Fulfillment of Prophecy in the New Testament

[CG Didymus]

The son of the person you think is a manifestation - said that his father was Kalki - this displays utter arrogance and ignorance (Source) - he probably knew the name "Kalki" and hastily added it to the other outlandish claims about being the messiah of all religions without even bothering to read up on him in the Bhaveshya Purana - utter garbage IMO - did he not know that Kalki is not prophesied to appear for about another 400K years and will have a sword with which to smite his enemies - did Baha'u'llah come even remotely close? not so again IMO - all he could do was ineffectually curse those who did not heed him - further proof to me that he did not know what he was talking about and all this is a part of self aggrandizment and self promotion

How can you worship and follow a charlatan and a narcissist is beyond me

I've seen how Baha'is turn the hundreds of thousands of years of the Kaliyuga into having already ended, but I couldn't find it. I did find this at a Baha'i site...

Hindus are awaiting the coming of the Kalki Avatar at the end of this present age, Kali Yuga. Baha'is believe that we are already at this time. We are at the end of the Kali Yuga and Baha'u'llah is the Kalki Avatar. This age in which we live is an age of the decline of righteousness. And, as promised in the Bhagavad Gita, the Lord has manifested Himself again, this time with the name Baha'u'llah. This name means `the Glory of Bhagwan' or `the Splendour of Ishvara'. The coming of Baha'u'llah is therefore the start of the Sat or Krta Yuga (Golden Age). It is the time when people will return to righteousness and the world will be at peace.

Some Baha'i scholars have even demonstrated that the prophecies in the Manu Srmiti and other books indicate the exact date of the end of the Kali Yuga and the coming of the Kalki Avatar. This date, 1844, is also the year of the beginning of the Baha'i Faith (see Chapter 8).(9)

Therefore Baha'is believe that, faithful to the promises and prophesies recorded in the Hindu holy books, the Lord has now manifested Himself again in the form of the Kalki Avatar. Baha'is believe that this is Baha'u'llah. The purpose of Baha'u'llah's coming is to fulfil the prophecies in the Hindu scriptures and to give us the teachings that will bring in the new Sat or Krta Yuga (Golden Age).​

 

[CG Didymus]

What I sort of knew, but now believe is that Judaism can stand alone. It doesn't need another religion to "fulfill" it. Christianity doesn't either, but it takes some of Judaism and creates something new. So it essentially replaces Judaism and makes some beliefs and practices of Judaism obsolete. Like most of the Law.

A Baha'i sees that scripture given by the Messenger is not wrong. The question to ask ones own self, is what scriptures can be 100% confirmed to be have given by a Messenger 3500 years ago, 2000 years ago or 1500 years ago, when there is no records that they themselves have written? Thus there is a good possibility that a lot of the ancient scriptures are more like Islamic Hadith, which is what is written by people, to say this is what the Messenger said. Some may be right, some may be wrong, some may be a mixture.

Considering that Baha'i choose what they like and what "fits" from other religions and announce that the rest is wrong, or relevant only for a certain period of time (thus ignoring the many phrases of eternity), I assume that the average Baha'i would tell you that your prophecy of the 400k years is wrong...

Some may be right. Yes, the things that the Baha'i prophet says are correct. Some might be wrong. Yes, the Baha'i prophet says Ishmael, not Isaac, was the son taken by Abraham to be sacrificed. Some might be a mixture. Yes, Jesus rose from the dead... symbolically. Jesus is the Jewish Messiah... and so is Muhammad, The Bab and Baha'u'llah. It's amazing how they all find verses in the Jewish Bible to "prove" that their prophet is true and from God.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

It's amazing how they all find verses in the Jewish Bible to "prove" that their prophet is true and from God

The timing and the way the Messages were given by the Bab and Baha'u'llah, will fulfill the prophecy, or it will not.

That is plain and simple. It can also be calculated mathematically to give a probability factor.

Regards Tony

 

[CG Didymus]

United we stand divided we fall.

I see No Faith is about standing alone.

Regards Tony

We can unite under one new religion... yours. Or, we can all unite and respect all people no matter what their religion. Which is where we seem to be heading. But it's secular laws that are pushing us towards that... secular laws are keeping any one religion from taking control. And, it is secular laws that is allowing the different religions to "stand" alone and practice their religion the way they want to. Since Baha'is believe all the major religions were part of a progressive revelation from God, then that means your religion should have the newest and best information from God. Does God new information want people to keep believing and practicing their old religions, or to change and recognize that the Baha'i message is the next step and the fulfillment of theirs?

