There's no "Fall of Man" in Genesis

[Clear]

POST FIVE OF FIVE

It’s unnecessary to the purpose of this post to discussed the symbolism of Lucifer’s apparel, his armor, and the “names” which were written in his hand (as the christian Abbaton also describes in greater detail), but it’s apparent that Lucifer unwillingly undergoes a ritual removal of his powers and authorities and authority for leadership and, with those angels who took part in his planned rebellion, he is cast down into the earth. However, such histories lend sense and context and confirmation to other histories such as Apocalypse of abraham when Azaz’el is told regarding Abraham “...shame on you Azazel! For Abraham’s portion is in heaven, and yours is on earth, for you have selected here, (and) become enamored of the dwelling place of your blemish. .... For behold, the garment which in heaven was formerly yours has been set aside for him, and the corruption which was on him has gone over to you.” (The Apocalypse of Abraham 13: 4,5,7-14)

Once Lucifer finds himself and his fallen angels on the earth, his own recognition and understanding and sense of what he had done increased, but this recognition was not associated with remorse nor repentance, but rather with an obstinate resolve and desire and plan for revenge (and other motives) and for continuing his rebellion.

Quote: “..he fled from heaven; Sotona, because his name was satanail. 5 In this way he became different from the angels. His nature did not change, (but) his thought did, since his consciousness of righteous and sinful things changed. And he became aware of his condemnation and of the sin which he sinned previously. 6 And that is why he thought up the scheme against Adam." (2nd Enoch 31:2-8, 32:1)

I hope that it is clear that the early Christian doctrines and texts DID have a sensible concept of the origin of the Devil and for some of the underlying motives as to why Lucifer battles against God and God's plan AND, against Adam for the moral education of those among mankind who are willing and wanting to live by the moral laws which will ultimately allow them to live in happiness and harmony.

Compared to modern theories (or lack of theories), the ancient Christian doctrines were, I think, more coherent and more logical and represented a more accurate view of the Devils origin.


Clear
ακακσεω

 

[Desert Snake]

I think our takes on the Garden story are rather different. I see it as very early, a primitive story (as is eg the Tower of Babel)

The tower of babel was never going anywhere, that isn't why it was destroyed.

 

[Shadow Link]

Indeed a myth, but not one that can be based on anything Genesis says.

I think the Sin Nature or the Fall can be implied at the start of original birth giving. Sin is simply ignorance and man is born into it. He must take and eat from the tree of life, wherever that may be for the individual, for the sake of longevity.

Iniquity would be like being aware of something ignorant and doing it anyway (premeditative acts).

 

[blü 2]

I think the Sin Nature or the Fall can be implied at the start of original birth giving. Sin is simply ignorance and man is born into it.

Having raised three kids, I find the idea that they were born bad / sinful / prone to evil just absurdly wrong, a worldview that reflects only on the viewer.

He must take and eat from the tree of life, wherever that may be for the individual, for the sake of longevity.

She sees, still in her innocence, that it's desirable to be wise. And she immediately wants to make her mate wise too, which is loving, proper and ─ well ─ wise. She's a hero!

Iniquity would be like being aware of something ignorant and doing it anyway (premeditative acts).

Doing something ignorant? Cripes, I've done a few of them in my time. Let's talk about something else ...

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

No one knows what the “original” version said nor who the “original” authors and editors were among the differing versions.

But if that's the case, you also can't claim to know what they meant, either.

When I referred to the “ancients”, I spoke in context of the O.P. and meant, of course, the ancient Judeo-Christians, and their textual versions and their textual interpretations.

But the authors of, say, Mark aren't of the same cultural cohort as those who wrote something like Genesis. The bible wasn't cranked out in one bedroom for a few days. The authors come from a wide range of cultures, times, and political realities. Pre-monarchy Judaism won't be the same as Post-Exile Judaism which won't be the same as "Judeo-Christian".

To lump them all into the same group is to ignore vast swaths of reality.

As mankind populated and spread out, the original stories Adam told his children would have spread with them (though in differing and evolving forms).

