Satan's origin

Victor if Eve is as innocent and unknowing as a newborn, as you suggest, how can she possibly be blamed for doing the serpent's bidding. That is a cruel and petty God who takes his wrath out on Adam and Eve, when the real fault lay with the Devil.

Your version of the story makes no sense. Only by knowing that she was forbidden to eat that fruit could Eve be blamed for allowing herself to be talked into doing so.

 

Lucifer has no place in the Christian paradigm, he is not the Abrahamic Satan and/or Devil.

The word Lucifer is found in only one place in the Christian bible -- Isaiah 14:12 -- but only in the King James and related versions: "How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning?" The King James Version is based on the Vulgate, the Latin translation of Jerome. Jerome translated the Hebrew helel (bright or brilliant one) as "Lucifer," which was a reasonable Latin equivalent. The association is clearly in regards to King Nebuchadnezzar and is in reference to the Morning Star which is a title that Jesus uses for himself as well.

Revelation 22:16: "I, Jesus, have sent my angel to give you this testimony for the churches. I am the Root and the Offspring of David, and the bright Morning Star."

Lucifer is mentioned in Publius Ovidius Naso's "Metamorphoses", and the Roman poet Virgil mentions him as far back as 29 BCE. He is a Roman deity and in my opinion shouldn't be involved in the Abrahamic paradigm.

In Greek mythology, Hesperus, the Evening Star is the son of the dawn goddess Eos (Roman equivalent: Aurora) and brother of Eosphorus the Morning Star (Eosphoros "dawn-bearer"; also Phosphorus, Lucifer "light-bearer"), further demonstrates that Lucifer is not a Satan or a fallen angel (which comes from the Book of Enoch).

 

Gordian Knot: I do not blame her. The result of the serpent's sin is 'adam and the woman being returned to the natural state of society. An earthly existence which ends in death.
G-d did not blame her or 'adam. He was forced to remove them so Eden would not be tarnished. Who is to say if anyone is in Paradise....

 

Thomas: As a friend, I would only suggest, in all fairness as a student, that you reread Genesis again. The words clearly state, that G-d created mankind on the earth, to rule it and to be fruitful and multiply. He created mankind both male and female; not in the Garden but on the Earth. The 6th day of creation.. Chapter 2 is the creation of Eden, the garden. Man has already been created as verse 2:1 states "Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all their multitude." Then after the creation of Eden, the Word states; Verse 15, "The Lord G-d took the man AND PUT HIM in the Garden." Man or mankind 'adam, was not created in the Garden... I surmise that your response is subject to your doctrinal understanding of Original Sin, a teaching of Paul's. It is found no where else in the Bible except 1 Corinthians 15 and Romans 6. My reply is as a friend, both of us are still learning and it is difficult to accept new concepts... No where does the Word tell us that the newly born woman KNEW all that Adam did, nor is it suggested anywhere in the text. To give her that knowledge is to assume, and that is a very dangerous game. The entirety of this subject is in my thesis, The Sacrament of Life. You can get it at Amazon.com as a book or Kindle, if you wish. However, I do appreciate your comments

 

God was "forced" to do something? By whom? He is all powerful, all knowing. It was in his power to foresee this problem arising yet he either didn't, or did not stop it.

Being all powerful, God could have waved his hand and returned Adam & Eve to their original condition so they could stay in the Garden. Or he could have started time over again and this time give Eve the knowledge she needed to know the serpent was pulling a fast one.

God could have done a thousand different things besides what he did. He didn't. And that is a problem for me. The actions he took do not align with a loving God. God's actions only make sense if Eve knew what she was doing was wrong and did it anyway.

 

I don't dispute that. The paradisical state in all cultures is a transcendental state of being, which was lost, either by the law of cycles (such as the Hindu ages), or by the loss of the relation with the Transcendent. Platonism is a bit vague on why the soul turned away; Hebraism determines the cause as human weakness. Some schools of Christian theology see it more as an inevitability, even a necessity ... but none of them go so far as to claim God made man to fall. That's a rather Protestant notion.

I'm afraid you're wrong there. See Ecclesiasticus 10:15, Tobit 4:14, 25:33; Wisdom 2:24, and in the NT we have John 8:44. I would argue with this evidence that St Paul's doctrine was founded on Jewish teaching.

My point is, it seems to me your concept is founded on evident errors, which you have yet to address.

Then how do you explain away Genesis 2:3—
"And the woman answered him, saying: Of the fruit of the trees that are in paradise we do eat: But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of paradise, God hath commanded us that we should not eat; and that we should not touch it, lest perhaps we die."
She knew enough, it seems to me, to make your point, and your thesis, void.

