serpent becomes Satan?

Was it Satan or the serpent ?

Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the LORD God had made. He said to the woman, "Did God really say, 'You must not eat from any tree in the garden'?" (Genesis 3:1)

Notice from the above passage the Snake seem to have popped put from nowhere? Not only did the bible avoid telling us why the snake decided to deceive Adam and Eve, the very first time the serpent is mentioned it is straight away condemned as being more CRAFTY THEN ANY OTHER WILD ANIMAL?

---------------

Was the serpent then Satan? Although the Bible tells us that ‘Satan himself is transformed into an angel of Light’, or ‘masquerades as an angel of light’ (2 Corinthians 11:14), there are difficulties in assuming that something like this happened in the Garden of Eden. Theologian Henry C. Thiessen comments:

‘… the serpent is neither a figurative description of Satan, nor is it Satan in the form of a serpent. The real serpent was the agent in Satan’s hand. This is evident from the description of the reptile in Genesis 3:1 and the curse pronounced upon it in 3:14 [… upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy Life]

(Henry C, Thiessen, Lectures in Systematic Theology, Revised edition, Eerdmans. Grand Rapids. 1979, p. 180.)

----------------

Why was the snake the cause of this problem ? Why didn't the Old Testament give any hints that Satan was actually the serpent  who deceived both Adam and Eve? Why did it take more then 1300 years to  find out from a letter written by an unknown man that the serpent was actually Satan? (Revelations 12:9). We're that Jewish rabbis that stupid that they couldn't figure that out it had to be a Greek man decode who this serpent was?

If satan was the cause of the fall of man and woman according to the bible,

Why was the snake punished!. Satan came in the disguise of the snake, which means Satan should be punished not what he disguised himself in, Why would god even do that? 

Also we find the serpents  offsprings and the women's  will always be in enmity, indicating Satans offsprings etc... Again the snake is punished!.

---------------------------

It gets even worse Classic Jewish commentators tells us through their exegesis that the serpent was attracted to Eve and wanted to be intimate with her !

1Now the serpent was cunning, more than all the beasts of the field that the Lord God had made, and it said to the woman, "Did God indeed say, 'You shall not eat of any of the trees of the garden?'"		אוְהַנָּחָשׁ הָיָה עָרוּם מִכֹּל חַיַּת הַשָּׂדֶה אֲשֶׁר עָשָׂה יְהֹוָה אֱלֹהִים וַיֹּאמֶר אֶל הָאִשָּׁה אַף כִּי אָמַר אֱלֹהִים לֹא תֹאכְלוּ מִכֹּל עֵץ הַגָּן:
Now the serpent was cunning: What is the connection of this matter here? Scripture should have juxtaposed (below verse 21): “And He made for Adam and for his wife shirts of skin, and He dressed them.” But it teaches you as a result of what plan the serpent thrust himself upon them. He saw them naked and engaging in intercourse before everyone’s eyes, and he desired her. — [from Gen. Rabbah 18:6]		והנחש היה ערום: מה ענין זה לכאן היה לו לסמוך (פסוק כא) ויעש לאדם ולאשתו כתנות עור וילבישם. אלא למדך מאיזו עילה קפץ הנחש עליהם, ראה אותם ערומים ועוסקים בתשמיש לעין כל ונתאוה לה:
cunning, more than all: Commensurate with its cunning and its greatness, was its downfall- [it was] cunning, more than all, [and it was] cursed, more than all. — [from Gen. Rabbah 19:1]		ערום מכל: לפי ערמתו וגדולתו היתה מפלתו, ערום מכל, ארור מכל:
Did…indeed say, etc.: Did He say to you, “You shall not eat of any, etc.?” Even though he saw them eating of the other fruits, he spoke to her at length in order that she answer him and come to speak of that tree. — [from Pirkei d’Rabbi Eliezer , ed. Horowitz, ch. 13; Avoth d’Rabbi Nathan , ch. 1] Notice neither of the Classical Jewish commentaries mention Satan disguised as the serpent... That's because Satan wasn't the one who deceived them both Christian bible came and changed the entire meaning !!!

Let's quote historians !

