July 2016 – Page 8 – TrueFreeThinker

I actually thought to ignore this question. Yet, it brought to the surface a lot of examples of basic misunderstandings of Christian theology and illogically in the media, pop-culture and politics. Also, I have written about it before in the post Osama vs. Obama.

There is a popular saying amongst Christians, “If you were accused of being a Christian, would there be enough evidence to convict you?”

The Pew Research Center concludes that 18% of Americans believed that Obama is a Muslim, 34%
Christian, and 43% do not know either way what President Obama believes/practices.

Some say that since, or if, Obama claims to be a Christian then he is. Fine, I am a ten foot tall Japanese woman with wings. Consider that Jesus stated, “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven. Many will say to Me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?’ And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!’” (Matthew 7:21-23) and so “you will know them by their fruits” (Matthew 7:16). It is about relationship and actions; not merely about intellectual assent or claims.

How does this apply to Barack Obama? That is not my point. My point is that it applies to claims to being a Christian. Keep in mind that very many people conclude that Adolf Hitler was a Christian and why? Because he said so—note that the premise is that apparently, Hitler was such an honest, upright and trustworthy fellow that whatever he said must have been true—oi vey!

From here I want to consider a good breakdown of statements made by Bill Burton—White House spokesman—about Barack Obama’s Christianity:

He prays every day. He communicates with his religious advisor every single day. There’s a group of pastors that he takes counsel from on a regular basis.

His faith is very important to him but it’s not something that’s a topic of conversation every single day.

Note that these claims are very generic, the only Christian thing about them is the word “pastors.”

barack20obama2c20muslim2c20islam-8711638

As I thought about this, I heard Rush Limbaugh discussing this matter, in his usual picante style, and so I will present part of his dissection1:

It’s very clever and very artful, but Burton’s answer is evasive. The fact that Obama “prays every day” does not make him a Christian. Jews, Muslims, every other religious practitioner “prays every day,” some of them multiple times a day. Some of them have calls to prayer which are so beautiful that Obama thinks that they’re “one of the prettiest sounds in the world.”

According to the March 6, 2007 AD New York Times interview with Nicholas Kristof, “Mr. Obama recalled the opening lines of the Arabic call to prayer, reciting them with a first-rate [Arabic] accent.” This is what President Obama recited, “Allah is supreme, Allah is supreme, Allah is supreme, Allah is supreme. I witness that there is no god but Allah.”

Then Burton said Obama “communicates with his religious advisor every day.” Well, so do religious people of all faiths. What’s a religious advisor?…We all have a pastor, a priest, a rabbi. We’ve all got religious advisors…He’s making his Christianity sound like it’s a policy thing and he has to have a meeting every day with his Christian policy advisors — and if it is that, if he is having policy meetings with his Christian advisors every day, he needs to replace ’em because they’re giving him bad advice, ’cause this is the weakest answer to try to dispel a ridiculous problem…

And then Burton says, “There’s a group of pastors he takes counsel from on a regular basis.” Well, so do people of all religions take counsel from their pastors…

It is true that the term “pastor” may be generic but it is generally Christian specific. The resolution would be to ascertain who is being referred to as “pastors” and thereby determine whether they are Christians. However, that someone takes counsel from a group of pastors does not mean that they are Christians. I take counsel from my mechanic but I am not a mechanic (neither do I heed all that he tells me).

And then Burton said, “His faith is very important to him.” Yeah. Yeah. Bin Laden’s faith is not important to him. Billy Graham’s faith isn’t particularly important to him. Pope Benedict? (Snorts) His faith is not very important to him. What is this? Obama’s faith is very important to him? We are supposed to be dazzled by this? We are supposed to be mesmerized? We are supposed to be persuaded, convinced? Wow. Who knew that Obama’s faith is very important to him?

Faith is important to millions of Muslims, Jews, Hindus, terrorists, Buddhists. Atheists! Atheism is a faith. It’s very important to those people. Obama’s mother was a atheist. But none of this, none of it relates to the question of Obama’s Christianity. Zip, zero, nada. This didn’t cut it.

Then Burton calls Obama’s Christianity “obvious.” Well, uh, isn’t that the point, ladies and gentlemen? It isn’t obvious if we’re polling it. Let me correct myself: It isn’t obvious if Obama’s own media is polling it. Bill Clinton’s Christianity was obvious. Clinton was in every black church he could find. Clinton was out there claiming to be the first black president in a spiritual sense. George W. Bush’s Christianity was obvious.

He talked about it. He talked about it in ways that defined him as a person. Clinton did, too. Clinton was also very obvious about it because every time there was a sex scandal, we had him standing in front of the Reverend Jackson and others, “religious advisors,” and they were having prayer meetings and they were holding hands and so forth. It was obvious that Clinton was a Christian.
It was obvious that George W. Bush was a Christian. It was obvious that FDR was a Christian. So obvious that nobody ever asked. No one even thought to ask, “Is Bush a Christian?” In fact, when they talked about Bush being a Christian it was to criticize him. We had stories and articles: “Is Bush’s faith guiding policy?”

When Bush talked about the desire of every human being to be free, that that’s part of our creation, remember how they cringed? The same media that now apparently so love and respect Christianity that they are damn well convinced that Obama is one, and they are damn well persuaded that we’ve gotta believe it.
But Bush’s Christianity? They didn’t like it, and they don’t like right-wing Christianity…They don’t like Christianity that talks about pro-life. They hate it! The ruling class doesn’t want to get anywhere near it.

Now all of a sudden it is crucial that we understand Obama’s a Christian because it’s important to him. But we didn’t have to ask it about FDR, we didn’t have to ask it about Clinton, we didn’t have to ask it about George W. Bush.
Nobody asked Burton, “Okay, he’s got all these religious advisors. Does he listen to them? Does he listen to their message?” because he said he never listened to Reverend Wright. He can’t tell you what Reverend Wright ever said when he was a member of that church for 20 years. Did you know that Reverend Wright used to be a Muslim? Did you know that? You might have known that and forgotten it, but Reverend Wright used to be a Muslim and now he’s a black liberation theologist. Which is some sort of Christianity, but he used to be Muslim.

So nothing is “obvious” about Obama’s Christianity, Mr. Burton, and the telltale sign is that you even have to say it. We’re polling it! You see, Obama’s Christianity is the opposite of obvious. “What do you mean by that, Limbaugh? What do you mean! How can you sit there and say ‘Obama’s Christianity is the opposite of obvious’?” Well, glad you asked. Let me ‘splain it.

He has a Muslim name: “Barack Hussein Obama.” He had a Muslim father and an extended Muslim family in Kenya. He was partly raised and educated in Indonesia by a Muslim stepfather. He has Muslim half-sisters and brothers, one of whom continues to reside in a three-by-five-foot hut in Kenya. His mother was a self-proclaimed and unaffiliated atheist. Obama professed no religion and belonged to no church until he joined Reverend Wright’s Trinity Church in Chicago.

He did this in his late twenties and his mentor there, the estimable Reverend Jeremiah Wright, was a Muslim who converted to black liberation theology, which is a highly exotic (let’s be politic here) highly exotic form of Christianity in the American, even black American, context. It’s pretty exotic. Obama’s great literary intellectual role model was Malcolm X. One of Obama’s religious advisors is a Chicago Muslim, Eboo Patel. Imam Faisal Abdul Rauf (or “Ruuf,” however he pronounces the last name) the controversial Muslim leader behind the plan to build the Islamic Center and mosque a couple blocks from Ground Zero wrote the afterward to Eboo Patel’s 2006 book: Building the Interfaith Youth Movement: Beyond Dialogue to Action.

So the Ground Zero mosque imam wrote the afterward to Obama’s religious advisor’s book. The religious advisor is a Muslim. So, Mr. Burton, Obama’s Christianity is the opposite of obvious. You have to dig deep here to find it. Now, having said all that, none of what I have said means that Obama’s a Muslim and none of it means that Obama’s not a sincere Christian. If he’s going to say that he is, fine. We will accept that he’s a Christian. I still find it amazing we’re polling it. And I have to laugh. Have you seen the latest examples of the media trying to convince us that he’s not a Muslim?

Pictures of the beer summit! Pictures of Obama with a brewski. “See! He can’t be a Muslim; he’s drinking beer. You know Muslim don’t approve of alcohol.” They’re going to great lengths. But he’s not “obviously” a Christian. We have to take that on (ahem) faith, if I may use the word. We have to accept his Christianity on faith, to believe that he’s telling us the truth because his Christianity is not obvious by any intellectually coherent definition of the word…

The “He can’t be a Muslim; he’s drinking beer” issue is interesting. Apparently, no Jews eat bacon.

