|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Poor Satan, so misunderstood. | |||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3698 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: Actually, I agree there is good merit in saying the laws were dispensed fast, suddenly and w/o much pre-experimentation. At least, this would apply to numerous laws. What seems analogous to the adam story, is the first two commandments, which are so strictly inclined with Monotheism and NO OTHER GODS. When one considers it well, the Israelites at this time were steeped in idols and dieties, being in ancient Egypt for centuries: they had to fail this one, and they did. Same with Adam and Eve. However, IMHO, the laws had to be given, and perhaps they are best viewed from a big picture long period view of humanity. The law is careful to include a host of saving graces, such as forebearence, kindness, mercy, forgiveness, etc.
quote: He was punished and he did transgress the law given him. However, the point is not only the failing here; this story shows more than that - namely that an overwhleming situation was given them [how long would anyone last if told not to eat a fruit lest it begets them everlasting life and transcendent Gd like knowledge?] - then overwhelming temptation with the serpent [the most cunning of all creatures]? Even with murder, if its accidental or not pre-med, there is no crime. IMHO, its too simplistic to read this story relating only to a failing by Adam. It appears more a reflection for humanity and how they will act and what will confront them in this realm. It is more akin to a parent testing a child - with full knowledge of the outcome.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3698 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: Excellent question, but it has nothing whatsoever to do with any devil. There is no 'devel' mentioned in any of the five books. This is simply a display to indicate the sanctity of commands [laws], which was to be forthcoming unto humanity. Both this story in Genesis, and the opening words at Sinai, begin with a display of 'laws'. The fact that the serpent must have had some prior knowledge of good and evil is also correct, and is also an explanation of the plural 'US' - used in the texts before the advent of humans: 'LET *US* MAKE MAN IN OUR IMAGE'/Gen. Of note is the 'US' only relates to including the previously created spiritual beings in what God proposes to do next, while the following verse which tells of actually creating man is in the 'singular' verb.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3698 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: The command of images relates to the 'worship' of them only, and to humans on this physical realm. Note it says not to make a 'likeness' of anything in heaven or earth, listing all relevent examples. This does not include abstracts, such as a word or writing or an expressionism. The law was directed to humanity only. This law is akin to an advocation, although presented as a mandated law akin to THOU SHALT NOT MURDER. It is given for guidance to follow the best path for belief, as it says, [paraphrased]: FOR THEY SHALL FOLLOW MY STATUTES AND NOT GO ASTRAY, etc.
quote: There was no humans at the point of that verse [pre-man creation]. That the serpent was punished with crawling on the ground, also says the serpent once walked. We know that spiritual beings [forces/angels?] can emulate humans while they enter this physical realm, from the 3 Angels who visited Abraham. This is specially so when there is a vision or relevation commanded [seeing with third eye/when the eyes are closed, etc/Bilham], or when a message is to be given, which is varied from the lesser omens, signs, dreams and thoughts of man.
quote: No, this infers an adversary to God, which is a Non-OT; Non-Monotheist stance. All percieved bad/evil is Creator sanctioned else it could not occur, as with all things. Also, there is no loss of free will for humans in this regard. Further, angels cannot perform more than one designated task at one time [thus 3 angels were sent to Abraham, with 3 different messages], free will being exclusive to humans, and based exclusively on moral/ethical laws; there is no free will outside a moral/ethical decision. The OT clearly says of percieved evils, 'WHEN *I* SEND THE PLAGUE INTO YOUR CITITES'; 'WHO IS IT THAT MAKES ONE BLIND AND ANOTHER A MUTE?'; etc. There is no 'Lucifer' or Creator adversary syndrome in the OT, which describes evil and hated the Lord, as hating the laws of God only. This says the law is the only antidote to bad/evil. Eve would have not sinned and prevailed over the serpent but for disobaying a law; this was the serpent's designated role, also as seen in Job, to test one against a command. The same way, a spiritual force tempts one to gamble, rob or do some wrong on a constant basis while we live.
quote: See the follow-up verse: when man is created - the word 'created' is in the singular term. The 'US' refers only to a dialogue which includes other spiritual beings created in Heaven, which preceded the physical realm.
quote: Only where this role is designated; in Job, the percieved adversary had to seek God's permission to test Job, and this was given in the opening preamble of that book. Belief in any independent anti-creator entity can conclude in paganism, polytheism, or the wrong path.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3698 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: Consider this pivotal verse here.
quote: From where was the man taken? And to where? He was not taken to a garden - but to 'THE' garden, namely a particular garden like no other - where animals can walk, talk and debate; where a human is in its primal, original dual-gendered form [pre-seperation, and still in the previous chapter's state of 'MAN AND WOMAN CREATED HE THEM']; and where entry is guarded by 'angels'. This is hardly a garden variety ordinary garden. Later, the human is cast out of this garden: to where? - and why cast out/down if this is just a generic garden not different from any place on earth? - and why bar entry with angels with firey swords? Obviously, this is not on physical earth, or it is a metaphor, and quite excellently writ. It is obviously not an error in writing so it is not coherent - we see a coherence of writing every where in the OT, irrespective how one feels about its content. The opening chapters of genesis, being creational, are also, IMO, the most complex and hedy. It is a description of a transit zone, between essential creation in conjunction with all created entities [ch.1], and then an historical account of a 'human' [adam] becoming a particular man's name [pronoun]; because the adam of ch.1 was an essential human [in his essence of creation], not a historical person on earth; ch 1 is not about the creation of humans, but the creation of all things simultainiously - all elements and all life forms, including physicality itself. There is a transit twilight zone here, which acts as a bridge, thus it's metaphoric premise. We find also, that the technical word for 'create' is used in ch. 1 for essence of man, and the word 'formed' used outside of ch.1., when Eve was seperated from adam:
quote: This non-physical garden is 'away from' and 'different' than the place where four rivers are listed. Here, the phrase 'took man from' - refers to took man from this physical earth wherein is the historical rivers listed - namely 'away' from physicality. Thus in the garden, all the created life forms addressed in ch 1., which includes the animals, are likewise not in this physical realm, but still in their essence prior to their physical representation. All are in the transit zone. The relevent question now becomes, where then does this meta-physical realm and, and the historical, physical one begin? IMHO, it is at the following point, which introduces the first exclusive human trait, one which no other life form displays, and one which signifies nothing else than 'physicality' and more significantly, the exclusive human reaction to it: shame and embarrassment of being naked - which is the factor seperating humans from all other life forms. The opening clause here is also an eye opener:
quote: Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given. Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3698 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: How does this account for the serpent also being punished, if only man sinned? This also shows that the animals were in the same place [the serpent].
