Crucifixion depiction wrong?

[RadioFan]

Image of Jesus' crucifixion may be wrong, says study

PARIS (AFP) - The image of the crucifixion, one of the most powerful emblems of Christianity, may be quite erroneous, according to a study which says there is no evidence to prove Jesus was crucified in this manner.

Around the world, in churches, on the walls of Christian homes, on crucifixes worn as pendants, in innumerable books, paintings and movies, Jesus Christ is seen nailed to the cross by his hands and feet, with his head upwards and arms outstretched.

But a paper published by Britain's prestigious Royal Society of Medicine (RSM) says this image has never been substantiated in fact.

Christ could have been crucified in any one of many ways, all of which would have affected the causes of his death, it says.

"The evidence available demonstrates that people were crucified in different postures and affixed to crosses using a variety of means," said one of the authors, Piers Mitchell of Imperial College London.

"Victims were not necessarily positioned head up and nailed through the feet from front to back, as is the imagery in Christian churches."

The authors do not express any doubt on the act of Jesus' crucifixion itself.

But they note that the few eyewitness descriptions available today of crucifixions in the 1st century AD show the Romans had a broad and cruel imagination.

Their crucifixion methods probably evolved over time and depended on the social status of the victim and on the crime he allegedly committed, says the paper in April's issue of the RSM journal.

The cross could be erected "in any one of a range of orientations", with the victim sometimes head-up, sometimes head-down or in different postures.

Sometimes he was nailed to the cross by his genitals, sometimes the hands and feet were attached to the side of the cross and not the front, or affixed with cords rather than nails.

"If crucified head-up, the victim's weight may also have been supported on a small seat. This was believed to prolong the time it took a man to die," says the study, co-authored by Matthew Masien, also of Imperial College London's medicine faculty.

Crucifixion was widely practised by the Romans to punish criminals and rebels, but if the empire ever circulated instructions for the soldiers who carried out the gruesome task, none has survived today.

Nor is there any detailed account of the method of Jesus' crucifixion in the four Gospels of the Bible (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John) which are believed to be near contemporary accounts of the life of Christ.

And only one piece of archaeological evidence has ever been found about a crucifixion, mainly because crucified people were not formally buried but left on a rubbish dump to be eaten by wild dogs and hyenas, say Masien and Mitchell.

This case entails a young Jewish man, whose inscription on an ossuary, found near Giv'at ha-Mivtar in Israel, suggests his name was probably Yehonanan ben Hagkol.

The clue to his demise comes from an 11.5-centimetre (4.8-inch) iron nail that had been hammered through one of his heels, attaching it to the side of the cross. But there are no signs of any nail holes in the bones of the wrist or the forearm.

Over the past 150 years, there have been at least 10 books and studies to try to understand the physical causes of Jesus' death, and one US attempt, in 2005, even featured a "humane re-enactment" in which volunteers were attached to a cross in safe and temporary way, using gloves and belts.

These explorations have yielded a wide range of hypotheses, from heart failure and pulmonary embolism to asphyxia and shock induced by falling blood pressure.

Excruciating pain endured over the six hours between crucifixion and death, loss of blood, dehydration and the weight of the body on the lungs are cited as contributing factors.

But, the study says, these efforts have all been prejudiced by the automatic assumption, derived from religious images, that Jesus was crucified head-up.

Given the uncertainty as to exactly how he was crucified, the answer may only ever come if some new archaeological evidence or piece of writing emerges from the shadows of the past, it says.
------------------

Seems to me those who first illustrated Jesus on the Cross couldn't be wrong, given that crucifixtions were relative early history, if not still going on.

Thoughts?

[tough love]

Thoughts?

If True: It would mean next to nothing to a true believer.
It would prolly be interesting in a 'de vinci inquest' way to the posers and the non-believers.


TL 1:1 When it comes to faith, what non-believers think is less then meaningless, if that is even possible.

[The Whistle Is Screaming]

RF,
I remember someone discussing a theory similar to this years ago. Their assumption was his hands were bound and stretched directly over his head and not spread out as depicted. But like TL, said it doesn't really mean anything.

TL,

BUT (big but, just play along), what if absolute proof was found that contradicted the core beliefs of your faith? What if that proof was validated by a "believer" of substantial authority?

[tough love]

TWIS;
A true believer never could
Nor would.

substantial authority?

