waltmoreno

Big whoop! You’ve got lots of books.
As a patent holding former research chemist turned lawyer I’ve read lots of books too. Including many treatises and textbooks on quantum mechanics, advanced math, physics, etc.
But as an attorney who regularly tries cases in front of juries, I just don’t find your version convincing.
However as red blooded male I can certainly understand the temptation of forbidden sex. Not so much for not eating a certain type of fruit. No temptation there.
In fact, understanding it as forbidden sex gave me a whole new appreciation for the problems it’s caused mankind through history. Starting with Adam and Eve, through Abraham, Isaac, King David right through today.
The same can hardly be said about the temptation of fruit. Yawn.
Your attempt to gloss over the very words of Jesus accusing the Pharisees of being of their father the devil also don’t persuade. It’s just not satisfying. Zzzzzzz.
This coming from someone in the business of persuading others and weighing the persuasiveness of various arguments.

Rose42

Arnold Murray's words are not convincing. In the many centuries that the bible has been written it has been analyzed and scrutinized like no other book. Why is it then that he believes he has special insight that biblical scholars never had?

waltmoreno

I’m well aware of his detractors. I nevertheless am drawn to his ministry, especially since he’s able to tie it in with other books, chapter and verse to make a convincing whole.
I find the argument that the forbidden fruit was sex with Satan very convincing. And I gain insight by relating it to history. Besides biblical icons I mentioned earlier, like Adam and Eve, Abraham, Isaac, King David, there’s more recently Henry VIII, JFK, Clinton, Swarzeneggar, etc., etc. right down to Trump, and countless others have likewise fallen to this temptation.
If you ask how many people have been unable to resist the temptation of a fruit, NOBODY will be able to relate. Answer: None, zip, nada. More likely the response will be ‘What are you talking about?’
But more to the point, the very words of Jesus confirm Murray’s interpretation, that Cain was Satan’s son.
Brushing away the words of Jesus shouldn’t be done as Zemiah (or whatever his name is) does. After all, who other than Cain was a murderer from the start? Not Satan, as Zemiah says, because Satan served God for eons until he became prideful. So Satan wasn’t a murderer from the start.
Zemiah is even wrong there too.

Rose42

I've never heard of the guy before but I had heard of the serpent seed doctrine and briefly looked into it. His detractors go back centuries and early on it was denounced as heresy. They didn't know him but they didn't share his opinion. Not a one. Not the Protestant scholars and not the Catholic scholars. Only the odd preacher here and there. Its origins are from one of the gnostic gospels which are not part of the bible.

He doesn't tie it in to other verses. On this forum I've seen someone put up a bunch of verses claiming they prove Christians can stop sinning. To see that this isn't true takes looking at the verses in context. There is a website devoted to showing God and the bible are evil and they list verses as well believing they are proving something.

In all the scholarly study over the centuries why did no one see this? Because it isn't true. If Satan had any offspring they would be superhuman. No one from that purported line was.



I can easily relate. Who can't? If you're told something is off limits how many people don't try and test that, sneak a peek, touch it, whatever? For example, leaving anything unsecured with a warning - don't take it. Guess how long that will work. Or telling a child not to touch something. That won't work for long either.




Jesus's words in no way confirm Murray's interpretation. The first sin was eating the fruit. That original sin lead to a change in Adam and Eve's nature which was passed on to Cain and Abel and all of us. They had the choice to sin or not - just as Satan chose to become prideful.

No one is brushing away the words of Jesus but there is no hidden meaning there that everyone else has missed either.

waltmoreno

Then please explain convincingly what Jesus meant in John 8:44, when he told the Pharisees, ‘You are of your father the devil. He was a murderer from the beginning.’
BTW, Satan wasn’t a murderer from the beginning. He served God for eons. But Cain was.

Rose42

No, Cain wasn't a murderer until he made the choice to be one. Satan killed Adam and Eve's spiritual life in the beginning and in effect murdered them by giving them a physical death sentence. The beginning is when Adam and Eve were created. Genesis 1:1 - "In the beginning...."

Strong's translation of πατήρ used in John 8:44 -

2. metaphorically;

a. the originator and transmitter of anything: πατήρ περιτομῆς, Romans 4:12; the author of a family or society of persons animated by the same spirit as himself: so πατήρ πάντων τῶν πιστευόντων, Romans 4:11, cf. Romans 4:12, 16 (1 Macc. 2:54); one who has infused his own spirit into others, who actuates and governs their minds, John 8:38, 41f, 44; the phrase ἐκ πατρός τίνος εἶναι is used of one who shows himself as like another in spirit and purpose as though he had inherited his nature from him, John 8:44.

waltmoreno

You are brushing away he very words of Jesus when you disregard his statement that their father was a murderer from the beginning. Who was a murderer from the beginning?

And as for your response to people being able to resist the temptation of eating a fruit, ya gotta be kidding me.

"I can easily relate. Who can't? If you're told something is off limits how many people don't try and test that, sneak a peek, touch it, whatever? For example, leaving anything unsecured with a warning - don't take it. Guess how long that will work. Or telling a child not to touch something. That won't work for long either."

Maybe if you're an immature, undisciplined child you may be able to relate to your argument. But to an audience of mature adults, who can relate to putting off gratifications such an impotent argument is entirely unsatisfying. And to hinge the entire salvation of the human race on it does not satisfy at all.
Mature man has a hormone driven urge to procreate. Entirely unrelated to prohibitions against illicit sex. And illicit sex and man's sex drive has caused countless problems throughout history.