Now, here’s the point. On a lot of personal things like religion, I have no idea what Barack Obama believes. I mean this NASA mission to make Muslims feel good about themselves, they had to walk that back. I mean that was a head scratcher, wasn’t it? The new purpose of NASA is outreach for Muslims to make them feel good about math and science?…

he apologizes for his country; he doesn’t understand this controversy about the mosque at Ground Zero or, worse, he does understand it and is just giving us a thumb in the eye…

I don’t care about his religious beliefs, frankly, unless he’s lying about them…We’re gonna play that Tom Brokaw-Charlie Rose bite again today where they admitted they don’t know much about him. Nobody knows anything about him. We’re having to ask people in polls whether or not he’s a Muslim, for crying out loud…electing Barack Obama president is the equivalent of marrying somebody without knowing a damn thing about them until the next day, and that unusually happens when you’re drunk, and in a place like Las Vegas. And when that usually happens you go in for a quickie divorce, but we can’t do that, so we’re kind of stuck with this…

Obama’s going to church via the BlackBerry. He gets those devotionals downloaded to his BlackBerry every day. The American people are used to seeing their presidents go to church, but, no, Obama’s getting his devotional from the BlackBerry. By the way, his devotionals come from his Muslim advisor, too. He’s got a Muslim religious advisor…

Indeed, President Obama stated that he receives daily devotionals but that they are from various faiths. Even devoted Christians can appreciate the wisdom of other faiths but they would never consider them part of their “devotions/devotionals.”
Consider what C. S. Lewis wrote as he juxtaposed his current Christianity with his former atheism:

If you are a Christian you do not have to believe that all the other religions are simply wrong all through. If you are an atheist you have to believe that the main point in all the religions of the whole world is simply one huge mistake. If you are a Christian, you are free to think that all these religions, even the queerest ones, contain at least some hint of the truth.

When I was an atheist I had to try to persuade myself that most of the human race have always been wrong about the question that mattered to them most; when I became a Christian I was able to take a more liberal view.2

Barack Obama has stated that he does not attend a church, while claiming to for months to be looking for a church home, because it would be too disruptive. Apparently, no other president in the history of the USA has ever noticed that. No wonder Thomas Jefferson attended a Christian church which worshipped in the Capitol Building.

He makes a habit of praising all things Islamic but when it comes to the Bible…well, just read Osama vs. Obama.

Now, during his interview with pastor Rick Warren Obama did state, “I believe Jesus died for my sins and I’m redeemed through him – that is a source of strength and sustenance on a daily basis.”

As a side note; while Glenn Beck is correct about the un-biblical nature of Barack Obama’s theology (more specifically, soteriology)—that “Individual salvation depends on collective salvation”—it is utter irony that Beck himself hold to un-biblical theology—see my essay about Glenn Beck.

Overall; the point is not to be the final arbiters of Barack Obama’s faith or salvation. The point is that his background, his words, his actions and the fallacious nature of the arguments of those who seek to defend him only add fuel to the fires of flummox.

Darren Aronofsky to follow up “Noah” with a movie about Muhammad

With the success of his biblically based, and thus accurate, rendering of the Russell Crow movie “Noah,” Darren Aronofsky is setting his sights towards other religious text based movies with the movie; “Muhammad.”
Many Christians constantly play the woe is me martyr’s victim card in claiming that only their faith is mocked and wrongly depicted in media of various formats—see the mockingly titled webpage: Unbelievers Compliment Christianity.

Yet, while Darren Aronofsky made what is virtually a book, chapter and verse version of the biblical story of Noah—I mean, you could virtually take your Bible to the theater and follow along with the movie—his depiction of Muhammad, Islam, Allah and the Qur’an many raise a few Muslim eyebrows.

It appears that Aronofsky decided to stray from historical facts and the text of the Qur’an and will have a little fun with this one. He has drafted a screen play which turns the life of Muhammad into a fantasy story, of sorts. Whether what ends up hitting the big screen is historically and Qur’anically accurate will have to be determined by historians and religious studies professors.

Aronofsky has Muhammad expressing the view that the first impression of the revelations he began to receive was that it was demonic, that he was being manipulated by the jin and claims to be a victim of black magick. Thus, he attempts suicide on various occasions. He delivers false prophecy and is made to claim that Allah is “the best of deceivers” in the screen play.

Muhammad ends up proclaiming revelation which turns out to be from satan and ends up taking it back (a unique form of replacement theology; just replace satanic verses which you previously claimed to be from Allah).

He invents the law of abrogation whereby he can conveniently ignore earlier revelation by appeal to later revelation. Thus, he begins his prophetic career whilst still relatively unknown, not well off and with few followers by preaching kindness, but then preaches vengeance when he gains a popular following and wealth from embarking upon robbing raids.
Muhammad is depicted as having tortured a man, named Kinana in the script, for money. He is depicted as murdering those who criticize Islam and those who leave it, apostates. eb5018cf7a53505904d81de6919e56a3-8939861

Muhammad is portrayed as being misogynistic (even whilst he loooooves the ladies) referring to them as stupid, immoral and being a majority of hell’s population. He allows his followers to ravish their female captives. Muhammad allows for men to beat their wives. He marries the wife of his adopted son after receiving a conveniently self-serving revelation which allows for her divorce.
Muhammad has circa 9 wives (plus various friends with benefits) whilst claiming, via revelation, that only four are allowable to Muslims; one of his wives is portrayed as being 9 years old when they consummate their marriage.
Muhammad attempts to divorce his wife, which the script names Sauda, because he falls out of love with her, no longer finding her attractive. He cuts a deal with Allah which allows her to keep eating; to be fed and thus, be sustained as a dependent.
Muhammad allows Muslims to practice what is called mut’ah in the script, which basically allows husbands to pimp out their wives. He makes a vow to one of his wives that he would not have sex with a slave girl but, oopsy, he does so anyhow.
Muhammad describes heaven as a place wherein a man will have plenteous wine and women; women specifically designed to be pleasing to the, shall we say, superficial male. At one point, he preaches revelation about how adult women are to breastfeed adult me as a means to cool the jets, as it were, of a man who is attracted to them but to whom they are not attracted—the verse is written on a leaf which is subsequently eaten by a sheep. Perhaps as a shout out to the LGBT community; Darren Aronofsky portrays Muhammad as a cross dresser.

Muhammad endorses the Bible and affirms its authenticity and reliability even whilst contradicting it; such as claiming that Jesus was not crucified.

In an Islamic version of Star Wars; the movie will have Muhammad claim that Allah uses stars as “stellar missiles” which he shoots at demons when the try to sneak into heaven.
While on the subject of astronomy; Muhammad is made to claim that when the Sun sets, it sinks into a muddy pool of murky water.

Muhammad is made to claim that he cannot perform any miracles and that the ultimate proof of his revelation will be the literary excellence of the Qur’an. Yet, the first Caliph is named Uthman in the script; he is depicted as being so concerned for contradictory variety amongst the various different Qur’ans that he precedes to collect all Qur’anic manuscripts, complies an official version and burn the manuscripts.

An idolatrous structure is depicted as the focal point of Muslim pilgrimages wherein a black stone is placed and revered. Pagan rituals and folklore are incorporated into Islam.

Allah is portrayed as having no love for unbelievers, having created hell specifically for sinners and punishes Jews and Christians for the sins of Muslims.

Muhammad is portrayed as the greatest Muslim and the seal of, the final, prophet and yet, he does not know if he is saved. Finally, he states that if he is a false prophet he would die in a specific way, and that is the exact way in which he is portrayed as having died.

The movie is set to be released in 2016 AD and we will have to see how they whole thing plays out.

Roman Catholic Maryology: Mary in Roman Catholicism, part 7 – Mother of God?

At a glance:
Since God is the creator and Mary is one of His creations she cannot be His mother, this is not lost on the Roman Catholic Church, and so we find technicalities which attempt to teach us that she is referred to as such in order to glorify God, but does it? Or does in exalt her beyond what is proper?

New American Bible:
Luke 1:41-43, “Elizabeth, filled with the holy Spirit cried out in a loud voice and said, ‘Most blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb. And how does this happen to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?”

The New Testament of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ:
Luke 1:41-43, “Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit, and cried out with a loud voice, saying, ‘Blessed art thou among women and blessed is the fruit of thy womb! And how have I deserved that the mother of my Lord should come to me?”

The New Testament Rendered from the Original Greek with Explanatory Notes:
Luke 1:41-43, “Elizabeth inspired by the Holy Spirit, exclaimed in a ringing voice: ‘Blessed are you beyond all women! And blessed is the fruit of your womb! How privileged am I to have the mother of my Lord come to visit me!”