Geez, how many kids were left? One died, one moved out, which leaves about one more or so to stick around ...

This idea also assumes Adam's reality, when I feel it is far more likely that during the time just before the monarchy, during the Judges period, theocratic and secularly political authors were battling it out using the scriptures they were in the process of making up at that point in time to justify the politics coming on in their culture. The bible makes a big deal of no one knowing God's Word until a single law book was found during King Josiah, which means 99% of the bible is made up after that. Theocratic authors told stories of God's rule, disobedient populations, etc. Secular authors wanting a monarchy told stories of human leaders, helped with God of course (have to throw a bone to the religious conservatives), but generally took matters into their own hands and through political and military might won the day. All throughout the OT we see things like "and so it is to this day", which proves they were not written anywhere close to the times of the actual stories, if those stories happened at all in reality.

Also, Adam and Eve can't even quote a single rule accurately in front of God, so forgive me if I question their ability to tell accurate stories that span centuries....

The “wise men” had to have heard some version in sufficient clarity to be able to come west in their search for a predicted savior.

I was under the impression that astrology was a sin.

While the “fall” of Adam may refer to the process by which Adam became mortal

There is no proof Adam was supposed to be immortal. Immortality, like ethical knowledge, was supposed to be granted by magic food, items common amongst many pantheons all over the globe and even then, the food or drink or whatever had to be regularly consumed or else those perks were lost. Remember, many pantheons have regular human beings who became gods, usually through such magical items. Godhood was more of a status, not a species. In Hinduism, from what I can tell of the stories I've watched/read, apparently each god is more like a specific job and if you have enough karma, you can qualify to be promoted to that particular position. This goes with my personal theory that all gods were usually just tribal chiefs or something who were epic enough to be deified by their fans later on. "Hey, Jim Joe Bob taught us how to cook food! He's a god now of agriculture or something!"

the “fall of Lucifer” is the process by which Lucifer became an enemy to God and others and became cast out of heaven.

How powerless is God that some whiny angel can cause Him such a headache! Oy vey!

I think one should start with God’s original plan and consider events from there forward

Of which you know nothing, however. Even God mocks Job for thinking he knows anything of creation. Doesn't that smell funny to you?

It is contextually important to understand that, to this ancient christian theology

But ... is ... ancient ... Christian ... theology ... accurate ... about ... its ... reality? I don't CARE what they thought. I CARE about what actually happened.

The spirits of angels, men and God existed prior to mortality

Mortality?

God the Father’s plan entailed moral advancement of the spirits of men

Evidence of this is found ...?

The Honoring of Adam was logical in view of his role in God’s plan for mankind

Adam's job was to put name tags on animals. Whoop-de-doo. That hardly necessitates a holiday named after him.

Lucifer’s “rebellion” was more than a refusal to “honor Adam”.

I'm all for respecting the janitorial staff, but is it wrong to be "for real" about their actual status? I don't think they get enough respect, but there aren't going to be any banquets for the guys who clean the toilets any time soon.

Lucifer’s “punishment” relates to his rebellion against the plan AND God himself

Lucifer's punishment is apparently to get to be in charge of an even larger army than before by letting him have access to unrepentant sinners. This is like sending your kid to their room with all their toys still in the room.

Lucifer’s current “dominion” plays a “role” in God’s ultimate plan

To make God look like an incompetent and unsympathetic wimp?

The Zohar - The Destiny of the Soul)

Who is Zohar and why should I care?

Dead Sea Scrolls 4Q255-264

Were those authors there?

2nd Enoch 24:3

Maybe I'm too much of a Protestant. I have neither read nor see much need to care about such texts unless there is something objectively accurate about reality.

(Not that I consider Protestant canon objectively accurate either. It's just going to take a lot for me to go along with extrabiblical texts. If I should do this, I don't see why I can't read other scriptures from around the world and afford them the same respect as well.)

Ignatius :6:1

Was he there?

At any rate, I had to stop reading and only started briefly skimming. It's a lot of texts that prove nothing other than people who lived long after the supposed events have ever increasing imaginations.

