God's take on nudity

[Guitar's Cry]

I must have missed the announcement. Care to direct me to it?

I was referring to the medieval notion that divinity trickles down from God rather like money in a trickle down economy.

A quick review of Genesis shows the theological point of view that humans are separate from the rest of God's creation.

Ah yes, the ubiquitous "we." Ever hear of the Band Wagon Argument? It's fallacious.

Sorry. How about: Our language appears to equate sexuality with animalistic behavior, which in itself is separating us from our beastly selves.

 

[Ingledsva]

Regarding the Serpent Seed doctrine let's be totally clear this is a modern racist perversion of Christianity even if there is a casual connection to ancient Gnostic writings. Cain himself is not always seen as a negative figure in Gnostic thought as there was an entire Gnostic group called the Cainites.

Just how do you figure this? This idea of sex with the Serpent goes back into the Jewish writings - for instance -

Talmud (Yebamoth 103b) ‘ rabbi Johanan stated. When the serpent copulated with Eve, he infused her with lust.'

Well, first off, Orthodox Jews will tell you that it takes years of study (in the original languages) to properly understand the Talmud (although to be honest I often think this is an excuse).

Secondly, just because (some) Jews may have advanced the idea that Eve had sex with the Serpent (I've never actually heard this from any Jew--might be interesting to run this up the flagpole on the Jewish forum) does NOT mean that Jews ever endorsed the racist ideology of the Christian Identity movement (which itself is antisemitic). As an important side note Jews have never equated the Serpent with the devil as in Christianity.
Thirdly, just one vague reference in one Gnostic writing is not a lot to base an idea and then apply across the board to Gnosticism in general.

LOL! I gave one example and several books to kickstart his search.

2. Why do you folks keep bring up crap like the Christian Identity movement, which has nothing to do with this discussion.

And please do bring it up to them - YOU - will be surprised.

*

and Cain and his offspring have always played the evil "other" role in the Tanakh.

References for that idea?

Have you bothered to read the books? The book specifically splits them into a Godly line (with an expected Messiah) and the "OTHER" with whom they war all throughout the texts.

*

However, in later Gnostic writings the Serpent events are seen as necessary for enlightenment and life. Every good myth has a Trickster.

Later writings? The Gospel of Philip is from the third century. It probably represents a survival of Jewish gnosticism and should not be equated with Gnosticism as a whole. And I know of no Gnostic writings that ever regard the Serpent as a trickster. It is the creator god in Genesis who is the trickster.

That was in reply to "the Serpent was viewed by many Gnostics as an agent of the Holy Spirit."

*

Much, much, more - And far older.
Just Google it and start reading the texts.

Actually I did and came up with nada <shrug>

LOL! Try harder. There is a lot of this information on line. Try the Project Gutenberg database - for instance. But also ask your Jewish friends.

*

Again these are not "later" texts but go back to the second century CE or possibly even earlier.

See above.

*

This sex with the Serpent idea probably came about very early. You have to remember that the word for Serpent - is also the word for a Sorcerer (the trickster in the story .)
Gen 3:13 &#8230; And the woman said, The serpent beguiled me, and I did eat.
Can also be translated &#8211;
And the woman said, The Sorcerer seduced me, and I did burn/partake.

I don't see evidence of this in Hebrew etymology. Nakhash is derived from a root meaning diviner but that is not a sorcerer.

LOL! The Serpent obviously tricked her.


Nachash means - Diviner - Spell caster - Enchanter = Sorcerer.

Spell casting and Enchanting equals a Sorcerer.

*

 

[nazz]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nazz
Secondly, just because (some) Jews may have advanced the idea that Eve had sex with the Serpent (I've never actually heard this from any Jew--might be interesting to run this up the flagpole on the Jewish forum) does NOT mean that Jews ever endorsed the racist ideology of the Christian Identity movement (which itself is antisemitic). As an important side note Jews have never equated the Serpent with the devil as in Christianity.
Thirdly, just one vague reference in one Gnostic writing is not a lot to base an idea and then apply across the board to Gnosticism in general.

LOL! I gave one example and several books to kickstart his search.

Can you look in your books and give me some references to Gnostic writings that support this idea?

2. Why do you folks keep bring up crap like the Christian Identity movement, which has nothing to do with this discussion.

Because they are the ones who push this Serpent Seed agenda--NOT Jews! And certainly not most Gnostics, if any!

And please do bring it up to them - YOU - will be surprised.

Bring what up to whom?

*

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ingledsva
and Cain and his offspring have always played the evil "other" role in the Tanakh.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Nazz
References for that idea?