The Catholic Catechism #495 states:

Called in the Gospels ‘the mother of Jesus,’ Mary is acclaimed by Elizabeth, at the prompting of the Spirit and even before the birth of her son, as ‘the mother of my Lord.’”
^{Admitting that the Scripture refers to Mary in this manner does not keep the Roman church from changing the title to Mother of God}.
“Early titles used for Mary were Theotokos (God-bearer), Dei Genitrix (Mother of God) and Deipara (God-bearing).1

The dogmatic logic is that Jesus is God and Mary is His mother, therefore, she is the Mother of God. The Bible never refers to Mary as Mother of God. God is eternal, omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient, God had no beginning and will have no end. If God is eternal and Mary is His mother then she must be more eternal than He. Mary is the mother of Jesus and Jesus is God, however, Mary is neither the mother of the Holy Spirit nor the mother of the Father. The Bible refers to Mary as the mother of our Lord.
In this case the word Lord is the Greek word kurios κύριος from kuros (supremacy).2
It is used 748 times in the Bible; Lord 667, lord 54, master 11, sir 6, Sir 6, misc. 4. It is not the word LORD הוהי, which is used in place of YHWH, the Tetragrammaton (Yahweh, Jehovah, HaShem, etc.). When Moses asked God in the burning bush what His name was, God’s answer was the pronunciation of the Tetragrammaton. Therefore, in Luke 1:43 we are told that Jesus is Lord: Master or Ruler, not that He is LORD: YHWH. We are told that He is LORD elsewhere in Scripture. Jesus as deity had no beginning, yet, Jesus is the God-Man, and so as a man He had a beginning within chronological time.

This point is not lost on the Vatican, “A general council of bishops at Ephesus in 431 A.D. declared, ‘If anyone does not confess that God is truly Emmanuel, and that on this account the holy virgin is the mother of God (for according to the flesh she gave birth to the Word of God become flesh by birth), let him be anathema (condemned).’ The council carefully stated that Mary is the mother of God ‘according to the flesh’ to clarify that Mary is not the source of Jesus’ divinity.”3

Thus, ^{while affirming that Mary is not the source of Jesus’ divinity we are still to be condemned if we do not accept the title Mother of God}. This statement is made because it is claimed that affirming Mary as the Mother of God affirms Christ’s divinity. Catholic apologist Karl Keating states, “‘the honour of Mary is the safeguard, the outpost of the adoration of her son. To acknowledge the Theotokos [‘God bearer’] is to believe in God the Son made man.’”4

In reality this is nonsensical because calling Mary the Mother of God does not proved that Jesus is divine. And in fact, it can be confusing, misleading or even dangerous to give Mary this title without providing immediate and clear explanation for doing so. This is because in our day that Mary is the Mother of God is used to exalt her and not as tool that is employed to show that Jesus is God.

The following Bibles also read “Mother of my Lord” for Luke 1:43:
The Living Bible-Paraphrased, The Holy Bible an American Translation, The Living Bible, Authorized King James Version, New King James Version, Revised Standard Version, New Revised Standard Version, The Answer-New Century Version, The Revised Berkeley Version in Modern English, New International Version, Holy Bible Contemporary English Version, New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures, The Book, Complete Jewish Bible, The New Testament in Modern English, New American Standard Bible-New Testament, New Testament from Aramaic-According to the Eastern Text, New Living Translation, Noah Webster Version, Robert Young’s Literal Translation, J.N. Darby Translation, The Message, American Standard Version, Hebrew Names Version.
No Bibles yet consulted have been found to state “Mother of God.”

Zen Garcia – Targum on Eve being touched by an angel

Since I noted that “he even made a case based on a semicolon in the KJV” he reaffirmed the importance of the semicolon but since I wrote on that in details already, see Zen Garcia on the Hebrew Torah, Aramaic Targum and English KJV. In that article I also deal with the issue of his reliance upon the Targum about which, this time around, Zen wrote, “Targum (Aramaic translation of the original Hebrew Torah).” Well, this is far too simplistic as the various Targumim are not merely translations but paraphrases many of which include heavy interpretive elements (include Jewish folklore, etc.).
In spoken and written statements Zen refers to the “Targum” but never (or hardly ever) tells us which Targum he is quoting—we will get to that. For now, note that Zen quotes a portion of some Targum thusly:

And Adam lived a hundred and thirty years, and begat Sheth [Seth], who had the likeness of his image and of his similitude: for before had Hava [Eve] born Kain [Cain], who was not like to him; and Habel [Abel] was killed by his hand. And Kain was cast out; neither is his seed genealogized in the book of the genealogy of Adam. But afterwards there was born one like him, and he called his name Sheth.

He then writes, “This also is excluded from the King James version of Genesis chapter five.” Yet, it is mistaken to claim that this is “excluded” from the KJV since the KJV was translating Genesis and not a paraphrased Targum into which much folklore was added. That is the point, it is not that this is “excluded” from the KJV but that it was added to the Targum (and added to it with no manuscript support).

My reply to this section of his statements began with, “Friend, you are merely repeating the same errors time and time again. It is almost as if you are now more interested in protecting the book you wrote than properly representing the Bible” this is because I had already written a detailed reply, and made him aware of it, to that which he was now merely repeating. The rest of my reply thus far is as follows:

It is simply illegitimate to claim that a punctuation mark in the English of the 1600s AD has any relevance whatsoever to the original Hebrew which knew of no such thing. But then again, you are not dealing with the Hebrew text but from Aramaic from the Palestinian Targum Pseudo-Jonathan which, as I have already told you, dates to the sixth century AD which is circa 1,500 to 2,000 years after the Book of Genesis was written (depending on when one dates Genesis).

Genesis 4:17 states, “Cain knew his wife; and she conceived, and bare Enoch” and so, according to your 1600s English punctuation logic, Cain’s wife conceived but their son was not Enoch. Also as I have already told you, the Palestinian Targum states, “And Adam knew his wife Hava, who had desired the Angel; and she conceived, and bare Cain; and she said, I have acquired a man, the angel of the Lord. And she added to bear from her husband Adam his twin, even Habel.” Thus, again according to your 1600s English punctuation logic, we must separate, “And Adam knew his wife Hava, who had desired the Angel” from “and she conceived, and bare Cain” and then also from “and she said, I have acquired a man, the angel of the Lord. And she added to bear from her husband Adam his twin, even Habel.”

Thus, apparently, neither Adam nor the Angel were the father of Cain. In fact, the text implies that Adam knew his wife even though she desired the Angel.

Someone chimed into the comment section wherein this discussion ensued and asked me:

Ken Ammi just a thought to add… when hava gives birth to Cain and says she has gotten a man from the lord.. the Hebrew here for Lord is the Tetragrammaton. I wonder if Zen sees that as an issue.. as it would mean making a case that the Tetragrammaton can be used to represent the most high or.. hasatan [“the Satan”] or various angels. [ellipses in original]

I replied:

[name withheld], you are quite right that Hava refers to having gotten a man from the Tetragrammaton and NOT from the Angel of the Lord. I would say that Zen SHOULD see it as an issue as he is teaching things that are contradicting the Bible. But he does not see that as an issue because he is basing his views on not on the Greek Septuagint/LXX, nor on any Hebrew manuscripts whatsoever but on the Aramaic from the Palestinian Targum Pseudo-Jonathan which dates to the sixth century AD which is circa 1,500 to 2,000 years after the Book of Genesis was written (depending on when one dates Genesis). He keeps referring to “the original passage” but does not tell people that he is quoting this very, very, very late dated Targum which is not only a translation but a paraphrase which includes Rabbinic folkloric interpretations.

Zen replied to the question posed to me thusly:

As posted above: Actually the original passage references that she got a man child from the angel of the Lord or that the child itself is an angel of the Lord. And then she added from her husband another child Abel.

I replied with something that kept coming up again and again which is Zen Garcia’s claim to be quoting “the original passage” even though he is quoting a very, very, very late dated folkloric-interpretive-paraphrase which states things not found in any previously written manuscript in Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek or Latin:

Zen, you keep referring to “the original passage” but you are not telling these dear unsuspecting people to what you are referring as being “the original passage”: please tell then what text you are quoting. You and I both known that you are quoting the Aramaic from the Palestinian Targum Pseudo-Jonathan which dates to the sixth century AD which is circa 1,500 to 2,000 years after the Book of Genesis was written (depending on when one dates Genesis).

This will come up again (and again) but let us leave off for now as Zen next draws our attention to that which he claims is symbolic language in Genesis 3.

For my whole Serpent Seed of Satan series including my discussions with Zen Garcia, see see here.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

A plea: I have to pay for server usage and have made all content on this website free and always will. I support my family on one income and do research, writing, videos, etc. as a hobby. If you can even spare $1.00 as a donation, please do so: it may not seem like much but if each person reading this would do so, even every now and then, it would add up and really, really help out. Here is my donate/paypal page.

