The story of Adam and Eve never mentions the post-Exilic Satan, instead having a serpent tempt Eve.

The serpent was more cunning than any other animal in the Garden. First, he called into question God's right to decide which fruit they could eat (Genesis 3:1): "Has God indeed said that you shall not eat from every tree in the garden?"

The serpent told Eve that she would not die from eating the fruit of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. This impugned dishonesty in the motives of God, who had, in Eve's words, said that they would die if they ate of the tree.

Most importantly, the serpent told Eve that by eating of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, she and Adam would be like the gods, knowing both good and evil. According to Genesis, this was undoubtedly true, as once Adam and Eve had eaten of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, they were like gods (Genesis 3:22: "And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us..."), but had also become aware of their mortality. This exposed God's hidden meaning and motives, showing that he did not want Adam and Eve to achieve their full potential, of knowing good and evil. Finally it created a self-awareness and a longing for knowledge.

Eve was tempted, and ate the fruit.

Answer

Genesis Ch. 3. Quote:- v4 And the serpent said unto the woman,(1)Ye shall not surely die:

v5 (2) For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.

These are the only words (Tactics) which Satan spoke to Eve. Thought I will agree that what has been said could be close to the truth.

I think the bible means the book.

It comes from the Greek 'Biblos' meaning 'book' from where we get words like Bibliography (a list or books) and bibliophile (booklover).

John Wesley started Methodism because the Anglican church kicked him out. He wanted to make the Word accessible to all people, but some of his methods were not approved by the Anglican church. He also believed that the church should support the poor more strongly than the Anglican church did.

Another Answer:

John Wesley did not mean to start something called "Methodism". He helped his younger brother Charles start a "holy club" at Oxford University. The members would study together, read the Bible, and do good works especially with people who were poor and imprisoned. They were seen as over-the-top religious by their fellow students and got several derogatory nicknames. One of those nicknames was "Methodists" because of their methodical way of being religious. That name stuck and came to be accepted as the movement grew.

After a major failure at being a missionary in the colony of Georgia (before it was a state), Wesley went back to England and had a "heart-warming" experience and a new sense of assurance of God's grace in his life.

John Wesley remained an Anglican priest his whole life, but was often forbidden from speaking in Anglican Churches. So he preached wherever people would come to hear him, usually public squares in towns. This type of preaching was becoming very popular at the time.

What set John Wesley apart from the other traveling preachers was his ability to organize people. Many of the people who came to hear him speak would be converted to a deeper faith and wanted to take steps to grow in their faith. Wesley organized them into societies (large groups, based on city), classes (12 people each, based on location of members), and bands (6 people each, based on an even deeper desire to grow in faith). He also trained many other preachers, both clergy and lay, who did the same thing. These preachers and various size spiritual formation groups made up the early Methodist movement, and grew very rapidly as people found deeper spirituality than they were getting in the Anglican church of the time. People were encouraged to continue attending Anglican services for communion, however.

The first Methodist churches didn't come about until Francis Asbury preached in the newly independent United States and started them there. The British Methodist Church only formed after Wesley had died.

So John Wesley started the movement called Methodism because there was a need for a deeper expression of the Christian faith in England at the time, and because he was able to organize people into a system that worked.

Another View:

I would challenge the premise that John Wesley founded Methodism.

He indeed, founded "Wesleyan" Methodism. Dallimore's excellent biography of George Whitefield gives credible evidence that the Methodist movement had its initial thrust through Whitefield (also a member of the " Holy Club ") -- while John Wesley was still laboring in America -- and before he was actually saved by the grace of God through the ministry of the Moravian, Peter Boehler.

Methodism cannot be regarded as being solely Wesleyan (Arminian) in doctrine; for the Calvinistic Methodists probably had equal followers, notably in the Bristol area and throughout southern Wales.

• Lost.. Any division of any purpose separates man[kind] from man.. No religion has ever unite mankind, although most religion professes "Love thy Neighbors." And all Holy Scriptures of all religions asserts that theirs are the sources of all truths....
• Luther criticized the RCC for its undeniably corrupt practices like selling "indulgences". Protestantism not only separated many Christians from that corruption, but prompted the RCC to start cleaning up its own act in the "Counter Reformation". In this sense, mutual competition drove positive religious developments on both sides.
• The RCC had been deeply into politics, dominating much of Europe's governance. One may view the Popes of the period as emulating Roman Emperors more than any disciples of Jesus. Therefore, the Protestant Reformation may owe more of its energy to political rebellion against imperious Rome than to theological fervor. The theologians get most of the ink in the history books, but the kings led the wars and anonymous soldiers did most of the bleeding.

  The reforms came at a terrible price. Therefore, one's opinion on whether the split was good or bad depends on whether one thinks the reforms were worth the price. Given that there were inquisitions and wars even before the split, I see the price of reform, though terrible, as no worse than the price of inaction. Therefore, I aver that the split was and still is a net positive both theologically and politically.

• I suppose it only matters for those who divide far enough to no longer worship the 3 persons worshipped in Catholicism. So therefore... the answer would be hopefully better.

• The diversity of thought and opinion suggests a gain, in the sense that one is free to analyse and choose rather than blindly "doing what you're told." This is likely a good thing.
• The world has lost by the separation. Why, because Protestants, those who protested the church, left what Jesus built here on earth. Most of the Christian religions are based on "sola scriptura", meaning "scripture alone". They believe that is all that is needed in order to get to Heaven. What they don't realize is that there was the universal Christian Church approximately 300 years before they put the bible together. Universal means Catholic, or vise versa. Jesus said "Go forth and teach all nations". He did not say "Go forth and write a book". However, you will find more scripture in a Catholic Mass than in any other Christian service.