Have you bothered to read the books? The book specifically splits them into a Godly line (with an expected Messiah) and the "OTHER" with whom they war all throughout the texts.

No, I haven't read them as you just told me about them yesterday. Besides anyone can write whatever they want in a book and that doesn't make it so. What I want are references to actual Gnostic texts. But in this case I was asking for references to the Tanakh. It would be mighty strange to find them since according to the Bible all of Cain's descendants were wiped out in the Flood!

*
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ingledsva
However, in later Gnostic writings the Serpent events are seen as necessary for enlightenment and life. Every good myth has a Trickster.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nazz
Later writings? The Gospel of Philip is from the third century. It probably represents a survival of Jewish gnosticism and should not be equated with Gnosticism as a whole. And I know of no Gnostic writings that ever regard the Serpent as a trickster. It is the creator god in Genesis who is the trickster.



That was in reply to "the Serpent was viewed by many Gnostics as an agent of the Holy Spirit."

Are you disputing that?

*
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ingledsva
Much, much, more - And far older.
Just Google it and start reading the texts.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nazz
Actually I did and came up with nada <shrug>



LOL! Try harder. There is a lot of this information on line. Try the Project Gutenberg database - for instance. But also ask your Jewish friends.

Actually I did and you can view the reply here:

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/judaism-dir/152505-question-regarding-serpent-genesis.html
*

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ingledsva
This sex with the Serpent idea probably came about very early. You have to remember that the word for Serpent - is also the word for a Sorcerer (the trickster in the story .)
Gen 3:13 … And the woman said, The serpent beguiled me, and I did eat.
Can also be translated –
And the woman said, The Sorcerer seduced me, and I did burn/partake.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nazz
I don't see evidence of this in Hebrew etymology. Nakhash is derived from a root meaning diviner but that is not a sorcerer.



LOL! The Serpent obviously tricked her.

He did? How exactly? The deceiver was the creator god. The serpent was totally truthful.

Nachash means - Diviner - Spell caster - Enchanter = Sorcerer.

Spell casting and Enchanting equals a Sorcerer.

Not according to my research confirmed by the response I linked above.

 

[Colubro]

God created humans to know only good---once they rebelled and had the knowledge of bad as well--lust entered the scene. they needed to wear clothes. they didn't know the difference before knowing bad.

Your response is flawed, as lust is present even among people who do wear clothes.

 

[kjw47]

Your response is flawed, as lust is present even among people who do wear clothes.

Only because we know bad--Adam and Eve did not know bad until they rebelled--they were naked before that incident, but then needed clothes.

 

[Colubro]

I think that before sin and the fall Adam and Eve looked upon each other and their nakedness in innocence and purity. Choosing to disobey God caused new sinful desires to arise within them. Desires of lust to look at another person as an object and/or use another for self seeking satisfaction This lust has has plagued the world ever since.

For all that is in the world—the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life—is not of the Father but is of the world. And the world is passing away, and the lust of it; but he who does the will of God abides forever. 1 John 2:16=17

Without sexual attraction, the human race would have died out a long time ago. Even with the presence of clothes, we still have a desire to procreate. So putting clothes into the picture didn't fix any problems.

 

[Colubro]

Only because we know bad--Adam and Eve did not know bad until they rebelled--they were naked before that incident, but then needed clothes.

How could you know Adam and Eve were naked?

 

[Ingledsva]

Can you look in your books and give me some references to Gnostic writings that support this idea?

I already gave you one, and suggested books and sites. This idea of sex with the serpent is very well known.

2. Why do you folks keep bring up crap like the Christian Identity movement, which has nothing to do with this discussion.

Because they are the ones who push this Serpent Seed agenda--NOT Jews! And certainly not most Gnostics, if any!

That later idea has nothing to do with this thread which is about nudity and shame in the Genesis story. Sex with the Serpent was brought up because it is very well know in religious studies.

And please do bring it up to them - YOU - will be surprised.

Bring what up to whom?

You mentioned asking your Jewish friends about this Eve and Serpent sex idea.

*

No, I haven't read them as you just told me about them yesterday. Besides anyone can write whatever they want in a book and that doesn't make it so. What I want are references to actual Gnostic texts. But in this case I was asking for references to the Tanakh. It would be mighty strange to find them since according to the Bible all of Cain's descendants were wiped out in the Flood!

According to the Bible the Canaanites are descended from Ham after the flood.

According to early Jewish midrash Genesis Rabba (23.3) identifies Naamah the daughter of Lamech and sister of Tubal-cain as the wife of Noah. From the line of Cain. From their son Ham we get the Canaanites.