Due to robo-spaming, I had to close the comment sections. However, you can comment on my Twitter page, on my Facebook page and/or on my Google+ page.

Twitter: #serpentseed, #satan, #zengarcia
Facebook: #serpentseed, #satan, #zengarcia

Serpent & Dragon in Word & Revelation of Esdras, Protoevangelium of James, Acts of Andrew, Acts of Paul & Acts of John

Herein we continue, from part 1, part 2, part 3, part 4, part 5, considering “Serpent” and “Dragon” within the context of Satan in text generally termed the Apocrypha, Deutero Canonical, Pseudepigrapha, Gnostic Texts, etc. (see my article on the Apocrypha here). The fuller complete result consists of quotations of those sections within the text that refer to Angels, Cherubim, Seraphim, Devil, Satan, demons, serpent and dragon. The point is not to elucidate these references but to provide relevant partial quotations and citations.
The quotations within section pertain to references to serpent and dragons when the term is applied to evil entities and not merely to reptiles. For example, Bel and the Dragon obviously contains references to a dragon but it is a reptile.
See my section on Angels in general and in apocryphal texts here. See my section on Cherubim and Seraphim in general and in apocryphal texts here.

Serpent & Dragon in Word and Revelation of Esdras aka Greek Apocalypse of Ezra, Infancy Gospel of James aka Protoevangelium of James aka Gospel of James, Acts of Andrew, Acts of Paul and Acts of John.

Word and Revelation of Esdras aka Greek Apocalypse of Ezra – 2nd to 9th century AD
But if Thou hadst not given him Eve, the serpent would not have deceived her; but whom Thou wilt Thou savest, and whom Thou wilt Thou destroyest.

Infancy Gospel of James aka Protoevangelium of James aka Gospel of James – 140-170 AD
13 For just as Adam was in the hour of his singing praise, and the serpent came, and found Eve alone, and completely deceived her, so it has happened to me also.

Acts of Andrew – 150-200 AD
8 But if I were thrust out hence, even I, who, it may be, might avail through thee to profit others that are akin to me, and if thou wert persuaded by the discourse of Aegeates and the flatteries of his father the serpent, so that thou didst turn unto thy former works, know thou that on thine account I should be tormented until thou thyself sawest that I had contemned life for the sake of a soul which was not worthy.

10 Is there one within that is strange to me? an adversary, a breaker of peace, an enemy, a cheat, a sorcerer, a crooked dealer, unsound, guileful, a hater of men, a hater of the word, one like a tyrant, boastful, puffed up, mad, akin to the serpent, a weapon of the devil, a friend of the fire, belonging to darkness?

19 After this a youth who followed the apostle sent for his mother to meet Andrew. She came, and after being instructed, begged him to come to their house, which was devastated by a great serpent. As Andrew approached, it hissed loudly and with raised head came to meet him; it was fifty cubits long: every one fell down in fear. Andrew said: ‘Hide thy head, foul one, which thou didst raise in the beginning for the hurt of mankind, and obey the servants of God, and die.’ The serpent roared, and coiled about a great oak nearby and vomited poison and blood and died. Andrew went to the woman’s farm, where a child killed by the serpent lay dead.

Acts of Paul – 150-200 AD M.R. James’ The Apocryphal New Testament (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1924 AD) contains The Acts of Paul which notes, “The page of the Coptic MS. on which the correspondence begins is fragmentary at the beginning” and is a page which states:

III:19-21 They therefore…are not children of righteousness but children of wrath who reject the wisdom (providence?) of God, saying that the heaven and the Earth and all that are in them are not the work of God. THEY THEREFORE ARE CHILDREN OF WRATH, for cursed are they, following the teaching of the serpent, whom do ye drive out from you and flee from their doctrine.

Acts of John – 150-200 AD
69 …a soul as full of faith and worthy (or receptive) of God when it hath paid its promise in full: not that soul…which hath received the serpent into its own house.

71 And as these men were speaking thus, and only the accustomed shift now remained on her body, a strange spectacle was seen, such as they deserve to suffer who do such deeds. A serpent appeared from some quarter and dealt the steward a single bite and slew him: but the young man it did not strike; but coiled about his feet, hissing terribly, and when he fell mounted on his body and sat upon him.

73 And John, turning to the other side of the sepulchre, saw a young man-even Callimachus, one of the chief of the Ephesians-and a huge serpent sleeping upon him, and the steward of Andronicus, Fortunatus by name, lying dead.

94 …the lawless Jews, who also were governed by (had their law from) the lawless serpent.

XVII For now in a little time ye have lost the kingdom that was prepared for you…and have gotten yourselves places of darkness, full of dragons, of roaring flames, of torments, and punishments unsurpassable, of pains and anguish, fear and horrible trembling.

XX Jesus Christ, by whose word the heavens were established, unto whom all things are subject, whom all creation serveth, whom all power obeyeth, feareth, and trembleth, when we call on thee for succour: whose name the serpent hearing is still, the dragon fleeth, the viper is quiet, the toad (which is called a frog) is still and strengthless, the scorpion is quenched, the basilisk vanquished, and the phalangia (spider) doth no hurt -in a word, all venomous things, and the fiercest reptiles and noisome beasts, are pierced (or covered with darkness).

In the next segment, we will consider Infancy Gospel of James aka Protoevangelium of James aka Gospel of James and Preaching of Peter.

Zen Garcia on symbolic Serpent Seed of Satan language in Genesis 3

Here are Zen Garcia’s claims regarding the symbolism:

Now in regard to the Hebrew words for fruit, tree, eat of, touch, and seed, that all of these words have specific association with children, descendants, progeny or are in some way associated to a sexual act? The phrase fruit of the tree is Hebrew word # 6529 periy- fruit, which in a wide sense means: a) fruit, produce (of the ground), or b) fruit, offspring, children, progeny (of the womb), or figuratively c) fruit (of actions). The phrase eat of it is Hebrew word #398; ‘akal (aw-kal’); This word has many uses, but can mean to lay with a woman (a sexual act). Touch is Hebrew word # 5060; naga`(naw-gah’); Properly, to touch, ie: to lay the hand upon (for any purpose); euphemism for: to lie with a woman.

Seed is the Hebrew word #2233 zera` which means seed, sowing, offspring, a sowing, seed, semen virile, offspring, descendants, posterity, children.

I am empathetic to how this can sound very impressive and convincing: you have quotes, Strong numbers, definitions, etc. However, this is the utter folly of pop-research methods as I noted in my reply:

When it comes to “the Hebrew words for fruit, tree, eat of, touch, and seed” having “specific association with children, descendants, progeny or are in some way associated to a sexual act” you are not applying the very first rule of defining word which is not to look up the multiple definitions that any and all words have and then picking and choosing which in within that range of meanings are convenient to your preconceived notion.
Rather, the very first thing you must do is define a word according to the context in which it is found. Thus, within Genesis fruit, tree, eat of, touch, and seed are fruit, tree, eat of, touch, and seed.

The point is simple: just because one word has more than one meaning it does not mean that it is legitimate to pick and choose from those definitions that which you want the word to mean. Rather, context is king and Genesis’s context is that which it is: a literal tree, literal fruit, literal eating, etc.

Zen Garcia continued this line of argument by employing a tactic I noted in Zen Garcia on Satanic blood vs. the blood of the lamb. He invents mysterious questions that are supposedly only answerable via the Serpent Seed of Satan theory:

If you really believe that the fruit from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil was somehow related to apple, fig or fruit of some kind, how do you explain their being enmity between the seed of the woman and the seed of the serpent?
Why would Adam and Eve after the eating of this fruit cause them to cover their genitals and how in any way would it lead to Eve being pregnant?

Well, I do believe that it was “fruit of some kind” and have explained, in detail, what it means that there will be enmity between the seed of the woman and the seed of the serpent. You see, Zen takes this reference to “seed” to be seedlines / bloodlines: genetics. It is not, as the Bible’s consistent statement on this issue is that it is not a case of Satanic genetics vs. godly genetics but Satanic actions vs. godly actions, see:
Did Jesus teach the serpent seed of Satan theory in John 8?
Did Jesus teach the serpent seed of Satan theory in Matthew 23?
Did Jesus teach the serpent seed of Satan theory in the parable of the sower?

“Why would Adam and Eve after the eating of this fruit cause them to cover their genitals” is a great gotcha question indeed. The Bible tells us that having sinned, in eating the forbidden fruit of “the tree of knowledge of” both “good and evil” then “the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons” yet, “The Lord God made garments of skin for Adam and his wife and clothed them.” Thus, this appears to pertain to atonement and not sex.
I can see how Zen draws a correlation between his view of Sex with Adam and Eve realizing “they were naked” and making aprons but the fact is still that neither Genesis nor the rest of the Bible know anything of Eve having sex with Satan, nothing of Satanic genetics, nothing of Cain being Satan’s son, etc. This seems to be more about being sinfully exposed before God, since God rejects their works based self-covering and makes some of His own for them.