My God is not a respector of persons.

[The Whistle Is Screaming]

TL,
If God himself made his presence known tomorrow to all mankind and said ...

"I'm here to set the record straight. Most of you have the right idea, but are caught up in details that are neither important nor factual. I don't care what religion you follow, or any at all, as long as you live your life as best you can. I have equipped you with the ability to know right from wrong and the ability to ignore it if you choose. My hope is that you live to do more good than bad. That is all."

[Terry in Crapchester]

Remembering back to my Catholic school days, I seem to recall hearing that Jesus was actually nailed to the cross through the wrists, not the hands.

The bones in the hand would not have supported his weight on the cross.

[tough love]

TWIS Wrote:
TL,
If God himself made his presence known tomorrow to all mankind and said ...

"I'm here to set the record straight. Most of you have the right idea, but are caught up in details that are neither important nor factual. I don't care what religion you follow, or any at all, as long as you live your life as best you can. I have equipped you with the ability to know right from wrong and the ability to ignore it if you choose. My hope is that you live to do more good than bad. That is all."

God already did say close to that through his son, Jesus, so what's your point?
Perhaps it's you not knowing the core of my faith which makes it difficult for you to trip me up.

It's because of Christ, that I don't believe in the relevance of socialized religion in attaining footing upon the paradise path.
Jesus introduced all of Mankind to a personal relationship with our heavenly Father.

If Jesus was into socialized religion, chances are he wouldn't of been delivered to death by those who were profiting from it as much as they were during his bestrowal upon this world.

At the last supper, Christ left his Apostles with just one commandment:
Love all others as I have Loved you.

It's all about the love, my good man.
Our loving God, and our loving others as we love ourselves.

Can't see anyone needing a Priest to explain the simplicity of that to them. :wink:

[The Whistle Is Screaming]

God already did say close to that through his son, Jesus, so what's your point?

OK, here's one ...

Jesus was not the "son" of God. He did not fulfill the the Prophecy's of the Moshiach, as stated in the Torah. The Torah also said that there would be false claims of a Moshiach, Jesus was one of them.

[tough love]

Torah Snorah

The Jews were itching for their very own Messiah big time.
Jesus was more then just their Messiah...He was the loving and compassionate deliverer of all of humankind.

I'm guessing the Jews had a hard time sharing, understanding, or whatever, cuz they sure did turn on their loving God (AGAIN ) in a big hurry.

If you ask me if I think the Jews will ever get their very own Messiah to lead them to the Paradise Path, I would think they will.

[The Whistle Is Screaming]

I can't undo your ignorance and denial as you've fallen for the greatest lie ever perpetrated.

[tough love]

^
We shall see.

[SunCoastSooner]

God already did say close to that through his son, Jesus, so what's your point?

OK, here's one ...

Jesus was not the "son" of God. He did not fulfill the the Prophecy's of the Moshiach, as stated in the Torah. The Torah also said that there would be false claims of a Moshiach, Jesus was one of them.

I'm glad that you were the first person to say this and not me in this Forum TWIS. :D

Fact is, if nothing else, that the Jews are not in Jerusalem and a Davidic Royal Heir is not ruling them with God's laws. That was the most important of all the prophecies as I understand it and it has never come to fruition yet and certainly not while Jesus walked the Earth.

[The Whistle Is Screaming]

God already did say close to that through his son, Jesus, so what's your point?

OK, here's one ...

Jesus was not the "son" of God. He did not fulfill the the Prophecy's of the Moshiach, as stated in the Torah. The Torah also said that there would be false claims of a Moshiach, Jesus was one of them.

I'm glad that you were the first person to say this and not me in this Forum TWIS. :D

Fact is, if nothing else, that the Jews are not in Jerusalem and a Davidic Royal Heir is not ruling them with God's laws. That was the most important of all the prophecies as I understand it and it has never come to fruition yet and certainly not while Jesus walked the Earth.

SCS,
Someone had to set the record straight, might as well be me. :D

Anyway, several of the prophecies did not come true. The counter (Christian) arguement is that they would come true on the "2nd coming" of Christ, to which we Jews would say, the real Messiah will get it right the first time. :D

[tough love]

TWIS Wrote:
Someone had to set the record straight, might as well be me. Very Happy

Anyway, several of the prophecies did not come true. The counter (Christian) arguement is that they would come true on the "2nd coming" of Christ, to which we Jews would say, the real Messiah will get it right the first time.