 

[Shadow Link]

Having raised three kids, I find the idea that they were born bad / sinful / prone to evil just absurdly wrong, a worldview that reflects only on the viewer.
She sees, still in her innocence, that it's desirable to be wise. And she immediately wants to make her mate wise too, which is loving, proper and ─ well ─ wise. She's a hero!

Doing something ignorant? Cripes, I've done a few of them in my time. Let's talk about something else ...

 

[blü 2]

View attachment 18484

Riddles? In my old-fangled way, I always liked this one ─

Formed long ago but made today,
Employed while others sleep,
What none would wish to give away
And none would wish to keep:

What am I?​

 

[Shadow Link]

Riddles? In my old-fangled way, I always liked this one ─

Formed long ago but made today,
Employed while others sleep,
What none would wish to give away
And none would wish to keep:

What am I?​

What lies in bed, and stands in bed, first white then red. The plumper it gets, the better the old woman likes it?

 

[blü 2]

What lies in bed, and stands in bed, first white then red. The plumper it gets, the better the old woman likes it?

Hm. I'm still working on the second answer to that.

 

[Clear]

1) In response to Kelly’s claim that the original authors of the Garden story did not understand the serpent to be Lucifer. Clear pointed out the we do not know who wrote the story nor what the original version said.
Kelly responded : But if that's the case, you also can't claim to know what they meant,

You are correct on this point Kelly. I cannot know what the most original version said nor what the most original authors meant. No one can. This is why my many, many quotes from early Judeo-Christian documents only apply to that specific group at that time period, and the meanings THEY applied to the story. And we can only know what these Judeo-Christians meant because they explain what they meant. You and I are in perfect agreement with your statement that “the authors of, say, Mark aren't of the same cultural cohort as those who wrote something like Genesis.”.


Kelly said : “The bible makes a big deal of no one knowing God's Word until a single law book was found during King Josiah…”
I very much agree with your point that Jewish history (even biblical history) is syncretic and a mixed bag. The Talmud tells us that Hilkiah actually found THREE torahs that disagreed and they created a fourth bible/Torah from these and this was the one read to the people. This means that their texts were, already somewhat corrupted. I also agree with your point that the later versions of the texts were NOT written at the time the stories happened and are often taken from earlier traditions.


Kelly said : “There is no proof Adam was supposed to be immortal.”
I agree there is no proof. I am speaking of ancient beliefs and history, not proveable facts.


Kelly said : “How powerless is God that some whiny angel can cause Him such a headache!”
While this criticism may apply to the version of the Garden story you imagine, it does not apply to the ancient version of the Garden story the texts I quoted. That is, I think, one of the clever points made in the Opening Post. One forms their own models according to ones own information and thinking. Blu has formed a different model for genesis that does not have the same faults as some of the modern models for genesis. Just as in Blu's model, God does not punish others for Adam. In your model, God is "powerless". In the Ancient model he was in control but chose to allow Lucifer to have influence. These are all different historical models.

Regarding ancient history, when you say “I don't CARE what they thought. I CARE about what actually happened.”.
Good luck with that. History, especially ANCIENT history often seen in bits and pieces, through “key holes” as it were. One can come up with tentative models based on available data, but rarely can one say what actually was said and done in the time periods we are talking about.


Kelly asked : “Who is Zohar and why should I care?”
Zohar is not a “who” and, you should only care about ancient history if you want to have an authentic and informed historical conversation about ancient history (in this case, Judeo-Christian religious belief I am speaking of). The greater the number and amount of historical data streams to confirm a specific historical point, then the greater the likelihood that a conclusion will be correct. Concerning the points I have made about lucifer in judeo-Christian religion, If one limits their historical data to a single small, discrete stream of historical data, this limitation of historical data limits the likelihood of accurate historical conclusions.