“how in any way would it lead to Eve being pregnant?” Indeed, just how does it in any lead to Eve being pregnant? It does not. Zen implies that the Bible states that Eve ate the fruit and the very next thing we know, “It’s a boy!” Rather, the Bible records Adam and Eve eating the fruit in Genesis 3:6, that chapter ends in 18 verses later and Genesis 4 begins with “And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the LORD.” Thus, the answer is that what lead to Eve being pregnant is her husband knowing her.

Zen Garcia’s other gotcha question is more complex and yet, very simple to answer:

And why would Paul refer to Eve’s beguilement as corrupting her virginity in 2 Corinthians 11:2-3, the word there being the Greek word exapataō which means to seduce wholly:—beguile, deceive just like the Hebrew word nasha’ in Genesis 3:13 which means to lead astray, i.e. (mentally) to delude, or (morally) to seduce:—beguile, deceive, × greatly, × utterly.
Your belief like your previous rebuttal in my opinion, in no way makes any literal or metaphorical sense when regarded in connection to all these things. Which is why I suggest that people investigate this topic thoroughly before making decision as to whether there is something more to it or not.

Note that Pastor Ben Heath played upon this notion as well in, “The Serpent Seed” (Christian Overcomers site, October 24, 2011 AD)

The apostle Paul confirmed the “Serpent seed” teaching when he said,
“I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled (sexually seduced) Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.” –II Corinthians 11:3

Hopefully it is needless to state that merely inserting a parenthetical statement into the text does not result in Eve having been sexually seduced.

Here is my reply:

That Paul refers to Eve’s beguilement as “corrupting her virginity” is simply an invention of yours. Here is how I can prove that: the term exapataō appears five times in the Bible, as follows:

Romans 7:11, “For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, exapataō [according to you “corrupting…virginity”] me, and by it slew me.

Romans 16:18, “For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly; and by good words and fair speeches exapataō [“corrupting…virginity”] the hearts of the simple.”

1 Corinthians 3:18, “Exapataō [“corrupting…virginity”] no man exapataō [“corrupting…virginity”] himself. If any man among you seemeth to be wise in this world, let him become a fool, that he may be wise.”

2 Corinthians 11:3, “But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent exapataō [“corrupting…virginity”] Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.”

2 Thessalonians 2:3, “Exapataō [“corrupting…virginity”] no man exapataō [“corrupting…virginity”] you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;”

Obviously, your claim that it has anything to do with virginity or sexuality in general is completed debunked.
Specifically, Romans 16:18 refers to words and speeches that are used to exapataō the hearts.

1 Corinthians 3:18 has references to exapataō followed by a reference to wisdom and foolishness.

2 Thessalonians 2:3 has exapataō in reference to falling away and with v. 2 referring to being “shaken in mind” being “troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us.”

Lastly to your text: you can know that 2 Corinthians 11:3 as nothing to do with virginity since Eve knew that God had stated, “Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die” but the manner in which Satan exapataō her was to tell her “Ye shall not surely die” and if the greater context is not enough for you then consider the immediate context which is that “so your minds” minds and not bodies, “should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.” It was obviously a reference to Satan’s deception both in Genesis and 2 Corinthians.

As to your other various supposedly gotcha questions—what about this and that—I already explained how Adam and Eve’s curses have a one-to-one correlation to that which we are previously told about them [see, Zen Garcia on Adam & Eve’s curses & bloodlines – seedlines]. Simply dreaming up more supposedly unanswerable questions will not rescue you from the fact that you are teaching something about which the Bible knows nothing.
The two “lines” are not genetic lineages but are those who perform Godly actions versus those who perform sinful actions.

For my whole Serpent Seed of Satan series including my discussions with Zen Garcia, see see here. In the next segment we will consider miscellaneous Serpent Seed of Satan related topics.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Due to robo-spaming, I had to close the comment sections. However, you can comment on my Twitter page, on my Facebook page and/or on my Google+ page.

Twitter: #serpentseed, #satan, #zengarcia
Facebook: #serpentseed, #satan, #zengarcia

Serpent & Dragon in Book of Adam, Life of Adam & Eve & Acts of Thomas

Herein we continue, from part 1, part 2, part 3, part 4, considering “Serpent” and “Dragon” within the context of Satan in text generally termed the Apocrypha, Deutero Canonical, Pseudepigrapha, Gnostic Texts, etc. (see my article on the Apocrypha here). The fuller complete result consists of quotations of those sections within the text that refer to Angels, Cherubim, Seraphim, Devil, Satan, demons, serpent and dragon. The point is not to elucidate these references but to provide relevant partial quotations and citations.
The quotations within section pertain to references to serpent and dragons when the term is applied to evil entities and not merely to reptiles. For example, Bel and the Dragon obviously contains references to a dragon but it is a reptile.
See my section on Angels in general and in apocryphal texts here. See my section on Cherubim and Seraphim in general and in apocryphal texts here.

Serpent & Dragon in The Book of Adam, Greek Life of Adam and Eve aka Apocalypse of Moses and Acts of Thomas.

The Book of Adam
The citations are as per J.P. Mahe’s translation from the Georgian original.

20.1c Adam recognized her voice and said in his heart, “…Is it that the serpent is attacking her again?”

[32]7.2 And the serpent deceived your mother and caused her to eat of it, because of which, now, we are going to die.

[33].2 And at the moment of their ascent, the serpent deceived your mother and caused her to eat of the tree, for he had seen that I was not with her any more than the Angels.

[38]11.1 Then the beast replied to her and told Eve, “It is not from our greed(iness) that your discontent and your weeping come, but your discontent and your weeping come from your own greed(iness), for at the beginning of creation, it was you who hearkened to the beast, the serpent.

[44]16.2-3a, 4 The devil summoned the serpent and told him, “Arise and come to me, and I will teach you a useful word.” Then, the serpent came and the Devil told the serpent, “I (hear) that you are wiser than all the (dumb) animals and I have come to test your wisdom (science), for Adam gives food to all the (dumb-) animals, thus also to you. [a note states that the translator J.P. Mahe “has note that is unexplained”]…And the serpent told him, “How can we have them excluded?” The devil replied and told the serpent, “Be a sheath for me and I will speak to the woman through your mouth a word by which we will trick (them).”

[44]17.2a-c, 4 I stared and I saw him like an Angel and at once he became invisible for he had gone forth to bring the serpent. And he told him, ‘Arise and come and I will be with you and I will speak though your mouth that which it is proper for you to say.’ He took on the form of the serpent (to go) close to the wall of paradise and the devil slipped inside the serpent and he allowed his head to hang on the wall of paradise…The devil replied to me and told me through the mouth of the serpent, ‘Well (done!) Do you eat the fruit of every tree which is in paradise?’

[44]18.1-3, 6 Then the serpent told me, ‘I am distressed for you, for you are like the (dumb) animals. God was jealous of you and he has not permitted you, but I, I do not desire your ignorance. Rather come, eat and you will see the glory which is to be with you’…The serpent replied to me and told me, ‘What is death and how does one die? Death is life!’ I replied to him and told him, ‘I do not know’…The serpent replied to and told me, ‘Come, open the gate and I will give you of it.’

[44]23.5 And I remembered the serpent’s word and I said, “It is the serpent who deceived me!”

[44]25.1, 3 God turned to me and told me, “Why did you hearken to the serpent and abandon my commandments with which I commanded to you?…(You shall promise yourself) that if you are ever delivered from the agonies, you will never go back to (your husband) and you will harden your heart in view of the great combat which the serpent instituted with you.

[44]26.1 When he had said all this to me, he became very angry with the serpent, and he told it, “You, too, perish and be cursed among all the (dumb) animals.

Greek Life of Adam and Eve aka Apocalypse of Moses
xvi:1-2, 4-5 And the devil spake to the serpent saying, Rise up, come to me and I will tell thee a word whereby thou mayst have profit”…as we were cast out through him.” The serpent saith to him, “I fear lest the Lord be wroth with me.”

xvii:4-5 The devil answered through the mouth of the serpent: ‘Ye do well but ye do not eat of every plant.”

xviii:1 Then the serpent saith to me, “May God live! but I am grieved on your account, for I would not have you ignorant. But arise, (come) hither, hearken to me and eat and mind the value of that tree.”

xxiii:4 Then Adam called to mind the word which I spake to him, (saying) “I will make thee secure before God”; and he turned and said to me: “Why hast thou done this?” And I said, “The serpent deceived me.”

xxv:1-2 And the Lord turned to me and said: “Since thou hast hearkened to the serpent, and turned a deaf ear to my commandment, thou shalt be in throes of travail and intolerable agonies.

xxvi:1 But he turned to the serpent [in great wrath] and said: “Since thou hast done this, and become a thankless vessel until thou hast deceived the innocent hearts, accursed art thou among all beasts.