However, in later Gnostic writings the Serpent events are seen as necessary for enlightenment and life. Every good myth has a Trickster.

That was in reply to "the Serpent was viewed by many Gnostics as an agent of the Holy Spirit."

Are you disputing that?

What am I supposed to be disputing? I said it was later.

LOL! Try harder. There is a lot of this information on line. Try the Project Gutenberg database - for instance. But also ask your Jewish friends.

Actually I did and you can view the reply here:

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/judaism-dir/152505-question-regarding-serpent-genesis.html *

Indeed. and the first sentence of the first reply is -

"In this citation from Yevamot, Rabbi Yochanan is referencing a well-known midrash, which also appears in Genesis Rabbah, as well as someplace else, I think, though I can't recall it at the moment."

Obviously I was stating fact.

... LOL! The Serpent obviously tricked her.

He did? How exactly? The deceiver was the creator god. The serpent was totally truthful.

In your, and my, opinions - however - we are discussing what they thought.

Genesis 3 tells us the Serpent was "arum," cunning, crafty = tricky.

Nachash means - Diviner - Spell caster - Enchanter = Sorcerer.

Spell casting and Enchanting equals a Sorcerer.

Not according to my research confirmed by the response I linked above.

Not so.

And he is mostly correct. Even a simple Strong's Concordance tells us that Nachash (H5175) comes from H5172 an Enchanter, Sorcerer, "hisser" of incantations.

*

 

[gilligan8914]

Does god wear clothes? If not----naked too.

 

[Colubro]

Does god wear clothes? If not----naked too.

If one doesn't wear clothes, it doesn't necessarily mean they're naked.

 

[nazz]

I already gave you one, and suggested books and sites. This idea of sex with the serpent is very well known.

Apparently not as well known as you think

According to early Jewish midrash Genesis Rabba (23.3) identifies Naamah the daughter of Lamech and sister of Tubal-cain as the wife of Noah. From the line of Cain. From their son Ham we get the Canaanites.

Okay

What am I supposed to be disputing? I said it was later.

And I attempted to correct your mistaken thinking on that.

Indeed. and the first sentence of the first reply is -

"In this citation from Yevamot, Rabbi Yochanan is referencing a well-known midrash, which also appears in Genesis Rabbah, as well as someplace else, I think, though I can't recall it at the moment."

Obviously I was stating fact.

Well you are correct in that the citation exists. But as Levite pointed out it is midrash. Do you understand the concept of midrash?

In your, and my, opinions - however - we are discussing what they thought.

What WHO thought?

Genesis 3 tells us the Serpent was "arum," cunning, crafty = tricky.

Of course

Not so.

And he is mostly correct. Even a simple Strong's Concordance tells us that Nachash (H5175) comes from H5172 an Enchanter, Sorcerer, "hisser" of incantations.

Unless you are a scholar of Hebrew I will go with Levite and my own research. And not even Strong's agrees with you:

Blue Letter Bible - Lexicon :: H5172

***
I really don't think this discussion is going anywhere. If you wish to contend that the majority of Gnostics believed Eve had sex with the serpent of the Garden and can back that up here with references to actually Gnostic writings go for it. Till then...

 

[Pegg]

Yup, and why did this become the case only after the apple incident? The only one who was ****** off about it was god, so it seems reasonable that he's the culprit.

because before they did wrong, they were governed in every way by Gods views in all matters including their nudity. God never viewed their nudity as something wrong so nor did they, but after they sinned, they developed their own views on such things.

their own views became warped so their conscience told them that what they were thinking was shameful and thus they felt guilty.

 

[Skwim]

because before they did wrong, they were governed in every way by Gods views in all matters including their nudity.

Which, if you're correct, had to include the governance of their decision to take a bite of the apple. IOW, god would have regarded the eating of the apple as correct. Kind of flies in the face of the more accepted take on god's view of the incident doesn't it.

God never viewed their nudity as something wrong so nor did they, but after they sinned, they developed their own views on such things.

Yeah, but this is old ground that's already been gone over.

their own views became warped so their conscience told them that what they were thinking was shameful and thus they felt guilty.

But the question still remains *sigh* why would their views become warped, and then to pick such an unrelated and innocuous state?

As I said in post 69, and to which you never made a cogent reply.