Set the record straight.

Even some of Christs Apostles had trouble wrapping their heads around the truth that Jesus was not a material messiah.

[rozy]

He came unto His own, and His own received Him not.

...and 2000 years later, it remains as true and sad as ever.


edit to throw a huge RACK to TL

[The Whistle Is Screaming]

You can RACK TL all you want, but until anyone can show me that Jesus fullfilled the criteria of "The Messiah", as described in the Torah, I gotta call bullshit.

So your first task is to find what the criteria is.

[SunCoastSooner]

You can RACK TL all you want, but until anyone can show me that Jesus fullfilled the criteria of "The Messiah", as described in the Torah, I gotta call bullshit.

So your first task is to find what the criteria is.

TWIS. I got your back on this one but the christian onslaught is coming. Just be fore warned.

[poptart]

must be Jewish
must be a member of the tribe of Judah
must be a direct male descendant of King David and King Solomon
must gather the Jewish people from exile and return them to Israel
must rebuild the Temple in Jerusalem
will rule at a time of world-wide peace
will rule at a time when the Jewish people will observe God's commandments
will rule at a time when all people will come to acknowledge and serve one God


Is this your 'criteria' of the Messiah, TWIS...?

[The Whistle Is Screaming]

Looks about right to me poptart.

[tough love]

Relax TWIS, you'll get yours.

He's prolly just a tad nervous to show himself, considering the Israelites track record when it comes to The Prophets of God. :twisted:

[poptart]

must be Jewish

Jesus was


must be a member of the tribe of Judah

Jesus was


must be a direct male descendant of King David and King Solomon

Jesus was


I can hear you yelling at this point.
Joseph was not the biological father of Jesus, although he DID come through the proper line.
In another thread a while back I noted the importance of Genesis 3:15, the very first Messianic prophecy, spoken by GOD himself.

Genesis 3:15 And I will put enmity between thee (satan) and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

This verse speaks of the 'seed of the woman', and it is the ONLY time in all of scripture that reference is made to someone coming from the seed of a WOMAN.
This was the ONLY ONLY time such a reference was made, and it was made by GOD himself.

Seed of the woman.

Think about that.

This verse is making reference to the coming Divine pregnancy.

Further, the importance of the Divine pregnancy is critically important.
After Adam sinned, this sin is passed to ALL men, making it impossible for ANY man to produce offspring that is capable of saving men.
The sinful can not save the sinful, only GOD can.


must gather the Jewish people from exile and return them to Israel

Jesus will

Isaiah 2:2 (and other places in prophetic Scripture) And it shall come to pass in the last days...........

Last days, last days, last days......
Many prophetic scriptures note this coming time when important things will be fulfilled.

Last days, second coming.

Jesus will return to do things in the last days.

Isaiah 11:11,12 And it shall come to pass in that day, that the Lord shall set his hand again the second time (Jesus coming the 2nd time) to recover the remnant of his people, which shall be left, from Assyria, and from Egypt, and from Pathros, and from Cush, and from Elam, and from Shinar, and from Hamath, and from the islands of the sea.
And he shall set up an ensign for the nations, and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth.


must rebuild the Temple in Jerusalem

Jesus will


will rule at a time of world-wide peace

Jesus will, and peace there will be


will rule at a time when the Jewish people will observe God's commandments

Jesus will, and the Jewish people will


will rule at a time when all people will come to acknowledge and serve one God

Jesus will, and the people will

[The Whistle Is Screaming]

must be Jewish

Jesus was


must be a member of the tribe of Judah

Jesus was

OK, no problem.

must be a direct male descendant of King David and King Solomon

Jesus was


I can hear you yelling at this point.
Joseph was not the biological father of Jesus, although he DID come through the proper line.
In another thread a while back I noted the importance of Genesis 3:15, the very first Messianic prophecy, spoken by GOD himself.

Genesis 3:15 And I will put enmity between thee (satan) and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

This verse speaks of the 'seed of the woman', and it is the ONLY time in all of scripture that reference is made to someone coming from the seed of a WOMAN.
This was the ONLY ONLY time such a reference was made, and it was made by GOD himself.

Seed of the woman.

