Let's discuss the true meaning behind the Bible

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

Revelation 12:3-6
The dragon represents the negative thoughts or opposition to God, the child represents the new birth in Christ.

False. The Dragon represents Rome. The seven heads/crowns are for the seven hills upon which it was built: Palatine Hill, Capitoline Hill, Quirinal Hill, Viminal Hill, Esquiline Hill, Caelian Hill, and Aventine Hill. Ten horns represent the rulers of the Empire.

If you read the whole book instead of cherry-picking verses, this is evident in Revelation 17.​

 

[Aviso]

False. The Dragon represents Rome. The seven heads/crowns are for the seven hills upon which it was built: Palatine Hill, Capitoline Hill, Quirinal Hill, Viminal Hill, Esquiline Hill, Caelian Hill, and Aventine Hill. Ten horns represent the rulers of the Empire.

If you read the whole book instead of cherry-picking verses, this is evident in Revelation 17.​

Yet, in your last post you told me that God stilled the dragon in Genesis, and you called it nonsense when I mentioned the dragon in The Book of Revelation. But now you get to decide what the dragon symbolizes in The Book of Revelation? Are you sure it is I who is confused? Regardless, peace be upon you!

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

Yet, in your last post you told me that God stilled the dragon in Genesis, and you called it nonsense when I mentioned the dragon in The Book of Revelation.

2 different dragons in 2 different Books.
​

But now you get to decide what the dragon symbolizes in The Book of Revelation? Are you sure it is I who is confused?

The 'dragon' in Genesis is not the same one in Revelation. The authors of the Books determined them a few thousand years ago. The only one confused is you, but that's easily corrected by exegesis​

 

[Aviso]

2 different dragons in 2 different Books.
​

The 'dragon' in Genesis is not the same one in Revelation. The authors of the Books determined them a few thousand years ago. The only one confused is you, but that's easily corrected by exegesis​

The dragon, beast, devil, Beezlebub, whatever you want to call it; it's simply the delusion of thinking one is separate from God. It's adverse thinking, or operating from the wrong perspective or as you Theologians like to call it, "sin". But I see that you're trapped in the mind of this world of labels that you cannot even see the light that resides within you. So again I say, peace be upon you!

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

The dragon, beast, devil, Beezlebub, whatever you want to call it; it's simply the delusion of thinking one is separate from God. It's adverse thinking, or operating from the wrong perspective or as you Theologians like to call it, "sin".

False. The 'dragon' was Rome in Revelation.​

 

[Aviso]

False. The 'dragon' was Rome in Revelation.​

Look at the deeper meaning bro, I am speaking on an esoteric level as the dragon, devil, serpent or any type of beast always represents opposition to God. If you examine Revelation 12, the pregnant woman represents Mary or purity, and she is pregnant with the Christ child. Going deeper, we understand this as a person's rebirth in Christ. The dragon represents opposition to the Christ; notice how the dragon wishes to devour the child, for the wages of sin is death.

Revelation 12:4-6

4 The dragon stood in front of the woman who was about to give birth, so that it might devour her child the moment he was born. 5 She gave birth to a son, a male child, who “will rule all the nations with an iron scepter.” And her child was snatched up to God and to his throne. 6 The woman fled into the wilderness to a place prepared for her by God, where she might be taken care of for 1,260 days.

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

Look at the deeper meaning bro, I am speaking on an esoteric level

In other words, anachronistic nonsense using word salad and eisegesis.​

 

[Aviso]

Not according to Moses

But you skim over the differences yet tell me to read the NT. What you’re really trying to say is “just believe it” when you can’t even defend it from what I’m saying.

The odd thing about your affinity for the OT and rejection of the NT is that your stance ignores the OT's prophecies concerning Jesus.

The Old Testament prophets prophesied about Jesus in Isaiah 7:14-15

14 Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a Son, and shall call His name Immanuel. 15 Curds and honey He shall eat, that He may know to refuse the evil and choose the good.

As I previously stated, the OT and NT are connected:

Matthew 1:22-23
King James Version
22 Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying,

23 Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Immanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.