"To suddenly discover one is naked implies a knowledge of not being naked. And, I have to believe that having just been plopped down on earth they had no concept of being clothed, therefore nakedness would be a meaningless notion. Now shame, which is really the crux of the issue here, is an emotional response over which one has very little control, so one has to ask how such an emotion developed where it didn't exist before. Did A&E set out to purposely feel shame? Extremely doubtful. So what other sources could there be? I only see god. He had first created them with no sense of shame for their nakedness, and then, only after the galling apple incident, decided that as partial punishment they would be ashamed of their nakedness. Think they would have decided upon such a thing? Hardly."

​

If god was not involved then the only reasonable answer I can think of is that they were goofy as hell from the very outset. God had created two mentally challenged doofuses. Wouldn't be his last mistake.

 

[Pegg]

Which, if you're correct, had to include the governance of their decision to take a bite of the apple. IOW, god would have regarded the eating of the apple as correct. Kind of flies in the face of the more accepted take on god's view of the incident doesn't it.

decisions and views/attitudes are quite different.

A decision is carried out by an action. A view/attitude is a state of mind.

Yeah, but this is old ground that's already been gone over.

But the question still remains *sigh* why would their views become warped, and then to pick such an unrelated and innocuous state?

their views became warped because they turned away from God. Its pretty simple.

As I said in post 69, and to which you never made a cogent reply.

"To suddenly discover one is naked implies a knowledge of not being naked. And, I have to believe that having just been plopped down on earth they had no concept of being clothed, therefore nakedness would be a meaningless notion. Now shame, which is really the crux of the issue here, is an emotional response over which one has very little control, so one has to ask how such an emotion developed where it didn't exist before. Did A&E set out to purposely feel shame? Extremely doubtful. So what other sources could there be? I only see god. He had first created them with no sense of shame for their nakedness, and then, only after the galling apple incident, decided that as partial punishment they would be ashamed of their nakedness. Think they would have decided upon such a thing? Hardly."​

no, it was a consequence of a wrong action. Turning away from God brought them into a state of imperfection. They no longer held to the views which were instinctive....they corrupted them.

The sexual organs were now seen in a new corrupted way. So the 'nakedness' they saw was a warped view of their procreative powers. They defiled themselves and, in doing so, their conscience condemned them.

From this point on, men would see women as sexual objects rather then intimate parters. And that fact has played out in the whole of human history (nowhere is more prevalent then in the wild world of pornography).


And this is why God chose to clothe them from that point on. They had undignified each other, God dignified them by covering them up.​

 

[johnhanks]

Any suggestions or insight into god's reasoning?

The full low-down.

 

[Skwim]

The full low-down.

 

[Skwim]

decisions and views/attitudes are quite different.

A decision is carried out by an action. A view/attitude is a state of mind.

their views became warped because they turned away from God. Its pretty simple.

no, it was a consequence of a wrong action. Turning away from God brought them into a state of imperfection. They no longer held to the views which were instinctive....they corrupted them.

The sexual organs were now seen in a new corrupted way. So the 'nakedness' they saw was a warped view of their procreative powers. They defiled themselves and, in doing so, their conscience condemned them.

From this point on, men would see women as sexual objects rather then intimate parters. And that fact has played out in the whole of human history (nowhere is more prevalent then in the wild world of pornography).

And this is why God chose to clothe them from that point on. They had undignified each other, God dignified them by covering them up.

Just kind of makes itself up as we go along, doesn't it.

bye.

 

[Sunstone]

From this point on, men would see women as sexual objects rather then intimate parters.

What do you make of practicing nudists and others who have experience of going nude in company, and who say they and others are less likely, rather than more likely, to sexually objectify a nude person than they are to sexually objectify a clothed person? Are they merely delusional, in your view? Or, do you think they might have some understanding of their own experiences?

And this is why God chose to clothe them from that point on. They had undignified each other, God dignified them by covering them up.

Is it your understanding, then, that human dignity depends on being clothed? Specifically, is it conceivable to you that a man or woman could remain dignified while nude in company?

 

[challupa]

The full low-down.

Interesting family dynamics!!

 

[Ingledsva]

Unless you are a scholar of Hebrew I will go with Levite and my own research. And not even Strong's agrees with you:

Blue Letter Bible - Lexicon :: H5172

Dude! You should have read the whole page on that site - it says enchanters and users of enchantment = Sorcerers.

***
I really don't think this discussion is going anywhere. If you wish to contend that the majority of Gnostics believed Eve had sex with the serpent of the Garden and can back that up here with references to actually Gnostic writings go for it. Till then...[/quote]

LOL - I never said the majority of Gnostics believed that.

I said it was a well know belief - and I gave you a quote - and suggested books on the subject.

*