Acts of Thomas – 200-225 AD
31 …a great (Syr. black) serpent (dragon) came out of a hole, beating with his head and shaking his tail upon the ground, and with (using) a loud voice said unto the apostle: I will tell before thee the cause wherefor I slew this man…There is a certain beautiful woman in this village over against us; and as she passed by me (or my place) I saw her and was enamored of her…And the apostle inquired of him, saying: Tell me of what seed and of what race thou art.

3 And he said unto him: I am a reptile of the reptile nature and noxious son of the noxious father…I am he that entered through the barrier (fence) into paradise and spake with Eve the things which my father bade me speak unto her: I am he that kindled and inflamed Cain to kill his own brother, and on mine account did thorns and thistles grow up in the Earth: I am he that cast down the Angels from above and bound them in lusts after women, that children born of Earth might come of them and I might work my will in them…I am he that inhabiteth and holdeth the deep of hell (Tartarus).

33 And when that serpent had spoken these things in the hearing of all the people, the apostle lifted up his voice on high and said: Cease thou henceforth, O most shameless one…suck out thy venom which thou hast put into this man…the serpent said: Not yet is the end of our time come as thou hast said…the apostle said unto him: Show, then, now the nature of thy father. And the serpent came near and set his mouth upon the wound of the young man and sucked forth the gall out of it…but the serpent swelled up… the serpent had drawn up all the gall into himself, the young man leapt up and stood, and ran and fell at the apostle’s feet: but the serpent being swelled up, burst and died, and his venom and gall were shed forth; and in the place where his venom was shed there came a great gulf, and that serpent was swallowed up therein.

42 And the apostle entered into the city and all the multitude followed him. And he thought to go unto the parents of the young man whom he had made alive when he was slain by the serpent: for they earnestly besought him to come unto them and enter into their house.

44 And the apostle said: O evil that cannot be restrained! O shamelessness of the enemy! O envious one that art never at rest! O hideous one that subduest the comely! O thou of many forms! As he will he appeareth, but his essence cannot be changed. O the crafty and faithless one! O the bitter tree whose fruits are like unto him! O the devil that overcometh them that are alien to him! O the deceit that useth impudence! O the wickedness that creepeth like a serpent, and that is of his kindred! (Syr. wrongly adds a clause bidding the devil show himself.)

52 When the apostle heard this he said: O insane union how ruinest thou unto shamelessness! O unrestrained lust, how hast thou stirred up this man to do this! O work of the serpent, how art thou enraged against thine own!

In the next segment, we will consider Word and Revelation of Esdras aka Greek Apocalypse of Ezra, Infancy Gospel of James aka Protoevangelium of James aka Gospel of James, Acts of Andrew, Acts of Paul and Acts of John.

Islam / Muslim: Muhammad and Jesus, part 3 of 10

Virgin Birth Affirmed This segment is merely meant to make reference to the Surah’s that make reference to Jesus’ virgin birth.Surah 19:19-22,

“He said: ‘Nay, I am only a messenger from your Lord, (to announce) to you the gift of a holy son.’ She said: ‘How shall I have a son, seeing that no man has touched me, and because I am not unchaste?’ He said: ‘So it will be: your Lord says, ‘That is easy for Me: and (We wish) to appoint him as a Sign to men and a Mercy from Us’: it is a matter (so) decreed.’ So she conceived him, and she retired with him to a remote place.”

Surah 3:45-47,

“Behold! The angel said: ‘O Mary! Allah gives you glad tidings of a Word from Him: his name will be Christ Jesus, the son of Mary…She said: ‘How shall I have a son, when no man has touched me?’ He said: ‘Even so: Allah creates what He wills: when He has decreed a Plan, He but says to it, ‘Be,’ and it is!”

The New Testament records the events of Jesus’ birth as follows:

“Now the birth of Jesus Christ was as follows: After His mother Mary was betrothed to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Spirit. Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not wanting to make her a public example, was minded to put her away secretly.
But while he thought about these things, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, ‘Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take to you Mary your wife, for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit. And she will bring forth a Son, and you shall call His name Jesus, for He will save His people from their sins.’ So all this was done that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the Lord through the prophet, saying: ‘Behold, the virgin shall be with child, and bear a Son, and they shall call His name Immanuel,’ which is translated, ‘God with us. ‘Then Joseph, being aroused from sleep, did as the angel of the Lord commanded him and took to him his wife, and did not know her till she had brought forth her firstborn Son. And he called His name Jesus” (Matthew 1:18-25).

Another account reads thusly:

“And it came to pass in those days that a decree went out from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be registered. This census first took place while Quirinius was governing Syria. So all went to be registered, everyone to his own city. Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judea, to the city of David, which is called Bethlehem, because he was of the house and lineage of David, to be registered with Mary, his betrothed wife, who was with child. So it was, that while they were there, the days were completed for her to be delivered. And she brought forth her firstborn Son, and wrapped Him in swaddling cloths, and laid Him in a manger, because there was no room for them in the inn.
Now there were in the same country shepherds living out in the fields, keeping watch over their flock by night. And behold, an angel of the Lord stood before them, and the glory of the Lord shone around them, and they were greatly afraid. Then the angel said to them, ‘Do not be afraid, for behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy which will be to all people. For there is born to you this day in the city of David a Savior, who is Christ the Lord. And this will be the sign to you: You will find a Babe wrapped in swaddling cloths, lying in a manger.’ And suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host praising God and saying: ‘Glory to God in the highest, And on earth peace, goodwill toward men!’So it was, when the angels had gone away from them into heaven, that the shepherds said to one another, ‘Let us now go to Bethlehem and see this thing that has come to pass, which the Lord has made known to us.’ And they came with haste and found Mary and Joseph, and the Babe lying in a manger. Now when they had seen Him, they made widely known the saying which was told them concerning this Child. And all those who heard it marveled at those things which were told them by the shepherds. But Mary kept all these things and pondered them in her heart. Then the shepherds returned, glorifying and praising God for all the things that they had heard and seen, as it was told them” (Luke 2:1-20).

In counter-distinction, Muhammad’s birth was unremarkable.
Various succinct retelling of some myths about Muhammad’s birth are found here.

Roman Catholic Maryology: Mary in Roman Catholicism, part 9 – Will She “Crush Your Head”?

At a glance:
The mistranslation, misinterpretation and misapplication of Genesis 3:15 has lead to the false teaching that it is Mary who will defeat satan. Here we will see that not only do other biblical texts state that it is Jesus who will do this, but we will see that Vatican approved Bibles render the verse correctly and elucidate by way of footnotes that the He, the seed, is Jesus. Below we cite Affirmations of the Belief that Mary Will Crush satan and Affirmations of the Belief that Jesus Will Crush satan. Under A Faulty Apologetic we will see an attempt by Fr. Nicholas Gruner to prove that the verse should read “she” and “her” rather than the correct “he” and “his.” This last topic is important in that Fr. Gruner makes a lot of accusations, which we must know how to answer.

New American Bible: Genesis 3:15, “I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; He will strike at your head, while you strike at his heel.”

The footnote to this verse states:

3, 15: He will strike…at his heel: Since the antecedent for he and his is the collective noun offspring, i.e., all the descendants of the woman, a more exact rendering of the sacred writer’s words would be, ‘They will strike…at their heels.’
However, later theology saw in this passage more than unending hostility between snakes and men. The serpent was regarded as the devil (Wis 2, 24; Jn 8, 44; Rv 12, 9; 20, 2), whose eventual defeat seems implied in the contrast between head and heel. Because ‘the Son of God appeared that he might destroy the works of the devil’ (1Jn 3,8) the passage can be understood as the first promise of a Redeemer for fallen mankind. The woman’s offspring then is primarily Jesus Christ.

The Holy Bible with the Confraternity Text-Papal Edition:
Genesis 3:15, “I will put enmity between you and the woman, between your seed and her seed; He shall crush your head, and you shall lie in wait for his heel.”

The Septuagint, a Greek translation of the Hebrew text translated by Jewish scholars in the first half of the third century BC, renders Genesis 3:15 as, “I will put enmity between thee and the woman; and between thy seed and her seed. He will wound thy head, and thou wilt wound his heel.”1

New Catholic Edition of the Holy Bible translated from the Latin Vulgate:
Genesis 3:15 “I will put enmities between thee and the woman, and thy seed and her seed. ^{She shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel}.” The footnote to this verse states, “She shall crush: Ipsa, the woman. So many of the fathers read this passage conformably to the Latin; others read it ipsum, i.e., the seed. The sense if the same; for it is by her seed, Jesus Christ, that the woman crushes the serpent’s head.”