Also see Isaiah 9:6-7

Isaiah 9:6-7
New International Version
6 For to us a child is born,(A)
to us a son is given,(B)
and the government(C) will be on his shoulders.(D)
And he will be called
Wonderful Counselor,(E) Mighty God,(F)
Everlasting(G) Father,(H) Prince of Peace.(I)
7 Of the greatness of his government(J) and peace(K)
there will be no end.(L)
He will reign(M) on David’s throne
and over his kingdom,
establishing and upholding it
with justice(N) and righteousness(O)
from that time on and forever.(P)
The zeal(Q) of the Lord Almighty
will accomplish this.

Also see the whole chapter of Isaiah 53 and Micah 5.

You're missing the most important piece which is the Christ.

 

[Aviso]

In other words, anachronistic nonsense using word salad and eisegesis.​

Would you agree that any representation of a beast or dragon in the Bible, signifies opposition to God?

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

Would you agree that any representation of a beast or dragon in the Bible, signifies opposition to God?

No.​

 

[Everythingg]

The odd thing about your affinity for the OT and rejection of the NT is that your stance ignores the OT's prophecies concerning Jesus.

The Old Testament prophets prophesied about Jesus in Isaiah 7:14-15

14 Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a Son, and shall call His name Immanuel. 15 Curds and honey He shall eat, that He may know to refuse the evil and choose the good.

As I previously stated, the OT and NT are connected:

Matthew 1:22-23
King James Version
22 Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying,

23 Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Immanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.

That’s the thing with the NT. It plays on people’s laziness. When you read ALL of it:

Spoiler

He will be eating curds and honey when he knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right, 16 for before the boy knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right, the land of the two kings you dread will be laid waste.17 The Lord will bring on you and on your people and on the house of your father a time unlike any since Ephraim broke away from Judah—he will bring the king of Assyria.”

It says that AFTER the child is born but BEFORE he knows right from wrong the”land of the two kings (he) dread(ed) would be laid to waste”. The “He” refers to King Ahaz since this was a sign for the people AT HIS TIME for an upcoming battle they would be facing. A sign for him to see while he was alive and not one that would come hundreds if not thousands of years after he died



But you haven’t even read the OT yet catch yourself trying to lecture me on its contents

 

[Aviso]

That’s the thing with the NT. It plays on people’s laziness. When you read ALL of it:

Spoiler

He will be eating curds and honey when he knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right, 16 for before the boy knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right, the land of the two kings you dread will be laid waste.17 The Lord will bring on you and on your people and on the house of your father a time unlike any since Ephraim broke away from Judah—he will bring the king of Assyria.”

It says that AFTER the child is born but BEFORE he knows right from wrong the”land of the two kings (he) dread(ed) would be laid to waste”. The “He” refers to King Ahaz since this was a sign for the people AT HIS TIME for an upcoming battle they would be facing. A sign for him to see while he was alive and not one that would come hundreds if not thousands of years after he died



But you haven’t even read the OT yet catch yourself trying to lecture me on its contents

Calling me lazy won't hide your misguided information. The Lord offered King Ahaz a chance to ask for a sign, but Ahaz declined to do that.

Isaiah 7:10-13
10 Moreover the Lord spake again unto Ahaz, saying,

11 Ask thee a sign of the Lord thy God; ask it either in the depth, or in the height above.

12 But Ahaz said, I will not ask, neither will I tempt the Lord.

13 And he said, Hear ye now, O house of David; Is it a small thing for you to weary men, but will ye weary my God also?

Consequently, God gave Ahaz a sign anyway in verse 14. The sign was a promise of a child that would be born of a virgin sometime in the future and named Immanuel.

14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

Matthew 1:22-23
King James Version
22 Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying,

23 Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Immanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.

Does the name Immanuel mean anything to you, or did you willingly ignore that part? Again, your ignorance and denial of the NT blinds you to the full context of what I am relaying to you.

 

[Aviso]

No.​

So, what does the serpent in Genesis represent? Alignment or opposition to God?

 

[Everythingg]

Calling me lazy won't hide your misguided information. The Lord offered King Ahaz a chance to ask for a sign, but Ahaz declined to do that.

Now you’re just pretending to not see the words there so you can get your agenda off


It’s on you to explain how a sign that God would be with King Ahaz for his upcoming war could be given hundreds to thousands of years after the war and later his death took place. Coming back and pointing out how the NT quotes the verse (out of context) isn’t proving your point

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

So, what does the serpent in Genesis represent? Alignment or opposition to God?

Chaos and Babylonian/Egyptian religion.​