A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
MidnightBlue said:Not at all.
So you think that the writers of Genesis were Gnostic?
I cannot begin to imagine how this is possible.:cover:
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
MidnightBlue said:Not at all.
I always figure in that as each chapter goes along, new writers have to explain things from previous chapters and if they intend to stick with writing a Christian message (which is what they obviously want), they have to interpret what previously happened in a way that makes sense with what they know is happening right now and in a way that coincides with the message they want to write.MidnightBlue said:To me, if somebody says, "If you eat that you'll die," it means you'll die pretty soon, as a result of eating it. It doesn't mean you'll die 900 years later.
Paul probably believed, along with many members of Abrahamic religions today, that humans were immortal before the Fall and were punished with mortality. Or maybe the death he spoke of was a spiritual death. But there's no hint of that in the Genesis text. Nor is there any mention of sin, for that matter. If mortality had been the inevitable consequence of disobedience, why would God have worried that they might take from the Tree of Life, and live forever?
All the later talk about immortality and mortality is added on by later religious development, and forms no part of the original myth. In the most straightforward reading of it, God lies and then punishes their disobedience with curses.
sojourner said:This is the kind of stuff that happens when we superimpose Christian theology of salvation onto material that is clearly written much earlier, presents a much different world view, a much different perspective of God (and humanity), and a much different view of what it means to be in relationship with God.
Because God had placed humanity "in the garden," it only stands to reason that everything pertaining to or concerning the human condition (such as knowledge of good and evil, and mortality) would also be located "in the garden." There would have been no logical reason for God to have placed human knowledge of good and evil outside the realm of humanity.
The creator of the metaphor of the "Tree of Life" had no concept of Jesus, or of the "Messiah." He only knew of "God" and "humanity." And he knew that humans, unlike God, were mortal. There was no concept that God would become mortal, thereby completing humanity and uniting us to God's self. There was no concept of the immortal soul. There was no concept that we would all "go to heaven" when we died, if we had remained obedient to God. There was only an attempt to answer the question of human mortality in the theological terms of the day. So, superimposing our current perspective of the human condition upon a more primitive perspective doesn't work.
Super Universe said:Dear Miss, can you please tell me where you got this idea that Satan's name was Lucifer and that he once was one of the most beautiful angels?
fromthe heart said:Certianly...it's in the Bible.
Super Universe said:In the bible? Are you sure about that? Look again...
No, no, no. But I think Halcyon's Gnostic interpretation of the myth is much closer to the way the creators of the myth probably viewed it. I think it's clearly a myth of enlightenment, though later Jews, Muslims and Christians -- with a few exceptions -- viewed it in terms of a Fall.angellous_evangellous said:So you think that the writers of Genesis were Gnostic?
Hell from beneath is moved for thee to meet thee at thy coming How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit. (Isaiah 14:9-16 KJV)Super Universe said:In the bible? Are you sure about that? Look again...
That doesn't say anything about Satan's name being Lucifer.mr.guy said:Hell from beneath is moved for thee to meet thee at thy coming How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit. (Isaiah 14:9-16 KJV)
Maybe, but it hardly seems worth the effort, since Paul's view of the Fall is pretty much irrelevant to my view. I'm trying to look at what the myth is likely to have meant to those who originally told the story, and I don't think those people were either Jews or Christians. The early Israelites were clearly polytheists, and later writers have anachronistically read monotheism back into Israelite history. The Yahwist may have thought that Yahweh was powerful, but not necessarily that he was good or loving or kind or fair. I suspect that this was a sort of regional myth that probably didn't even originally feature Yahweh as the deity. But all those uncertainties aside, I don't see any getting around the fact that this must have originally been a myth of enlightenment.angellous_evangellous said:It would help your case if you could locate early rabbinic or other Jewish texts that interpret Genesis either way...
fromthe heart said:One mention to Lucifer is in Isaiah 14:12 on...if you'd like I could look up the rest of the verses...but seeing that I'm leaving this forum I guess it won't much matter. You don't have to believe any of what I say...I speak from my own personal beliefs and will only believe what is in the Bible as I see this only as the true Words of God!
I suppose it don't; i, too, was running on the assumption of the commonality implied. Removed from the shroud of the satan ascription, a stand alone lucifer seems pretty promethean, don't he?Ðanisty said:That doesn't say anything about Satan's name being Lucifer.
Indeed. This is how Luciferians view Lucifer. The connection to Promethius has been made numerous times in the Luciferian community.mr.guy said:I suppose it don't; i, too, was running on the assumption of the commonality implied. Removed from the shroud of the satan ascription, a stand alone lucifer seems pretty promethean, don't he?
The rest of the post was great, the one mistake i see is the reference to Beelzebub. Beelzebub is not an individual.Super Universe said:Also, please notice that traditional human interpretation is that the name Beelzebub and Lucifer are Satan. This is incorrect. They are all separate individual beings involved in the Lucifer led rebellion.
I agree with all of that. Although when it comes to interpretation, i don't think there can really be a more correct and less correct one.MidnightBlue said:No, no, no. But I think Halcyon's Gnostic interpretation of the myth is much closer to the way the creators of the myth probably viewed it. I think it's clearly a myth of enlightenment, though later Jews, Muslims and Christians -- with a few exceptions -- viewed it in terms of a Fall.
I suspect the myth itself far predates the Pentateuch, and I don't know if I'd want to hazard a guess about how the Yahwist viewed it, much less how the later editors and redactors of the Pentateuch viewed it.
It's me! I didn't forget you, but it did take my awhile to remember which thread we were on and then find it again. Okay, so you want to know about the LDS version of the "myth..." (I know I should be offended at that, but I'm not going to bother. It's too much trouble.)MidnightBlue said:In my view, that's the difference between an old myth and a new myth. Maybe you see both as one and as literal. But I'd be interested to hear your understanding, extrabiblical or not.
Fascinating, and -- again, no offense is intended -- really quite ingenious. Thank you for taking the time to share it.Katzpur said:I hope this helps clarify our doctrine somewhat.
it makes no difference, they still started to die, so Jehovah was right and satan was wrong,and they died within the day , not a 24 hour day , but the bible tells me that a thousand years are at times represented as one day in Gods word the bible. so they died within the day , just as God said they would.MidnightBlue said:To me, if somebody says, "If you eat that you'll die," it means you'll die pretty soon, as a result of eating it. It doesn't mean you'll die 900 years later.