 

[Trailblazer]

The timing and the way the Messages were given by the Bab and Baha'u'llah, will fulfill the prophecy, or it will not.

They will.

 

[CG Didymus]

Maybe, but also it could be that the 2 are telling the truth and one saw them go at one time and the other saw them go when the returned later and left in the other direction. True witnesses fit together like this.

It's fine. I understand that those apparent contradictions are of only minor concern to Christians. So, it's no big deal. It's just that some witnesses do lie. Some don't get the facts straight. And some embellish the story. So some of us look at those and also at apparent out of context prophecies and question the validity of the NT.

 

[CG Didymus]

Thus what does the OT say of a Jew that rejects a Covenant! From that advice we all have a lesson to learn.

The Baha'i Faith has Scripture written by the prophet. It has things in place to prevent it from getting divided into lots of different sects. But, even Baha'is say the things that the early Christians did led to false traditions and beliefs to creep in. So, I usually us the Inquisition to illustrate this, Christians had Jews in prison and were torturing them. Some Jews converted. Some were tortured to death and never gave in. This "new covenant" included beliefs that Satan is real, that people are born sinful and can't redeem themselves, that they need to believe in Jesus to have their sins forgiven, and, just a little thing, Jesus is God... a part of a Trinity.

So which "covenant" should these Jews follow and which one should they reject? What would you do as a Baha'i? What have some Baha'is already done when asked to renounce their faith and follow a different religion? It's a little different for the Baha'i, because they believe in a new religion, or "covenant." But for those Jews, the new covenant was not a true one and I think even you as a Baha'is would reject that "covenant" that was being offered.

 

[Riders]

There's no way to prove that any prophecy of the old testament about Jesus was fulfilled because New Testament writers could have just made up all the facts.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

We can unite under one new religion... yours. Or, we can all unite and respect all people no matter what their religion. Which is where we seem to be heading. But it's secular laws that are pushing us towards that... secular laws are keeping any one religion from taking control. And, it is secular laws that is allowing the different religions to "stand" alone and practice their religion the way they want to. Since Baha'is believe all the major religions were part of a progressive revelation from God, then that means your religion should have the newest and best information from God. Does God new information want people to keep believing and practicing their old religions, or to change and recognize that the Baha'i message is the next step and the fulfillment of theirs?

I see most people want to practice the religion as God wants them to do. The quandary is what is that?

As such, time will tell what is God's Will and what was our will.

Those that practice without God, they also face the choices to which we all have.

Regards Tony

 

[TransmutingSoul]

We can unite under one new religion... yours. Or, we can all unite and respect all people no matter what their religion. Which is where we seem to be heading. But it's secular laws that are pushing us towards that... secular laws are keeping any one religion from taking control. And, it is secular laws that is allowing the different religions to "stand" alone and practice their religion the way they want to. Since Baha'is believe all the major religions were part of a progressive revelation from God, then that means your religion should have the newest and best information from God. Does God new information want people to keep believing and practicing their old religions, or to change and recognize that the Baha'i message is the next step and the fulfillment of theirs?

I see a time soon when the Governments of the world will come together to build the Lesser Peace, which will be a unity in diversity.

Lots to happen yet CG. Shoghi Effendi has given quite a lot of detail and we now watch that detail unfold, quite amazing to those that have studied what was written.

To those that have not, it may be of concern to them what is happening, they have a right to be concerned, but what will they do about it. Bahai are building strong community foundations to help what will need to be done.

Why? As you have said, no one is listening to what is offered in the Baha'i Writings and such is the quandary of Faith and life.

Regards Tony

 

[Brian2]

To which I see we can add Muhammad, the Bab and Baha'u'llah to the OT line of Messengers.

I personally see that a Jew is one that Embraces the Covenant and the Laws of each Messenger and in that way we become a Jew of the first Covenant, of all the Covenants and on to the Last Covenant.

Baha'u'llah has offered we can Include all God's Messengers and to reject One is to reject them All.

Thus what does the OT say of a Jew that rejects a Covenant! From that advice we all have a lesson to learn.