quote: But this would account for a non-truth, which is not permissable, because this description ['knowledge of good and evil'] was ascribed as being given by God.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3698 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
I concur here. The term satan is Non-OT and an addition.
The tree of knowledge was good, and only a precious status accorded it, later seen as irresistably desirous. Also, there is no rebellian in the sense of being able to withstand God's Will as a counter force, but more a failing, akin to one failing to adhere to a NO SMOKING sign. All were judged; non were a counter force; the latter notion contradicts the OT in a fundamental mode.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3698 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: Not so. Both were created in dual-gender mode in ch.1., in their originally created essence, and here adam represents a generic human, not a male name:
quote: quote: That the garden was special, means it can be special here on earth as well, varied from the norm reality. The point here is this garden was non-physical/different by virtue of the factors it contains. The historical milestones such as river tigirs, etc - is the place this garden was seperate from, and where adam was taken and placed therein, then cast back to physical, historical earth. Earth and physicality do not apply here. East is also mentioned in Exodus, representing a factor transcending nature, namely a strong easterly wind split the sea of reeds. The rest of your post references are NT perspectives, which have fundamental core differences with the OT conclusions, contradicting all of the laws and statutes of the Mosaic - from the POV of pre-NT, OT commentary and provisions. It is just a different view and premise, and ends cyclical or contradictory when both premises are used. Obviously, if one followed the OT view for 2000 years b4 the NT emerged, he would not uphold the same views. The variance must be seen from a big picture view, not in a path which requires the OT to allign with an end point conclusion of the NT. Here, my preference goes to the OT conclusion - else all other factors in the OT become changeable; equally, we cannot determine the NT from an OT view. There is no adversary or devil in the text, only humans and a serpent being placed in situations and acting like all humans do in natural circumstances: they fail, fall and get up again: the message of this story of things to come.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3698 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
To be fair, this is perhaps the most enigmatic writings I have ever encountered. It seems to infer something different, more or additional than what is read in it, even from numerous deliberations. The most poignant factor in it is that it appears to be intentional, because it cannot be conclusively faulted as an error, no matter which path is taken. Equally, all conclusions appear deficient and unsatisfactory.
One must remember the hedy nature of the topic, and what mysterious issues would apply. In this sense, all my own views are conjurings only.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3698 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
This applies only to Genesis' creation chapters. No conjurings about the origin of science, medicine, herbology, fullfilled prophesies, the name Palestinian or the Pope's racism towards Israel. These were shown to this reluctant forum with adequate vindication. I know not what your post refers to specifically.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3698 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: Yes, the text says so: the dual-gendered human is in opening ch 1., and the command to multiply is after ch.1., namely after their seperation, in ch.2:
quote: Are you also saying that Adam was not male before the woman was taken out of him ? Correct - he was a dual-gendered ['male and female created he them']human originally. The text says so. Also, the first comman, TO MULTIPLY, is after they are deemed seperated and married:
quote:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3698 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: While the bible is referred to the OT & NT, it is also a fact there are core differences in beliefs, interpretation and conclusion between these two scriptures. The muslims again interpret both books differently. If ONE examine this situation correctly and honestly, the OT has a non-negotiable mandated law: NOTHING CAN BE ADDED OR SUBTRACTED FROM THIS BOOK OF LAWS. This is not a superfluous law, but one with 100% equal validity as "Thou shalt not murder". Its proof is the seperation of christianity from its mother religion, and unending wars between Islam, the Hellenests and with Rome - it is certainly not understood by the bulk of christians today, who use it as a charge Jews were rejecters; the reverse is the truth. This not to add or subtract means there can be no follow-up to what is God's law, making the NT a voluntarilly imposed addition from Europe, and not accepted by Jews and muslims. Its proof of veracity is only the OT view, as given by the Jewish prophets and sages, becomes vindicated by history, geography, science, maths, coherence and what the world's institutions follow. Its other proof of veracity is christianity would never have succeeded by itself - as seen with Greece who proposed what Paul did 200 years previously, and what Islam proposed 600 years after christianity emerged: it was rejected, solely because the flaunting of the OT commands.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3698 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: Better, 'LOVE THE STRANGER'. OT rules. Consider how Jesus' followers behaved for 2000 years in medevial europe - even failing to the lesser advocation of 'LOVE THY NEIGHBOUR'?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3698 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
No such thing as satan/sataan. These came later, via christianity and islam. Even the metaphoric bad guy, the serpent, is listed only as 'the most cunning creature', and by reason of violating a command/law. Equally, no such thing as a good guy who does not follow the laws. A differing view borders on, and can incline with a non-belief in Monotheism and Oniscience.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024