Is Harvard hosting a Black Mass?

How do you square that with Isaiah 14:12-15?

FF . . . those verses are not addressed to HaSatan but to Nevuchadnettzar the King of Babylon, who thought he was the most powerful being in existence. He wore a resplendent shiny robe which is why he was addressed as "Heylel ben Shachar" (translated in the KJV as "Lucifer son of the morning"). This is the planet V*nus. Nevuchadnettzar is being sarcastically asked if he is the planet V*nus fallen from the sky. The planet V*nus is the only "lucifer" there ever was. There was never a fallen angel named Lucifer who rebelled against G-d and fell. Never. This comes from the "new testament" ("I saw Satan fall like lightning from the sky") and is naturally imposed on Isaiah by chrstians. I would not be one bit surprised that there are actual "luciferians" who worship this nonexistent "fallen angel," but like Satanists, these "luciferians have chrstian beliefs and merely root for the other side.

BTW, as powerful as Satan is (aren't all angels powerful?) he is not a counterpart of God because he is not infinitely powerful.

As an angel, the Satan carries out his duties . . . nothing more.

OK, what about the serpent of Genesis 3? Do you believe it was a literal snake? A talking snake? What about verse 15, isn't it a Messianic verse? Why should Messiach step on the head of a snake?

Okay . . . the first thing you need to realize is that the Torah is very deep. Protestants believe in the perspecuity(sp?) of scripture because they believe its purpose is so anyone can pick it up, read it, get "saved," and go to Heaven. This is not why the Torah was written, and the systemetized focus of Judaism is not the afterlife. That's not to say that it isn't important; the sytemetized thrust of Judaism is law.

My copy of the Stone TaNa"KH says that according to most commentators the serpent of Genesis 3 was a serpent. Did it talk? Of course it did (so did Balaam's she-ass). It also originally walked upon legs.

To know somewhat of the serpent's motivation you would have to read the various classic commentators. I've read Rashi, but that's about it, and I think Rashi said he wanted Adam to die so he could have Eve. There are also deep mystical traditions about the Satan riding on the back of the serpent "like a camel." You really need to ask these questions of Orthodox Jewish FReepers.

No, Genesis 3:15 is not a "messianic" verse. Once again, you are imposing "new testament" theology onto the Hebrew Bible. The "seed of the woman" simply means her descendants. And contrary to what some preachers say, Eve is not the only woman the Bible says had "seed." The descendants of both men and women are referred to in this manner. It simply means that in the end humanity will triumph over what the serpent represents (and it sure ain't happened yet).

FF, you really need to understand that Judaism is not pre-incarnation chrstianity. Look, I used to be just like you (that may explain why I'm being so rough on you). The Hebrew Bible isn't nearly as "messianic" as chrstians think it is because the real Mashiach will merely be the restored Davidic monarch who reigns over an ingathered Israel where full Torah observance is restored and during which all mankind will be brought to the Noachide Laws. Chrstians worship their "messiah" so they read him into every sentence of the TaNa"KH.

I advise you and all philo-Semitic chrstians to make a decision . . . do you believe in the Hebrew Bible only because it was endorsed by J*sus? Does the Revelation at Sinai mean absolutely nothing to you without his approval? Without chrstianity is Torah nothing more but another false religion to you? If chrstianity were ever proved false would you throw your Hebrew Bible into the garbage can because it is no longer of any use or would you still believe in it?

Chrstians seem to believe in the Hebrew Bible because J*sus told them to. That's not why the Jews believe in it. They believe because the unincarnated, invisible, infinite spiritual G-d told them to . . . and they were there to hear it! Jews don't need the authorization of J*sus or of chrstianity to believe the TaNa"KH. And neither do you.

Please, don't get aggravated. I am not being sarcastic at all. But if I believe the Bible is the inerrant word of God, I surely need to know exactly what it says, not what other people say it says. Thanks for your patience so far.

Yes, the Hebrew Bible is the inerrant Word of G-d. But when this belief is based on Protestant assumptions you miss the whole point. Can your belief in inerrancy survive without its underlying Protestant and chrstian assumptions?

Can your belief in inerrancy survive without its underlying Protestant and chrstian assumptions?
Yes, the inerrancy of Scripture is a fact. That does not mean that we, human beings, cannot make mistakes interpreting it. That's why I am so interested in learning what the "original" text says, without centuries of editing. Of course, that "we" does not only include Protestant commentators, or the Pope, but Jewish commentators also. Don't be mad, but Rashi's suggestion that the serpent wanted Adam to die so he could have Eve made me laugh; didn't he realize that, after sinning, Eve would die too?

No, Genesis 3:15 is not a "messianic" verse.
Isn't the Jewish idea of Messiach that he will user in a time of peace and prosperity? Gen. 3:15 seems to tell me that the struggle between humankind and a tempter (whether it is Satan or a literal snake) will end when the seed of the woman crushes its head. Sounds like Messiah to me.

the real Mashiach will merely be the restored Davidic monarch who reigns over an ingathered Israel
A monarch who will rule forever (2 Samuel 7:12-13), that is not your average human being!

You sure have given me a lot to think about. I am leaving now, for a doctor's appointment, but will be looking forward to reading your answer when I return.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.