That Baha'i teaching would mean that a person would have to believe multiple contradictory teachings at the same time.
Baha'i tells us that Baha'u'llah is the last Messenger and the one who is the most up to date and correct about what God wants now and that he also can tell us what God really meant in the past (as opposed to what the religions say the teachings of their leader/founder are).
So it seems that Baha'i is saying that we should accept all the Messengers but believe only Baha'u'llah's teachings as being fully correct.

 

[Brian2]

It's fine. I understand that those apparent contradictions are of only minor concern to Christians. So, it's no big deal. It's just that some witnesses do lie. Some don't get the facts straight. And some embellish the story. So some of us look at those and also at apparent out of context prophecies and question the validity of the NT.

They all get the basic story the same, whether we are or are not concerned about the incidentals that seem different in the gospel accounts.
Throwing the baby out with the bath water when we think that the bath water is getting a little cloudy................

 

[Brian2]

There's no way to prove that any prophecy of the old testament about Jesus was fulfilled because New Testament writers could have just made up all the facts.

It's not a matter of proof, it's a matter of belief that goes beyond the evidence that we have.
Do you want proof?

 

[Trailblazer]

So it seems that Baha'i is saying that we should accept all the Messengers but believe only Baha'u'llah's teachings as being fully correct.

No, not exactly, only in the sense that we have the Original Writings of Baha'u'llah penned in His own hand, so we know exactly what He wrote; and also in the sense that His message of the unity of mankind as well as His social teachings and laws are pertinent thus what is needed in this new age.

“The All-Knowing Physician hath His finger on the pulse of mankind. He perceiveth the disease, and prescribeth, in His unerring wisdom, the remedy. Every age hath its own problem, and every soul its particular aspiration. The remedy the world needeth in its present-day afflictions can never be the same as that which a subsequent age may require. Be anxiously concerned with the needs of the age ye live in, and center your deliberations on its exigencies and requirements.

We can well perceive how the whole human race is encompassed with great, with incalculable afflictions. We see it languishing on its bed of sickness, sore-tried and disillusioned. They that are intoxicated by self-conceit have interposed themselves between it and the Divine and infallible Physician. Witness how they have entangled all men, themselves included, in the mesh of their devices. They can neither discover the cause of the disease, nor have they any knowledge of the remedy. They have conceived the straight to be crooked, and have imagined their friend an enemy.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 213

However, the spiritual teachings of all all the previous Messengers are just as valid as they ever were.
As Jesus said: Matthew 24:35 “Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.”

This is obviously a very big subject, but I'd be happy to explain it in more detail of you are interested.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

That Baha'i teaching would mean that a person would have to believe multiple contradictory teachings at the same time.
Baha'i tells us that Baha'u'llah is the last Messenger and the one who is the most up to date and correct about what God wants now and that he also can tell us what God really meant in the past (as opposed to what the religions say the teachings of their leader/founder are).
So it seems that Baha'i is saying that we should accept all the Messengers but believe only Baha'u'llah's teachings as being fully correct.

By accepting Jesus one does not discard the Old Testament, one sees it with a new frame of reference. It is the same as accepting all the New Covenants, the Old is fulfilled, the spiritual teachings made more clear.

"The path to guidance is one of love and compassion, not of force and coercion. This hath been God’s method in the past, and shall continue to be in the future!"

Persian Bayán, Selections from the Writings of the Báb

Quotations from the Báb | What Bahá’ís Believe

Regards Tony

 

[Samael_Khan]

Prophets had different roles in the OT around conveying God's word and sometimes it involved predicting the future. Prophesying the future means the same in English as in Hebrew. Prophecy is for different purposes and some prophecy is so that we first see an event and then realise that God had prophesied it and knew it all along even though the exact nature of the event may not have been know before the event. (I'll give Ps 22 as an example)

The problem with the last point is that it equally applies to anybody who wishes to claim that certain verse prophecy them, whether right or wrong. That is problematic and therefore if it was the original intent of the OT author, then it is incompetent.

The synoptic gospels were written 20 to 40 years after Jesus in traditional dating. Luke wrote his gospel in the 50s probably and he says that others before him had also attempted to write about Jesus.
Some typology is not true however and comes from a good imagination. And of course Judaism seems to think that all Christian typology is of that type.
With Christian typology I think it does help to know the story of Jesus however and whom He is said to be etc.