Lastly you say that man sinned by disobeying God and eating the fruit. Precisely! But what exactly did that involve? THAT's the issue! And you're not gonna convince me that it involved eating fruit.

waltmoreno

Cain was resentful from the beginning, because his offerings weren't accepted by God as Abel's were. Cain's resentment boiled over to the point where he murdered his twin brother Abel.

I maintain Cain was a murderer from the start. And HE is the only person who fills the description of Jesus when he said, "He was a murdered from the beginning."

Who do you believe Jesus was talking about when He said those words?

Zemirah Loc: Sojourner En Route...

By God's Command, All Living Things Reproduce Only "After Their Own Kind"

Eve and Satan could not procreate, nor could Eve and a serpent "possessed" by Satan, who is a spirit, and does not possess human semen.

Cain was the son of Adam.

No lesson is more manifest in nature than that all living things do as the Lord commanded in the Creation. They reproduce "after their own kind." (Genesis 2:12, 24.) They follow the pattern of their parentage. . . . A bird will not become an animal nor a fish. A mammal will not beget reptiles, nor "do men gather . . . figs of thistles" ( Matthew 7:16 ).


Genesis 1:24 "Of fowls after their kind, and of cattle after their kind, of every creeping thing of the earth after his kind, two of every sort shall come unto thee, to keep them alive"

1:25 " And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creeps on the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good

Genesis 7:13: "On that very day Noah entered the ark, along with his sons Shem, Ham, and Japheth, and his wife, and the three wives of his sons—
14: they and every kind of wild animal, livestock, crawling creature, bird, and winged creature.
15: They came to Noah to enter the ark, two by two of every creature with the breath of life.…

[The third day of creation] is the day when the decree went forth that grass, herbs, and trees could each grow only from "its own seed," and that each could in turn bring forth only after its own "kind." And thus the bounds of the plant and vegetable kingdoms were set by the hands of those by whom each varied plant and tree was made.

[On the fifth day of creation] came fish and fowl and "every living creature" whose abode is "the waters." Their Creators placed them on the newly organized earth, and they were given the command: "Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the sea; and let fowl multiply in the earth." This command—as with a similar decree given to man and applicable to all animal life—they could not then keep, but they soon would be able to do so. Appended to this command to multiply was the heaven-sent restriction that the creatures in the waters could only bring forth "after their kind," and that "every winged fowl" could only bring forth "after his kind." God made no provision for evolvement or change from one species to another.

[On the sixth day of creation] the great Creators "made the beasts of the earth after their kind, and cattle after their kind, and everything which creepeth upon the earth after his kind." And the same procreative restrictions applied to them that apply to all forms of life; they too are to reproduce only after their kind."

waltmoreno

I guess with all your books and all your reading, you’ve never heard of the nephilim, Sons of God who married daughters of man. Yet
those different entities, produced a third being. It’s well documented in the Bible. That’s why God flooded the Earth in Noah’s time. To eliminate the nephilim.

Same question I’ve been posing to other OPP naysayers. Who exactly was Jesus referring to when he told the Pharisees in John 8:44, ‘you are of your father the devil. He was a murderer from the beginning?’
And don’t say Satan. He wasn’t a murderer from the beginning. He served for eons until he became prideful.
But Cain was. He was resentful of Able’s sacrifices because God accepted them. His resentment boiled over until he killed Abel.

Canuckus Deploracus Loc: North of the wall

Hi Walt..

I find it useful to look at entire verses, rather then picked lines...

John 8:44
Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.

The pronouns used above clearly are in reference to the subject determined in the first sentence....The devil...

From the beginning would be a reference to Genesis...

The term father is a synonym for master.. Just as we often refer to our Lord as Father... (we are of course diligent to capitalize the "F" so as to show respect)...

And I believe there is only one entity in the Bible deemed "the father of lies"... Wasn't Cain...

This is just my understanding of the verse...

I find this thread very interesting

eagleye13 Loc: Fl

ztmeria; IMO
you need to do more studtind.
Walt and I are trying to open your mind. We have given you good sources.
Take it or leaver it. Your choice.

waltmoreno

Thanks for this view Canuckus. Just another view to contemplate.
I agree. Cain wouldn't accurately be called the father of lies. And Satan would.
But then Satan wasn't a murderer from the beginning.
Soooooo, I'm gonna have to put this in my pipe and ponder it.
BTW, where's eagleye13? He's the one who started this thread. He may know. I've been carrying his water since he started it.
But since he's an Arnold Murray fan, he likely thinks Jesus was talking bout Cain.

eagleye13 Loc: Fl

Jesus was speaking of and to the Pharisees also. The Essau/Edomite/Cainite blood connection.

Rose42

You are free to accept false teaching. Murray’s serpent seed interpretation has been soundly refuted by a lot of people. The bible itself does that. Murray has some other odd interpretations some pretty bizarre such as the Jews in Israel are descendants of Cain and the British, Americans and Canadians are the descendents of the tribes of Israel.

I also know a few people who claim what you do about the Nephilim. But scripture doesn’t back them up. They draw on outside sources too.

What hasn’t been answered still are why biblical scholars over the centuries overlooked this if its so obvious? The most examined book in history and only a few men had special insight?

I know you’re sure you’re right. But so are those who think Jesus wants you to be rich and those who think they have stopped sinning. They also think they can support their stances with various verses but it is spiritual discernment that leads one to the truth.