  So, when Martin Luther split from the Catholic Church in 1517, followed by John Calvin (Calvinism) in 1536, that started the Protestant Reform. Unfortunately, I don't think that Jesus needed his Church to be "reformed". Some Protestants, which most agree the Catholic Church was the first, will argue that it may have been the first, but it has changed and is no longer the Church Jesus meant for it to be. When Jesus began His Church, He stated to Simon, "Thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build My Church, and the gates of Hell will not prevail against it." So, if you agree with the Protestants, then either Jesus lied, or we are all doomed and nothing matters anyway.

• In every country where the Roman Catholic religion of that country is over 85% of the population, there will usually be more problems than an equivalent country with a strongly-protestant history. Such a Protestant country :-

- has a better infrastructure of public hospitals, orphanages, doctors, teachers, schools, and social-workers,

-Literacy and education for the masses

-Greater civil liberty and free-press.

-Puritan work ethic

-A stronger middle-class (not just the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer.)

-Less poverty

-Bible-reading encouraged, not just permitted.

-More community-driven-and-controlled welfare programs

-Higher standards of justice

-Government for all the people

-Personal accountability and responsibility

-greater social cohesion

-Allegiance to their own country, not to a foreigner ( ie Pope)

-Do not have to worry about a "5th column" in society in time of war. (Dictators usually kill Roman Catholic priests, clergy, and often laity because they are seen as a threat to their own power.)

• Tyndale, Ridley, Latimer, Cranmer, and the other martyrs would roll in their graves if they could see just how utterly pagan this Post-Christian and now-pre-Reformation world of today has become. Just as the world today has definitely lost by the re-acceptance of Roman Catholics by Protestants (many of whom don't know their history and see no difference between the two), so the world had originally definitely gained by the separation of the Protestants and Roman Catholics.

Many people associate Easter as to celebrating the resurrection of Christ.

Actually men have taken the Biblical significance of the occasion and added symbols and customs that originate from ancient peoples who served false gods.

For example, consider a well-known emblem of Easter (RESURRECTION of Christ) in some countries-the rabbit.

"Ancient pagans used the rabbit as a symbol of the abundant new life of the spring season. . . . The first record of the bunny as an Easter symbol is found in Germany about 1572," says The Catholic Encyclopedia for School and Home.

Likewise, the Easter-time (RESURRECTION OF CHRIST) use of hot cross buns, brightly colored eggs, or chocolate bells has its roots in pagan religion.

The frog, regarded as a symbol of fertility and the Egyptian concept of resurrection, was considered sacred to the frog-goddess

The Westminster Dictionary of the Bible states that at one time "the original spring festival was in honor of the Teutonic goddess of light and spring known in Anglo-Saxon as Eastre. As early as the 8th century the name was transferred by the Anglo-Saxons to the Christian festival designed to celebrate the resurrection of Christ" which now some call Easter.

In the bible harvests are used to denote resurrection. Barley first, Wheat, then Grapes.

Another answer:

In religious paintings the peacock is the most common symbol for resurrection.

The Major Reformers of the Protestant Reformation were John Calvin, Ulrich Zwingli, John Knox, and of course Martin Luther. There were several 'reformers' decades and even centuries prior to the Protestant Reformation. Some of the more prominent ones being a former Catholic priest and teacher Jan Hus, as well as an English theologian John Wyckliffe. The descendants of Jan Hus became known as Hussites, and later became known as the Moravians.

Lutherans are recognized by most as being the 'first Protestants' since the Protestant Reformation began primarily due to the German priest Martin Luther, who 'protested' against the corruption within the Roman Catholic Church. Luther posted his 95 theses, or 95 arguments against the Roman church on the door of All Saints Church in Wittenberg Germany on October 31st 1517. This marks the anniversary of the start of the Protestant Reformation. Luther's intent was never to leave the church, but to change the church from within, however, before having the chance to, he was excommunicated by the Pope, for what at the time he deemed 'heresy.' Luther's followers became known as Lutherans. The Lutheran Church, since it was founded by a former Roman Catholic priest, is very similar in structure, liturgy and theology to Catholicism. The main branches of Lutheranism are the Swedish Lutheran Church, The German Lutheran Church the Evangelical Lutheran Church and the Missouri Synod Lutheran Church (Missouri Synod being based primarily in the mid-west United States.) Each mainline Lutheran branch is a member of the Lutheran World Federation, which is a loose federation of Lutheran Churches around the world that share a common heritage and theological perspective.

The conflicts depend on which Protestant denomination you're speaking of. Generally there are differences on the question of faith versus good works, on the role of Mary, and on Church authority.

In some cases, conflicts may be caused by a lack of education. Catholics do not believe there's anyone "standing between you and the Trinity." Nor do they worship saints.

------

Catholics believe that God the Son became incarnate in a human body through the Holy Spirit and the Blessed Virgin Mary to save mankind from their sins. He established His Church and appointed Apostles (Bishops) and Peter (Pope) to guide that Church on earth and He guaranteed to be with It until the end of time. Catholics believe that you only have one choice in life: to love and serve the Lord, or to reject Him and be separated from Him forever in Hell. Every other choice you have in life comes down to that, is this following Jesus or rejecting Him.

Protestants reject Christ because they reject His Body: the Church. They believe that they are their own little Pope and that they can decide how to follow Jesus themselves. Thus they fragment into many "denominations" as they decide how they want to follow God, ignoring what He, Himself has said, and interpreting for themselves what is right or wrong. Thus they believe that they have more choices than following God or not, they believe that they have the choice to decide HOW they are going to follow God.