The problem here is how one determines what typology stems from good imagination or not? One certainly cannot say something like "because Jesus and Paul said so" because that is circular reasoning. One has to be able to determine such without their input to determine whether it is just their imagination.

Which can happen, or some study out of interest etc.

True.

 

[Brian2]

I think you misunderstand -- the fact that in one case, an interpretation has God speaking to him as a representative of the people does not change who he was, nor does it mean that every instance of referring to the nation means it refers to him. A knowledge of the grammar of the text would be more helpful in seeing the different subjects here. Trying to inject an outside character into this because you think it "fits better" makes no sense. The text, as it refers to the nation and to the speaker already makes sense. The nation is the one who, according to foreign kings, is paying for foreign sins and who is despised. As there is no mention of a messiah in this text, saying that the discussion fits a messiah better seems quite the stretch. The plain meaning is laid out in the various verses. There are quotes, direct addresses, asides etc. The Hebrew makes this pkain.

The grammar of the text should be able to be seen in the translations, but I guess the full grammar possibilities is not always shown in translations.
By pointing to Jesus as a possible for the servant here is not really "injecting an outsider". It has already been admitted that the Isa 49 passage can refer to a single Israelite, which Jesus is. If we can see the passage as not appropriate for Isaiah and for the nation of Israel as a whole AND if we can see a Messianic application in the passage then Jesus is really an appropriate possibility for the servant.
The nation is not appropriate because the servant was to restore and bring Jacob back.
Isaiah is not appropriate because his role was not to restore or bring Jacob back, his role is set out in Isa 6 and is anything but what the servant of Isa 49 is given to do. Bible Gateway passage: Isaiah 6 - English Standard Version
When it comes to seeing the passage as Messianic then all we need do is to ask what is something the Messiah will do. The Messiah restores Jacob and brings Israel back to God. Verse 7 also says this person is chosen by God.
So now we have established a one person for the servant and that the passage can be Messianic.
In verse 6 we then see a role for the Messiah as being to be a light for the gentiles and bring salvation to them.
If we look at Isa 49:7 we can see that the servant in Isa 49 has links with Isa Isa 52:13-Isa 53:12. In both the one spoken of is despised and abhorred but Kings recognise Him for who He is.

Actually, you have no proof of any of this. You have the text of a document which justifies its own beliefs. Harry Potter provides similar "true" testimony to the existence of Harry Potter, and if you believe in Harry Potter then the book gives the proof of Ron Weasley's eyewitness account.

There are obvious differences between Harry Potter, a work of fiction and the witness from people who were there and who refer to people who were there. There is also difference in that what Jesus did is seen as fulfilment of OT prophecy. Even in Isa 53 we see someone who was killed and buried in the way Jesus was when He was assigned a grave with the wicked and with the rich in His death, but who lives on to see His children. (a reference to the resurrection imo).

No, it is the line of David. David is dead. And after him was Solomon, next in the Davidic dynasty. That the dynasty and thus the name of David continues and will rule is the statement, not that David is alive, or that any other in the line is immaterial - the false binary doesn't make sense. The messiah will rule, not as a type of David, but as a genetic heir.

Yes the Messiah will rule as a genetic heir, as Jesus is,,,,,,,,,,,,and Jesus is the seed/offspring of the woman (Gen 3:15) who crushes the head of satan. BUT the passages say that the one to rule is David. Whether you want to see David as a type of Jesus,,,,,,,,,,,,just as Israel in the OT is used in that way,,,,,,or not is probably immaterial. Passages that seem to be about David (literally) can refer to the Messiah and passages that seem to be about Israel also refer to the Messiah. (as in Isa 49).

Or, they didn't listen to those who believed Jesus had come back from the dead because they knew better. At least according to the book written to justify the belief system of those who needed to have Jesus come back from the dead.

Most Jews did not listen to those who believed and those who were witnesses. They did not believe that the Messiah, their King, would be rejected and killed by the Jews (Ps 89) and brought back from the dead to see His children (Isa 53).
Maybe Isaiah did a good job in His commission (Isa 6). This same characteristic is seen in other places in the OT and even in the NT.

 

[rosends]

By pointing to Jesus as a possible for the servant here is not really "injecting an outsider". It has already been admitted that the Isa 49 passage can refer to a single Israelite,

Well, a specific Israelite who is internal to the text, the speaker, Isaiah. Not a random other Israelite.