This is the only Bible in the world that renders the verse in this incorrect manner. Even the footnote is faulty because the whole point is that the woman will do no such thing rather, her seed wIL We will discuss this further below under A Faulty Apologetic.

Affirmations of the Belief that Mary Will Crush satan:
A great number of Roman Catholic paintings and statues depict Mary with her foot on a serpent, precisely do to the mistranslation, misinterpretation and misapplication of Genesis 3:15.

Catholic dogma claims, “From the moment of her [Mary’s] conception God willed that she should crush the head of the serpent.”2

Pope Pius IX stated (in Apostolic Constitution Ineffabilis Deus), “All our hope do we repose in the most Blessed Virgin—in the all fair and immaculate one who has crushed the poisonous head of the most cruel serpent and brought salvation to the world.”

Pope Pius XII wrote, “^{Just as she took part in the struggle of her only-begotten Son with the serpent of hell, so also she shared in his glorious triumph over sin and its sad consequences}.”3

Venerable Mary of Agreda states, “[satan’s] consternation grew, when he heard the sentence, which God pronounced against the guilty ones, in which he himself was implicated. More especially and above all was he tormented by the repetition of that threat: The Woman shall crush thy head (Gen. 3, 15), which he had already heard in heaven….The demons shall fear Her and be subject to Her.”4

Fr. Stefano Gobbi has Mary saying, “At the beginning, I am announced as the enemy of Satan; she who will obtain the complete victory over him. ‘I will put enmity between you and the Woman, between your offspring and hers; she shall crush your head, as you will attempt to bite her heel.’ (Gen. 3:15)”5

Regarding the fall into sin, St. Augustine wrote, “All this is the result of Eve’s action which is remedied through Mary.”6

Here we have Fr. John A. Hardon, S.J. explaining a very peculiar occurrence. While the seed of the woman was correctly understood to be Jesus Christ, the Roman Church went on to misapply the text to Mary, apparently she is the woman and she is the seed as well, “the passage in Genesis, where the Lord predicts: ‘I will make you enemies of each other: you and the woman, your offspring and her offspring. It will crush your head and you will strike its heel’ (Gn. 3:15).
The seed of the woman was understood as referring to the Savior (autos in the Septuagint), so that the Mother of Christ came to be identified with the woman. As early as the second century, this messianic-marian exegesis was known in Christian tradition, for example, in Ireneus, Epiphanius, Cyprian, and [Pope] Leo the Great. The bull Ineffabilis approves this interpretation and draws from it the conclusion that Mary, because of her intimate relation to Christ, ‘with him and through him had eternal enmity toward the evil spirit, triumphed over him completely, and crushed him with her immaculate foot.’”7

Saint Cyril of Alexandria wrote:

…the most famous marian homily of antiquity…Precious vessel, worthy of the whole world’s reverence, you are an ever-shining light…^{Because of you the holy Trinity is glorified and adored…demons are put to flight; the devil, that tempter, is thrust down from heaven; the fallen race of humanity is taken up on high; all creatures possessed by the madness of idolatry have attained knowledge of the truth; believers receive holy baptism; the oil of gladness is poured out; the Church is established throughout the world; pagans are brought to repentance}.
What more is there to say? Because of you the light of the only-begotten Son of God has shone upon those who sat in darkness and in the shadow of death; prophets pronounced the word of God; the apostles preached salvation to the Gentiles; the dead are raised to life, and kings rule by the power of the holy Trinity.”8

A group devoted to Our Lady of Guadalupe wrote:

The origin of the name Guadalupe has always been a matter of controversy. It is nevertheless believed that the name came about because of the translation from Nahuatl to Spanish of the words used by the Virgin during the apparition to Juan Bernardino, the ailing uncle of Juan Diego. It is believed that Our Lady used the Aztec Nahuatl word of coatlaxopeuh which is pronounced ‘quatlasupe’ and sounds remarkably like the Spanish word Guadalupe. Coa meaning serpent, tla being the noun ending which can be interpreted as ‘the,’ while xopeuh means to crush or stamp out. So Our Lady must have called herself the one ‘who crushes the serpent.’”9

It is important to note that while the apparition of Guadalupe is alleged to have taken place in 1531, the earliest narration of this event dates from 1649 (see Examples of Extreme Deception for more on Guadalupe). Also see a report of an instance when Our Lady of Guadalupe was referred to as “the goddess of the Americas.”

Affirmations of the Belief that Jesus Will Crush satan:
“the Son of God appeared that he might destroy the works of the devil” (1st John 3:8).

“Since the children have flesh and blood, he too shared in their humanity so that by his death he might destroy him who holds the power of death—that is, the devil” (Hebrews 2:14).

“Then I heard a loud voice in heaven say: ‘Now have come the salvation and the power and the kingdom of our God, and the authority of his Christ. For the accuser of our brothers, who accuses them before our God day and night, has been hurled down. They overcame him by the blood of the Lamb and by the word of their testimony; they did not love their lives so much as to shrink from death’” (Revelation 12:10-11).

Justin Martyr wrote, “Christ is born of the Virgin, in order that the disobedience caused by the serpent might be destroyed.”10

Pope-Saint Leo the Great wrote, “at the beginning of the world [God], foretold the remedy his love had prepared for the restoration of us mortals, giving notice to the serpent that the offspring of the woman would come and, by his power, crush its baneful head as it was raised to strike.”11

A Faulty Apologetic:
Fr. Nicholas Gruner wrote:

The Woman in Gen. 3:15 Who will crush the serpent’s head is the Blessed Virgin Mary Who from the first moment of Her Immaculate Conception triumphed over the devil. Our Lord referred to the Blessed Virgin as ‘Woman,’ from the cross. (John 19:26) We also have the ‘Woman’ spoken of in chapter 12 of the Apocalypse. In Genesis chapter 3 we read: God speaking to the serpent says, ‘I will put enmity between thee and the Woman, between thy seed and Her seed, and you shall lie in wait and she shall crush thy head with Her heel.’ ‘She Shall Crush Thy Head’ St. Jerome, who died about 430 A.D., is still the greatest Biblical scholar. He translated the Bible from the original, inspired Greek and Hebrew text into Latin—into the version which today is called the Vulgate. It is the Council of Trent that teaches there is no doctrinal error in the Vulgate. St. Jerome, unlike any biblical scholar today, had original texts in Hebrew. One of the early fathers of the Holy Ghost Fathers was a Jewish convert and his father was a rabbi. He points out that the rabbis had changed the scriptures of the Old Testament…about a hundred or two hundred years after the death of Christ, [the Jewish scribes] changed the scripture texts because it became more and more evident that the prophecies could only mean that Jesus of Nazareth is the Messiah. Jesus is the Christ.

And therefore, to maintain their hold on their people, the Jewish scribes changed the text themselves. This is a convert from Judaism whose father was a rabbi, saying this. St. Jerome didn’t have the poisoned texts, and he had access besides that to texts that are no longer available, they are just wiped out with time. And St. Jerome translated that passage, by saying, ‘She shall crush thy head,’ meaning the Woman will crush. And so when ^{Our Lady of Fatima says, ‘Only I can help you,’ in a certain sense, not even God can help us, ‘but only I.’ Does that sound almost blasphemous, and certainly to Protestants it will sound like it…}”12

Considering the other Catholic Bibles consulted above, we should wonder why the Vatican would resort to the poisoned texts, which reads He and His.

The Ancient Rabbis Affirm that the Seed is Indeed the Messiah:
In the Targum Pseudo Jonathan, while responsibility is placed on God’s people to keep his commandments, we also learn that the defeat of the serpent will take place when the Messiah comes. In this quote God is speaking to satan-the serpent:

And it shall be that when the sons of the woman study the Torah diligently and obey its injunctions, they will direct themselves to smite you on the head and slay you; but when the sons of the woman forsake the commandments of the Torah and do not obey its injunctions, you will direct yourself to bite them on the heel and afflict them. However, there will be a remedy for the sons of the woman, but for you, serpent, there will be no remedy. They shall make peace with one another in the end, in the very end of days, in the days of the King Messiah.13

Targum Onkelos, “This is that Seed that is coming from another place, and who is this? This is the King Messiah.”