Kelly said : “…I had to stop reading and only started briefly skimming. It's a lot of texts that prove nothing other than people who lived long after the supposed events have ever increasing imaginations.”
I understand religious history can be boring and requires diligence and effort to acquire some competence in some areas, such as early judeo-Christian documents which describe their beliefs in certain periods of time in greater detail. However, the down side is that the less knowledge and understanding one has on these issues, the more errors one will have in their conclusions.

For example, your conclusion is that these early Judeo-Christian texts prove “nothing other than people who lived long after the supposed events have ever increasing imaginations.” is a naïve and incomplete model. The texts show more than this. For examples :

The early texts prove that a large number of groups of theists, consisting of Jews and Christians, and Muslims, separated by vast geographical space and over significant periods of time, possessed the SAME imaginations and the SAME models and the SAME beliefs about lucifer/satan/the devil.

The texts prove that this was a very, very orthodox and widespread belief among all three religions at a certain time in history.

The texts show fairly detailed historical beliefs about how Lucifer changed from an angel in the service of God to become an enemy to God.

The text show that this ancient model was much more detailed and coherent than the later models. There are historical reasons for this loss of early data on this subject.

The early texts explain in a more coherent and rational manner than modern religious theories, Lucifers motives for working against God and Adam.

The texts connect the pre-creation Lucifer with the serpent/devil/lucifer/satan found in the Garden (which was the specific point I was making).

The texts show much more but the examples are sufficient for the point. Being unable to see the deeper points is the reason that “not reading” or “skimming” are not helpful to gaining enough knowledge to create accurate models or conclusions.



Blu said : “Having raised three kids, I find the idea that they were born bad / sinful / prone to evil just absurdly wrong, a worldview that reflects only on the viewer.”

This is another wonderful point. While some later Christian movements adopted the concept of infants being “depraved” or “sinful”, the early Christian texts describe the model where infants are sinless and pure. I do not think the modern Christian model of depravity is as rational or as logical as the historical model of infants having moral purity and being born without sin.

Kelly and Blu, I hope your journeys are wonderful and good.


Clear
ειτζδρνεω

 

[MonkeyFire]

and this made a ‘savior’ (Jesus) necessary.

You posses the sacred knowledge of perfecting. Unless Faith "can ," Safety must save.

 

[blü 2]

You posses the sacred knowledge of perfecting. Unless Faith "can ," Safety must save.

¿Ché?

 

[Thief]

I think the Sin Nature or the Fall can be implied at the start of original birth giving. Sin is simply ignorance and man is born into it. He must take and eat from the tree of life, wherever that may be for the individual, for the sake of longevity.

Iniquity would be like being aware of something ignorant and doing it anyway (premeditative acts).

apparently the alteration performed on Adam and Eve can be passed on
but that opportunity to eat from the tree of knowledge seems to be gone

or is it?

 

[Shadow Link]

Hm. I'm still working on the second answer to that.

I understand

apparently the alteration performed on Adam and Eve can be passed on
but that opportunity to eat from the tree of knowledge seems to be gone

or is it?

It's not. I think that tree just represents limited knowledge without a real purpose.

 

[Thief]

I understand


It's not. I think that tree just represents limited knowledge without a real purpose.

the purpose is not in the what you know......sort of

the body produces a unique person on each occasion
I suspect many of us survive the last breath...but not all

it depends on what you have learned

 

[Shadow Link]

the purpose is not in the what you know......sort of

the body produces a unique person on each occasion
I suspect many of us survive the last breath...but not all

it depends on what you have learned

Im sure there is somehow a connection to the DumDum Mystery Pop Nation with all of this.

 

[Thief]

Im sure there is somehow a connection to the DumDum Mystery Pop Nation with all of this.

I wonder over which gate you will find your banner?

 

[Shadow Link]

I wonder over which gate you will find your banner?

I can't really see myself chasing after any Blank Banner(Dante's Inferno) so that should narrow it down a bit for nobility's sake.

 

[Thief]

your banner reads.....Dum Dum Mystery Pop Nation

I assume you are headed there

 

[Shadow Link]

your banner reads.....Dum Dum Mystery Pop Nation

I assume you are headed there

When you 'assume' you make an '***' out of 'u' and 'me'!