If we can see the passage as not appropriate for Isaiah and for the nation of Israel as a whole AND if we can see a Messianic application in the passage then Jesus is really an appropriate possibility for the servant.

But if, via the grammar, we can see that it IS appropriate for one or the other, then Jesus is not a possibility.

Isaiah is not appropriate because his role was not to restore or bring Jacob back,

Really? Because the text of 49 says otherwise. And the text of Isaiah 6 is the first phase in this, as the downfall has to be foretold before the return. As the Radak writes about the role delineated:
כי אף על פי שיגלו כולם לא תחשבו כי יכלו בגלות ולא ישובו לארצם כי עוד יפרחו ויצמחו וישובו לארצם
"For even though they will be exiled, don't think that they will cease in exile and never return to their land as they will once again flower and grow and return to their land" (my translation).

Both parts are elements of the mission of Isaiah. And both are found in the text. As the Ibn Ezra writes on 49:5 "God formed me, that I should rebuke Israel, till they returned to Him."

Thus there is no need to find an outside messianic figure as the text is very explicit about how it refers to Isaiah in this case.

If we look at Isa 49:7 we can see that the servant in Isa 49 has links with Isa Isa 52:13-Isa 53:12. In both the one spoken of is despised and abhorred but Kings recognise Him for who He is.

49:7 begins a new address "ko amar hashem" thus says God. And it speaks to the nation which is the subject, as servant, or the reports in 52 and 53. No need to read anyone else in.

There are obvious differences between Harry Potter, a work of fiction and the witness from people who were there and who refer to people who were there.

Ron Weasley was there. If you want an even more parallel case, read C.S. Lewis's "Out of the Silent Planet".

There is also difference in that what Jesus did is seen as fulfilment of OT prophecy.

This is not a subject for this thread but there are plenty of sites and pages which can explain that not only

1. did Jesus only "fulfill" anything by testimony of the self serving work
1a. he "fulfilled" things based on poor readings and misapplications of verses, some of which weren't even messianic and
2. he also didn't fulfill what he was supposed to to be the messiah

Even in Isa 53 we see someone who was killed and buried in the way Jesus was when He was assigned a grave with the wicked and with the rich in His death, but who lives on to see His children. (a reference to the resurrection imo).

The fifth verb in that verse, yir'eh ([he] will see) has as its subject God, not the servant (for confirmation, check the Abarbenel in his comments about the Malbim on the verse).

,and Jesus is the seed/offspring of the woman (Gen 3:15) who crushes the head of satan.

Since that woman is Eve, we ALL are.

Most Jews did not listen to those who believed and those who were witnesses. They did not believe that the Messiah, their King, would be rejected and killed by the Jews (Ps 89) and brought back from the dead to see His children (Isa 53).

They did not understand their own texts the way you choose to. If your position is that native speakers, closer to the event misunderstood something that you, thousands of years later get from a translation, then say so.

 

[Brian2]

A hidden prophecy is not a prophecy at all, unless there is some cryptic puzzle involved following a logical progression, and that puzzle would have been able to be solved before the event happened so that people could actually use it to predict something.

Some especially Messianic prophecies seem to have been written and not meant to be understood properly till the fulfilment came. With some other Messianic prophecies there is indeed a logical progression that can be understood and could have been understood by the Jews, but the paths of logic in some instances meant that they would have to think a bit differently than through the dogmas they had set up to think with. I think it would have been hard for them to see the full truth of the Messiah even if to those Jews who did accept Jesus, the meaning of the prophecies seemed easy enough to see.

And the believers viewpoint is based on belief and historians viewpoint is based on the limited evidence they have. So yes, not a fact. History is hardly ever a fact.

True I am biased, but I accept the internal evidence of the timing of the gospel writing and accept the traditions and internal evidence for the authorship. Modern historians use methods that are also biased however and they seem to reject the internal evidence and tradition (no matter how reliable) and make the assumption that the prophecy about the destruction of the temple had to have been written after the event, and then look for a time and place that they think might fit each gospel after that event.

I have seen a gospel writer claim that but not that anybody actually called him that. And just because the gospels claimed something, that does not mean that Isaiah's context agrees with it.