Pesikta Rabbati, p. 161a, and; Yalkut on Isaiah 60:

Satan said before the Holy One, blessed be He, ‘Master of the World! The light which is hidden under your throne of Glory, for whom is it?’ He said to him, ‘For him who will turn you back and disgrace you, and shame your face.’ He [Satan] said to him, ‘Master of the World! Show him to me.’ He said to him, ‘Come and see him.’ When Satan saw the Messiah, he trembled and fell upon his face and said, ‘Surely this is the Messiah who in the future will cast me and all the princes of the nations of the world into Gehenna.’14

Midrash Rabbah-Genesis XX:5, “R. Levi said: In the Messianic age all will be healed(1) save the serpent.”
Footnote: (1) I.e. freed of their disabilities.

Midrash Rabbah-Genesis XXIII:5, “AND SHE CALLED HIS NAME SETH: FOR GOD HATH APPOINTED ME ANOTHER SEED, etc. R. Tanhuma said in the name of Samuel Kozith(1): [She hinted at] that seed which would arise from another source(2), viz. The king Messiah.”
Footnotes: (1) The meaning of the word is doubtful; ‘Ar. Treats it as a surname, and it is so translated here. (2) I.e. not from Jewish stock, Messiah being descended from Ruth the Moabites; v. infra, LI, 8.

Midrash Rabbah-Ruth VIII:1, “^{R. Huna said: It is written For God hath appointed me another seed (Gen. IV, 25), that is, seed from another place, referring to the Messiah} [V. Gen. R. XXIII, 5; LI, 8].”

Midrash Rabbah-Ruth VII:15, “R. Tanhuma said in the name of R. Samuel: Elsewhere it is written, That we may preserve seed of our father (Gen. XIX, 32). It is not written ‘son’, but ‘seed’; that seed which comes from another place. Who is thus referred to? The Messiah [Descendant through Ruth of Moab, of whose incestuous birth the verse speaks].”

Rabbi David Kimchi (1160 – 1235), “As thou wentest forth for the salvation of thy people by the hands of Meshiah, the Son of David, who shall wound satan, who is the head, the king and prince of the house of the wicked.”

Gentile scholar Risto Santala commenting on rabbinic writings:

But who is this ‘seed of the woman’? Why is the personal pronoun hû, ‘he,’ used of it? Is ‘seed’ to be considered a singular or a collective noun? The Targum certainly associates ‘him’ with the Messiah King. But does the ‘seed’ concept have Messianic implications in other contexts too? Indeed it does: the Rabbis discuss this very issue at great length. In Gen. 4:25 we read (in the Hebrew and in the AV): ‘God has granted me another seed in place of Abel.’
^{Rabbi Tanhuma—of whom it was said that he was ‘the seal of the Midrashim’—mentions that ‘here we are dealing with another seed who is from another place. And who is he? He is the Messiah-King.’} [Bereshit Rabbah 23] Rabbi Huna says that ‘God prepared another seed from another place, and he is the Messiah-King.’ [Ruth Rabbah 8]15

Again Risto Santala:

This method [gematria] is founded upon the statement in the Wisdom of Solomon 11:22 that, ‘God has prepared everything according to measure, number, and weight.’ But what did the sages find out about the ‘Shilo’ idea with the help of their gematria? The numeric value of ‘Shilo will come,’ yavô shilôh, is 358, which corresponds exactly to that of mashiah, ‘Messiah.’ The gematria value of nahash, ‘snake,’ is also 358.
Gottlieb Klein wrote that in terms of the Jewish mystical Qabbalah this meant that ‘the Messiah is to crush the head of the serpent.’ Such observations have no scientific basis, but they illustrate the Rabbis’ understanding that the Messiah will overthrow the corruption of sin. This same expectation is reflected in 1 John 3:8, ‘The reason the Son of God appeared was to destray the works of the devil.’16

Since St. Jerome died around 430 AD and the Jewish scribes allegedly changed the scripture about 100 or 200 AD, he must have used the poisoned texts.
What we are not told by Fr. Gruner is what was changed. If the original text said, “She shall crush thy head” why would the scribes change it to “He shall crush thy head,” which would be a clearer indication of Jesus? And if the original text said, “He shall crush thy head” and the scribes change it to “She shall crush thy head” why are we told that She is the original reading? Jerome’s Vulgate is the one Bible known to us that translated the verse as she and her. It is interesting to note that Catholic Answers, a Catholic apologetics ministry, stated on their radio show that it is thought that the original Vulgate did not translate the verse in this incorrect manner but that it was later inserted into the Vulgate.17

Further, we are told that St. Jerome “unlike any biblical scholar today, had original texts in Hebrew.” In reality the original Hebrew texts were not available to St. Jerome, having disintegrated centuries before, he had copies as we do today.

For the Old Testament we have the Masoretic Text which dates to circa 800 to 1,000 AD and which is accepted as standard in traditional Judaism. We have the Dead Sea Scrolls that date to the time of Jesus and which were not found until 1947 AD. In addition we have the Septuagint, which is a Greek translation from the Hebrew text. Although we do not have the Hebrew text from which the Septuagint was translated, we do have the translated Greek text. This is very important in defending against Fr. Gruner’s charge that Jewish scribes corrupted their own scripture (or the Jewish charge that Christians corrupted Jewish scripture).
Note that the Encyclopedia Judaica 14:1178 states, “it can be inferred that the Pentateuch was translated into Greek in Alexandria during the first half of the third century B.C.E. The designation Septuagint was extended to the rest of the Bible and the non-canonical books that were translated into Greek during the following two centuries.”
This is well before Christianity, before the time in which both sides made allegations of purposeful corruption. The oldest manuscript for the Septuagint dates from circa 400 AD, although it is quoted extensively in the New Testament whose manuscripts date from centuries earlier. We find that the Septuagint renders Genesis 3:15 as, “I will put enmity between thee and the woman; and between thy seed and her seed. He will wound thy head, and thou wilt wound his heel.”18
Thus, we see that even if it is true that St. Jerome had manuscripts that we today do not have, we today have manuscripts such as the Dead Sea Scrolls that he did not have.

It is sad that people think that a person’s background is viable as credentials, such as this statement by Fr. Gruner, “One of the early fathers of the Holy Ghost Fathers was a Jewish convert and his father was a rabbi” and repeated to make the point “This is a convert from Judaism whose father was a rabbi, saying this.” The fact that a Jewish convert said it and that he is a son of a rabbi is absolutely meaningless in light of the facts. In fact some Jewish converts were personally responsible for giving rise to anti-Semitic attitudes within the church. Such was the case with Jewish converts who disclosed the places in the Talmud and other Rabbinic writings in which Jesus was referred to in a derogatory manner, which caused persecution, forced censorship and destruction of Rabbinic writings.

^{And so what is the point in the issue of he/his or she/her? The point is that mere men give Mary power and exaltation that is not rightly hers}. Fr. Gruner states that “when Our Lady of Fatima says, ‘Only I can help you,’ in a certain sense, not even God can help us, ‘but only I.’ Does that sound almost blasphemous, and certainly to Protestants it will sound like it.”
It is very sad that he attempts to drive a wedge between Protestants and Catholics, when in truth not just Protestants but all and any monotheist would and should consider such statements as blatant blasphemy, whether Jewish, Christian, Muslim, etc. In order to believe that a mere human being (however blessed) can do something, anything, which God cannot do is to abandon monotheism, it is to abandon the doctrine of the omnipotence of God. It is to bestow upon the creature more sovereignty than that of the creator; it is idolatry. Indeed, to believe that that most blessed woman, Mary, defeated satan, that she crushed the serpent’s head, is not just a matter of the corruption of one word it is a teaching that goes against the Judeo-Christian scriptures and against Rabbinic writings. Scripture teaches us, “the God of peace will quickly crush Satan under your feet. The grace of our Lord Jesus be with you” (1st John 3:8 & Romans 16:20).

Alternate Readings: The following Bibles also read he and his for Genesis 3:15,

The Septuagint, The Living Bible-Paraphrased, Genesis-Translated and Commentary by Robert Alter, The Holy Bible an American Translation, The Living Bible, Authorized King James Version, New King James Version, Revised Standard Version, New Revised Standard Version, The Answer-New Century Version, The Revised Berkeley Version in Modern English, New International Version, Holy Bible Contemporary English Version, New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures, The Book, Complete Jewish Bible, Robert Young’s Literal Translation, J.N. Darby Translation, American Standard Version, Hebrew Names Version.

The alternative readings are as follows,
The Torah-The Five Books of Moses-A New Translation of the Holy Scripture According to the Traditional (Masoretic) Hebrew Text has “offspring” instead of “seed” and “they-their” instead of “he-his.” The Bible in Living English has “issue” instead of “seed” and “it-its” instead of “he-his.” New English Bible has “brood” instead of “seed” and “they-their” instead of “he-his.” Good News Bible Today’s English Version has “offspring” instead of “seed” and “her offspring-their” instead of “he-his” the footnote on the word “their” states, “their; or his.” Noah Webster Version has “it-his” instead of “he-his.”