORD thy God with all thy heart and with all thy soul.

Offline n2thelight

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 726
  • Manna: 34
    • View Profile
Re: Peter the First Pope?
« Reply #549 on: April 19, 2012, 08:04:33 PM »
Fancy the truth of this...

You say the serpent was actually some evil demonic being and yet Christ likens himself to this creature.

What this means is you do not understand like Christ the symbol of the serpent or do you appreciate how Christ relates to sin's flesh which is the place sin gains it power.

Your doctrine is like scamble eggs - a real mess!

Insight

Read Ezekiel Chapter 28

What you don't understand is that had satan never sinned,we would not have been made flesh......In other words,sin came before flesh!!!!

Book chapter and verse
"When we come to ask ourselves, and say, "Where did I learn this?" "How did I get this?" "Who taught me this?" it is astonishing to find how much we have imbibed from man, and from tradition; and not directly and for ourselves, from the Word of God. "


How to Enjoy the Bible
E. W. Bullinger
1916


*Link Removed*

Offline Talking Donkey

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1485
  • Manna: 55
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Peter the First Pope?
« Reply #550 on: April 20, 2012, 03:27:41 PM »
Paul typically mentioned few people at the closing of his letters.  But not on the letter to the Romans.  In there he greeted lots of people.

1Rom 16: I commend unto you Phebe our sister, which is a servant of the church which is at Cenchrea:
2 That ye receive her in the Lord, as becometh saints, and that ye assist her in whatsoever business she hath need of you: for she hath been a succourer of many, and of myself also.
3 Greet Priscilla and Aquila my helpers in Christ Jesus:
4 Who have for my life laid down their own necks: unto whom not only I give thanks, but also all the churches of the Gentiles.
5 Likewise greet the church that is in their house. Salute my well-beloved Epaenetus, who is the firstfruits of Achaia unto Christ.
6 Greet Mary, who bestowed much labour on us.
7 Salute Andronicus and Junia, my kinsmen, and my fellow-prisoners, who are of note among the apostles, who also were in Christ before me.
8 Greet Amplias my beloved in the Lord.
9 Salute Urbane, our helper in Christ, and Stachys my beloved.
10 Salute Apelles approved in Christ. Salute them which are of Aristobulus' household.
11 Salute Herodion my kinsman. Greet them that be of the household of Narcissus, which are in the Lord.
12 Salute Tryphena and Tryphosa, who labour in the Lord. Salute the beloved Persis, which laboured much in the Lord.
13 Salute Rufus chosen in the Lord, and his mother and mine.
14 Salute Asyncritus, Phlegon, Hermas, Patrobas, Hermes, and the brethren which are with them.
15 Salute Philologus, and Julia, Nereus, and his sister, and Olympas, and all the saints which are with them.

Who's missing?  Peter, that's who.  Because he was NOT IN ROME !

Peace
Acts 4:31 And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and they spoke the word of God with boldness. 

Psalm 119:165 Great peace have they which love your law: and nothing shall offend them.

Offline Talking Donkey

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1485
  • Manna: 55
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Peter the First Pope?
« Reply #551 on: April 20, 2012, 03:32:51 PM »
God gave Paul the mission of preaching to the gentiles (the uncirmcumcised).  And he gave Peter the mission of preaching to the Jews (the circumcised).

Gal 2:7 But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter;
8 (For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles:)

That is why Peter remained in Israel.  Actually, when Peter left Israel to visit the uncircumcised, they made a big deal out of that, because it was not the norm.  See Gal 2 and Acts 11.

Peace


Acts 4:31 And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and they spoke the word of God with boldness. 

Psalm 119:165 Great peace have they which love your law: and nothing shall offend them.

Offline Talking Donkey

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1485
  • Manna: 55
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Peter the First Pope?
« Reply #552 on: April 20, 2012, 03:39:25 PM »
The Oxford Dictionary of the Popes, by J.N.D. Kelly, which carries the two seals of the Vatican as being free of error, states that when the Bishop of Rome Eleutherius (174 - 189) showed up on the list of Irenaeus, he was the 12th bishop of Rome, but Peter was not on that list.  It further states that "he was 12th in the line inagurated by the apostles Peter and Paul, but 13th pope by the convenction that assumes Peter was the first".

So, they validated that according to history, up to Iraneous, no one counted Peter as being a bishop of Rome ever, not until later.  That started later.

Peace
Acts 4:31 And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and they spoke the word of God with boldness. 

Psalm 119:165 Great peace have they which love your law: and nothing shall offend them.

Offline winsome

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 3877
  • Manna: 60
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Peter the First Pope?
« Reply #553 on: April 21, 2012, 03:37:10 AM »
The Oxford Dictionary of the Popes, by J.N.D. Kelly, which carries the two seals of the Vatican as being free of error, states that when the Bishop of Rome Eleutherius (174 - 189) showed up on the list of Irenaeus, he was the 12th bishop of Rome, but Peter was not on that list.  It further states that "he was 12th in the line inagurated by the apostles Peter and Paul, but 13th pope by the convenction that assumes Peter was the first".

So, they validated that according to history, up to Iraneous, no one counted Peter as being a bishop of Rome ever, not until later.  That started later.

Peace

In think you misunderstand the situation. The Pope is Pope because he is appointed to that office by due process not because he is made Bishop of Rome, though he becomes that also.

In the case of Peter he was appointed as leader by Jesus and was leader (Pope) wherever he was.

He settled in Rome and according to one source was there for 25 years. He died in Rome around 67-68 AD about the same time as Paul.

Linus had already been nominated as his successor:
“The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate.
What is good has been explained to you, man; this is what the Lord asks of you: only this, to act justly, to love tenderly and to walk humbly with your God. (Micah 6:8)

Offline winsome

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 3877
  • Manna: 60
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Peter the First Pope?
« Reply #554 on: April 21, 2012, 03:42:35 AM »
The Oxford Dictionary of the Popes, by J.N.D. Kelly, which carries the two seals of the Vatican as being free of error,

What does this mean?

What are these "two seals of the Vatican"

This sounds like a very spurious claim to me.
What is good has been explained to you, man; this is what the Lord asks of you: only this, to act justly, to love tenderly and to walk humbly with your God. (Micah 6:8)