Think about that.

This verse is making reference to the coming Divine pregnancy.

Further, the importance of the Divine pregnancy is critically important.
After Adam sinned, this sin is passed to ALL men, making it impossible for ANY man to produce offspring that is capable of saving men.
The sinful can not save the sinful, only GOD can.

I could fight this one with you on a couple of points...

Your Mary arguement is moot as lineage is passed through the male ONLY, but also there is no concept of "orginal sin" in Judaism. Even if the lineage arguement could be proved ...

... With all the remaining criteria, you tell me "he will", my counter is "he didn't when he had the chance".

And of course your going to come back with "2nd coming" ...

There is no mention of a "2nd coming" in any of the original Hebrew text. The 2nd coming is a concept develeped through intentional misinterpretations, taking things out of context and incorrect translations as a way to explain why Jesus didn't get it right the first time.

Question: Does Isaiah, chapter 11, refer to Jesus?



Answer: Isaiah states, "And there shall come forth a shoot out of the stock of Jesse, and a branch out of his roots shall bear fruit" (11:1). Undoubtedly, the phrase "out of the stock of Jesse" signifies the Davidic dynasty, from which will come forth the Messiah, "the branch."

Christian commentators, applying this chapter to Jesus, are compelled to divide his career into what is called his first and second comings. To have any relationship to Jesus' life, Isaiah's prophecy must refer to the first coming because Isaiah speaks specifically of the "shoot" coming "out of the stock of David," which can only refer to the Messiah's ancestry at the time of his birth. In addition, when the prophet describes the dynamic appearance of the Messiah as "a shoot out of the stock of Jesse," he is portraying the latter's glorious nature from its very human inception.

This glowing portrayal provides a glaring contrast to the one in Isaiah 53:1-2, where the suffering servant, whom the Christian commentators also identify with Jesus, is portrayed in somber terms. Since both of Isaiah's prophecies (11:1 and 53:1-2), if they are to apply to Jesus, must refer to his first coming, we are faced with an irreconcilable contradiction, because the two accounts stand in stark contradiction to each other. These two prophecies are not applicable to one individual.

There is no justification for the interpretation that the prophet's words are to be divided into two separate periods, one during the Messiah's lifetime and the other after some future return following his death. That the account of this chapter can only apply to a single coming of the Messiah is verified by verse 10. In this verse, where all the events enumerated in verses 2-9 occur, he is given what can only be a human title, "the root of Jesse."

Christian commentators attempt to solve the problems inherent in their explanation of this chapter by claiming that Jesus appeared the first time to provide a means of salvation for mankind, whereas in the second coming, he will come to judge and rule the world. This, however, is simply not in accord with Isaiah's prophetic message. The Messiah is not portrayed as a part of a triune godhead returning to earth as judge and king.

Specific mention must also be made of the Christian contention that the statement in verse 2 that "The spirit of the Lord shall rest upon him" was fulfilled at Jesus' baptism (Matthew 3:16, Mark 1:10, Luke 3:22). This is a claim which is, at best, selective fulfillment, and which, upon closer analysis, is devoid of any validity. They must assume that Jesus, part of a triune deity, needed the "Spirit of God," another one-third of the deity, to descend upon him by permission of still another one-third of this godhead: "God anointed him [Jesus] with the Holy Spirit and with power" (Acts 10:38; see also John 3:34). The author of Acts indicates that Jesus' ability to do wonders stemmed from God's anointing and that "God was with him." However, if Jesus were God, he would not need to be anointed by God and have God be with him in order to perform miracles. Moreover, if Jesus was God, he could stand in no relationship with God.

Isaiah 11 is to be taken as a homogeneous unit. There is no evidence to suggest divisions within the chapter whereby some verses are fulfilled in a first coming and the rest are to be fulfilled during a second coming. There certainly is no prophecy indicating that Jesus is the Messiah.

[SunCoastSooner]

Before a christer gets on here and starts the next phase of this argument, as I have seen it play out many times at other places, that Mary was also the seed of David, because their priest, Minister, or the church taught them so; it isn't true. #1, as TWIS stated, the descent of the Davidic line is traced through the Male line only. And #2 the bible while it does not provide a geneology of Mary it does make quit clear by the positions that her father, uncle, cousin in law, and nepheew held within the High priesthood that she was either of the Tribe of Levi or a Zadokite and neither are even of the tribe of Judah much less the seed of David and Solomon.