Isaiah's context of the Isaiah 9 prophecy being about a divine child who is the Messiah (rules on David's throne forever) can make the Isa 7 child a child of a virgin, which is legitimate if we accept that Almah is indeed used to refer to virgins at times in the OT.
But also the immediate context of the Isaiah prophecies can also point to a normal child and a differing translation and non literal understanding of Isa 9 can point to Hezekiah I guess, if one is desperate for a fulfilment. BUT there should always be a mind that can see the alternatives and see that the prophecies could be dual prophecies and the Jews should be ready to admit that. But Isaiah's commission (Isa 6) shows that God wanted that the Jews did not fully understand things. (That is a tough one to understand but God has His reasons)

That doesn't work because the dual meaning of the original word prevents it from being translated as "virgin".

I have heard that Almah can be translated as virgin, and has been used to refer to virgins. But of course the translation of "virgin" probably does not fit the context of the original prophecy of Isa 7, I think, and so that is why I see that original prophecy as giving a rough time span for events then, which would have happened as predicted if Ahaz had done as God wanted, to calm down and trust Him. A baby may have been born whose name was Immanuel etc. BUT the use of "virgin" would still only be referring to the literal understanding of the Messianich prophecy in Isa 9.
I hope you could follow that.

I was referring to your reasoning for interpreting something as symbolic, not necessary the validity of the symbolism itself in that response.

It's a bit far back and long ago for me to remember really. I guess the literal Isa 9 prophecy is Messianic and refers to a divine Messiah and Immanuel means God with us and sounds as if it could be about someone divine. The child of Isaiah was not Immanuel but fulfilled the time span meaning. God's words to Ahaz were that if he did not stand firm in his faith he would not stand at all. (Isa 7:9) and this is what happened. The child called Immanuel was to be given for a trusting Ahaz, but was not given at all because Ahaz did not stand firm in his faith.
I'm just guessing what I had meant.

Typology is fine as I have no problem with that, except as to how it is used. My only concern with typology is that it is too easy to read symbols into something, so the typology must be solid. Give a clear example as to something saying that it can be read as dual prophecy. If a prophecy wasn't literally fulfilled in every aspect there are a few reasons for this to be possible, such as the prophecy was bogus. Another question would be: what qualifies a prophecy as being bogus if any non fulfilled elements can be said to be applied to another

There are prophecies in the OT which have not yet been fulfilled and which are expected to be fulfilled eventually. Does that make the prophet a false prophet? I guess the prophet was seen as not false based on fulfilled prophecy originally but anything which should have been fulfilled long ago and has not been, probably would indicate a false prophet. The Jews seem to have original fulfilment or explanation of prophecies that have dual meaning.

You mentioned at the beginning of this statement that one can detect false prophetic fulfillment claims by:

"The errors there can usually be seen in other things that these people claim and how it contradicts the scriptures."

Then you went on to say about actual fulfilled prophecy:

"Even with the plain Messianic prophecies in the OT, to see they are about Jesus really needs one to believe first the story of Jesus"
" Once a Jew believes in Jesus the veil is lifted and they can see Him in the Hebrew scriptures,,,,,,,,,,,otherwise they see what they have been told is the only meaning of the prophecies."

The first point I am claiming about your interpretation and the Jews do the same.

Regarding the second point, that is a backwards way of doing things. One doesn't start believing and then analyse things from there because then anybody who believes something randomly will see what their beliefs say they will se. One must examine evidence first, including prophecy, and then believe whatever results from that. This points out a big problem, that the OT prophecies do not foretell Jesus as being the Messiah, otherwise everybody would see it. Hidden prophecy is just another name for "it isn't actually in the text, but we want it to be there".

Starting with the 2nd point, I should have said in needs one to know the story of Jesus first (not believe first).
With the 1st point, Jews do look at what Christians say and claim we understand things the wrong way and cannot be right, but as far as I can see we are just using alternative but legitimate understanding and translation of scriptures, but imo the Jews have so completely rejected the Christian understanding that it is true what the prophecy says that the Jews have cut Jesus/their king off from themselves in more ways than one. Judaism seems set in it's thinking about Christianity.

 

[Samael_Khan]

Since that woman is Eve, we ALL are.

Just to butt in here with this one. Genesis 3:15 mentions the woman's offspring who crushes the head of the serpent as ONE person, either by using "it" or "he". So it cannot apply to multiple people.

Genesis 3:15 And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her seed. He will crush your head, and you will strike his heel."