Christians fall into a serious Dilemma !! (Take it or leave it)

Christians often love quoting Islamic historians, whom many Muslim Academic Scholars don't give as much credits as Christians do... Example Christians love quoting Ibn Ishaq or at-tabari etc..whom do at an extend carry academic work and information however also  many of their works is not Authentic. Note  from a historical & Academic point on much of there  literature information has been taken from unknown sources such a jews ( bani Israel ) or other sources extremely unreliable.

NOTE THEY WERE HISTORIANS !!!!! Throughout time Many historians have written many biographies or reports this doesn't mean we have to accept everything?? This is where scholars differentiate what is true and what is false... Yet Christians insist that all said by Ibn Ishaq or at-tabari is authentic and true... !

Let's play the same game on Christians since They like quoting historians and they accept everything what they says, let's do the same and find what OTHER GOSPELS WHICH THEY CALL APOCRYPHA SAYS.., knowing these  hypocrites two faced animals will go back on there words and say we don't accept what those books say, well we can say the same about the historians you show us right? Let's focus on a gospel called the  Secret gospel of Mark !!

---------------------

Was Jesus whom Christians pray to and take for being there saviour, a homosexual? Early written works say YES

Secret gospel of Mark (as I shall call it) is one of several apocryphal gospels that circulated in the early centuries of the Christian era. These alternative accounts of Jesus’ life range from a few verses to entire books. Some, such as the Gospel of Thomas and the Gospel of Mary Magdelene, have received much attention, but most are obscure and known only by New Testament scholars. Secret Mark is unique among these in that it claims to be an expanded version of the canonical gospel of Mark, not an independent gospel. It contains two passages, otherwise unrecorded in the gospel accounts—the first fitting between Mark 10:34 and 10:35 and the second in the middle of Mark 10:46. Fragment 1 reads:

And they came to Bethany. And there was a woman there, whose brother was dead. And she came and fell down before Jesus and said to him: Son of David, have mercy on me. But the disciples rebuked her. And in anger Jesus went away with her into the garden where the tomb was; and immediately a loud voice was heard from the tomb; and Jesus went forward and rolled away the stone from the door of the tomb. And immediately he went in where the young man was, stretched out his hand and raised him up, grasping him by the hand. But the young man looked upon him and loved him, and began to entreat him that he might remain with him. And when they had gone out from the tomb, they went into the young man’s house; for he was rich. And after six days Jesus commissioned him; and in the evening the young man came to him, clothed only in linen cloth upon his naked body. And he remained with him that night; for Jesus was teaching him the mysteries of the Kingdom of God. And from there he went away and returned to the other bank of the Jordan.

-------------------------------------

Thus from the above this explains to us about the naked young man, could he be the same man found in the current revised gospel of mark.. 

A young man, wearing nothing but a linen garment, was following Jesus. When they seized him,he fled naked, leaving his garment behind.

(Mark 14:51-52)

scholars move on in search of passages favoring Jesus’ homosexuality, the “signals” that McCleary mentioned. Unfortunately for them, biblical references to support their political thesis are few and circumstantial. Most are vague and focus on men whom Jesus “loved,” such as Lazarus (John 11:36), the Rich Young Ruler (Mark 10:21), John (John 21:20), and the “beloved disciple” (John 20:2). Love in these contexts is interpreted as homoerotic love. Further evidence is supposedly found in Jesus’ healing of the centurion’s servant in Luke 7:1-10. Because the text says the servant was “dear to him,” it is alleged that centurion and his servant were gay lovers. That Jesus healed him is presented as proof that He condoned their homosexual relationship (cf. Horner, 1978; Jennings, 2003).

These arguments are supplemented by the censorship hypothesis to which Tatchell alluded: “Large chunks of Jesus’s life are missing from the Biblical accounts. This has fuelled speculation that the early Church sanitised the gospels, removing references to Christ’s sexuality that were not in accord with the heterosexual morality that it wanted to promote” (“Was Jesus Gay? Missing…,” 1998). Some scholars believe that the original gospel accounts of Jesus’ life contained homosexual references not found in the canonical gospels that we possess.

----------------------

So now that we have quoted ancient early apocrypha gospels where Jesus is classed as a homosexual would any Christians accept that as authentic?? If not why do you expect us to accept anything u show us from HISTORIANS??

That's double standards....

SHAME SHAME