[tough love]

TWIS Wrote:
Jesus didn't get it right the first time.

The Son of Gods bestowal upon this Earth was made right the moment He was baptized by John the B.

Math 3:16 And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him:

Math 3:17 And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.

[poptart]

I'm not attempting to bring Mary's family line into the discussion.
No, not at all.
Perhaps some might do that, but not me.
I'm saying that Genesis 3:15 tells us that the Messiah will come from the seed of the woman.
This is very important.
Critical.

TWIS, SCS, you tell me what Genesis 3:15 is saying.

.....there is no concept of "orginal sin" in Judaism

Genesis 2:17 (God speaking to Adam): But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.


In this verse, God says that disobedience would bring death.
This is the law that He set forth.
Adam's sin brought death.
Is it not true that every man since Adam died?
Why does every man die, if not for the fact that he is sinful?
Original sin.


I won't get into the 'translation' game.
It is an endless discusion......a ping-pong game.


Why didn't Jesus fulfill the 'remaining' criteria, 'when he had the chance', as you say...?

I submit that you are trying to tell God what the rules of HIS game are.

HE set the time table, man's mind does not.

[The Whistle Is Screaming]

I'm not attempting to bring Mary's family line into the discussion.
No, not at all.
Perhaps some might do that, but not me.

OK

I'm saying that Genesis 3:15 tells us that the Messiah will come from the seed of the woman.
This is very important.
Critical.

TWIS, SCS, you tell me what Genesis 3:15 is saying.

And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; they shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise their heel.'

I really don't see how this is Messianic at all.

Here are 14 & 16 with it.

14
And HaShem G-d said unto the serpent: 'Because thou hast done this, cursed art thou from among all cattle, and from among all beasts of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life.
15
And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; they shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise their heel.'

16
Unto the woman He said: 'I will greatly multiply thy pain and thy travail; in pain thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.'

There is no Messianic message here.

.....there is no concept of "orginal sin" in Judaism

Genesis 2:17 (God speaking to Adam): But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.


In this verse, God says that disobedience would bring death.
This is the law that He set forth.
Adam's sin brought death.
Is it not true that every man since Adam died?
Why does every man die, if not for the fact that he is sinful?
Original sin.

Nice spin, but no.

Whether man is a sinner by nature or not is immaterial. Judaism teaches the biblical way to repentance and reconciliation with God. Sincere repentance in which the sinner pledges to rectify his sinful ways and lead a righteous life is one means that is open at all times to all of humanity (Jonah 3:5-10, Daniel 4:27). God counsels Cain, "Why are you annoyed, and why has your countenance fallen? If you do good [that is, change your ways], will it not be lifted up [that is, you will be forgiven]. But if you do not do good, sin rests at the door; and it desires you, but you may rule over it" (Genesis 4:6-7). God informs Cain that repentance and subsequent forgiveness are always open to him. The remedy for sin is clear. Biblically, God's loving-kindness depends on right conduct and extends to all humanity.

I won't get into the 'translation' game.
It is an endless discusion......a ping-pong game.

I bet you would like to forget it an move on. However, the fact of the matter is that "Christians" have used as a tactic, a deliberate and careful use of mistranslation to support their agenda.

Why didn't Jesus fulfill the 'remaining' criteria, 'when he had the chance', as you say...?

I submit that you are trying to tell God what the rules of HIS game are.

HE set the time table, man's mind does not.

No, I'm saying that God very clearly set what the criteria is for the "Messiah" and Jesus did not fullfil it. There is no scriptural basis of the Messiah coming twice (save the Nocal resets) so Jesus was not the Messiah.

[poptart]

I really don't see how this is Messianic at all.

Here are 14 & 16 with it.

14
And HaShem G-d said unto the serpent: 'Because thou hast done this, cursed art thou from among all cattle, and from among all beasts of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life.
15
And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; they shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise their heel.'

16
Unto the woman He said: 'I will greatly multiply thy pain and thy travail; in pain thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.'

There is no Messianic message here.

I understand what you say that verse 15 does not say, but what does it say, in your view...?

Who or what is the seed of the woman...?
Who or what is the serpent's seed...?
What is the bruising of the serpent's head...?
What is the bruising of the seed of the woman's head...?

[The Whistle Is Screaming]

Keeping in mind that in 14, God is talking to the serpent ...

And I will put enmity between thee and the woman,

He is putting hate between women & the serpent (evil)

and between thy seed and her seed;

as well as, the offspring of the serpent (all evil to come) & the offspring of women (all mankind to come)

they shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise their heel.'

Man will stomp evil in the head until their heel is bruised. In other words, the fight for good over evil may hurt a little.

[poptart]

TWIS, you offer legit takes, and I respect that.
I absolutely do not agree with your take.
I respect your take MUCH more if you take the next logic step and CONDEMN Jesus as a fraud, and blasphemer.
Many who reject Jesus as the Christ speak of him as a 'great man'.....'great teacher'.....etc.
I shake my head at such people.
If he is NOT the Christ then he is in no way a great man or teacher.
He was a lying piece of shit who claimed he was God.

I say he is the Christ.

At any rate...........

Keeping in mind that in 14, God is talking to the serpent ...

And I will put enmity between thee and the woman,

He is putting hate between women & the serpent (evil)

and between thy seed and her seed;

as well as, the offspring of the serpent (all evil to come) & the offspring of women (all mankind to come)

TWIS, it is most curious that God would speak of the offspring of women in reference to 'all mankind to come'.

EVERY scripture in the entire Bible that speaks of 'seed' (people to come) uses a MAN's seed.
The ONLY time a female seed is made mention of is in this verse.

[The Whistle Is Screaming]

TWIS, you offer legit takes, and I respect that.
I absolutely do not agree with your take.
I respect your take MUCH more if you take the next logic step and CONDEMN Jesus as a fraud, and blasphemer.
Many who reject Jesus as the Christ speak of him as a 'great man'.....'great teacher'.....etc.
I shake my head at such people.
If he is NOT the Christ then he is in no way a great man or teacher.
He was a lying piece of shit who claimed he was God.

I say he is the Christ.

At any rate...........

I see no reason to disrespect you or your beliefs just because we disagree. I gotta keep my options open in case you're right. :D

Keeping in mind that in 14, God is talking to the serpent ...

And I will put enmity between thee and the woman,

He is putting hate between women & the serpent (evil)

and between thy seed and her seed;

as well as, the offspring of the serpent (all evil to come) & the offspring of women (all mankind to come)

TWIS, it is most curious that God would speak of the offspring of women in reference to 'all mankind to come'.

EVERY scripture in the entire Bible that speaks of 'seed' (people to come) uses a MAN's seed.
The ONLY time a female seed is made mention of is in this verse.

except for the fact that it is followed by

Unto the woman He said: 'I will greatly multiply thy pain and thy travail; in pain thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.'

These passages are talking about punishment. You have to consider them all together instead of taking 1 specific verse and picking it apart.

[SunCoastSooner]

TWIS, you offer legit takes, and I respect that.
I absolutely do not agree with your take.
I respect your take MUCH more if you take the next logic step and CONDEMN Jesus as a fraud, and blasphemer.
Many who reject Jesus as the Christ speak of him as a 'great man'.....'great teacher'.....etc.
I shake my head at such people.
If he is NOT the Christ then he is in no way a great man or teacher.
He was a lying piece of shit who claimed he was God.

I say he is the Christ.

At any rate...........

Keeping in mind that in 14, God is talking to the serpent ...

And I will put enmity between thee and the woman,

He is putting hate between women & the serpent (evil)

and between thy seed and her seed;

as well as, the offspring of the serpent (all evil to come) & the offspring of women (all mankind to come)

TWIS, it is most curious that God would speak of the offspring of women in reference to 'all mankind to come'.

EVERY scripture in the entire Bible that speaks of 'seed' (people to come) uses a MAN's seed.
The ONLY time a female seed is made mention of is in this verse.

It's deep theological shit man. The reason it is Eve being spoken to and not Adam and her seed being referred to instead of his is two fold. One is that it was eve who was the catalyst in their fall from paradise and two because while Adam was the only male Eve was not the only female. God created woman twice. Once when he created Adam and again, later, from Adam's rib.

[Diogenes]

...two because while Adam was the only male Eve was not the only female. God created woman twice. Once when he created Adam and again, later, from Adam's rib.

SCS is Ethiopian?