 

The sin was adultery. In the beginning the human community was made up of pairs. One male and one female that even though they were two were literally one being. When the pairs went outside the paired oneness sexually it caused a split of each of the beings, human beings, causing mortality . The soul and spirit were separated from the body. The serpent is a sexual symbol. I don't think it is so much about blame. Children make mistakes and they were like children in their intellectual innocence. Unfortunately the consequence of their actions caused mortality. God didn't do it , its simply the way it works. This is why to obtain infinite life you must merge with your one true opposite and become whole again. It reminds me of the story of Solomon and the two mothers. The true mother would rather give the child up than see it cut in half because she knew the child would die. The false mother was fine with cutting the child in half. That story is directly connected to the fact that human beings in mortal condition are half's looking for their other half that makes them whole. So as you can see the original human being was one being made up of two halfs with a three fold consciousness and the sin of adultery caused a cutting in half of the human being just like the story of Solomon and the two mothers.

 

Heck, he did it with Job, what was His Almighty problem with something really important like plunging all of mankind into eternal Sin? This god dude needs to get His Almighty priorities straight.

I'd beg to differ . . .

The Original Sin as the tradition of the Fall from the Garden of Eden' is an archetypal structure embedded deep within our unconsciousness. The Original Sin is Man's guilt of being carnivorous and lycanthropic.

We are all descended from males of the carnivorous lycanthropic variety, a mutation evolved under the pressure of hunger caused by the climatic change at the end of the pluvial period, which induced indiscriminate, even cannibalistic predatory aggression, culminating in the rape and sometimes even in the devouring of the females of the original peaceful fruit-eating bon sauvage remaining in the primeval virgin forests.

It was the 'clothes of skin' and the 'aprons of fig-leaves', that produced the nakedness of man, and not the other way round, the urge to cover man's nudity that led to the invention of clothing. It is obvious that neither man nor woman could be 'ashamed' (Gen. ii. 25) or 'afraid because they were naked' (Gen. iii. 10 f.) before they had donned their animal's pelt or hunters' 'apron of leaves', and got so accustomed to wearing it that the uncovering of their defenseless bodies gave them a feeling of cold, fear and the humiliating impression of being again reduced to the primitive fruit-gatherer's state of a helpless 'unarmed animal' exposed to the assault of the better-equipped enemy.

The uncovered body could not have been considered 'indecorous' or 'immoral'. The very feeling of sin, the consciousness of having done something 'im-moral', contrary to the mores, customs or habits of the herd, could not be experienced before a part of the herd had wrenched itself free from the inherited behaviour-pattern and radically changed its way of life from that of a frugivorous to that of a carnivorous or omnivorous animal.

- from a lecture delivered at a meeting of the Royal Society of Medicine by ROBERT EISLER - First published in 1951 by Routledge and Kegan Paul Limited Broadway House, 68-74 Carter Lane, London, B.C.4
Printed in Great Britain by Butler and Tanner Limited Frome and London

 

But in Adams time, there was just one woman. How could he sin?

 

I believe that the story of adam and eve is about the creation of the whole original human race, not just two people. That there was a whole human community in the beginning made up of pairsne male and one female but even though two were what one human being was. This is how adultery happened and what caused mortality.

 

That's not true depending on what scriptures you read. There is the relationship between Adam and Lilith, between Eve and Samæl, and of course between Adam and Eve.

 

There were pairs. In the beginning the pairs went outside their paired oneness and since sex is very sacred it caused a split of the pairs. It was like cutting someone in half but they became mortal because of it. The serpent is a sexual symbol. Do some research on kundalini. The concept that everyone here came from just two people is pretty absurd.

 

We teach advanced Kundali in the Order I am in, no need for research. The whole concept of the Christian bible is pretty absurd in my opinion.

 

Then you understand where I am coming from. I don't believe the Christian bible is absurd, however every religion has a creation story.

 

Lilith and samael simply refer to the sexual spirit of adam and eve. There are 4 parts that make up us all. Spirit, soul body and sexual spirit. Spirit is a white light, soul a multicolored pattern of light, the body and then black spirit which is sexual spirit. They went outside the paired oneness sexually which is why samael and Lilith are somewhere demonized in some theology.

 

Do we really care? I think not, does the NT specify this kind of ideolo0gy? I think not!

 

Jesus didn't contradict the old testament. Its important to know what happened in the beginning. The new testament is about obtaining eternal life in paradise through jesus Christ. Don't you think the knowledge of how human beings lost eternal life is important? How do you obtain eternal life without knowing what things keep you from it and once you do obtain it the knowledge of what actions could cause you to lose it is very important. This knowledge in no way contradicts the new testament but supports it.
Even the bible sometimes can seem to contradict itself if you do not understand the meaning of a passage. But Jesus answered and said to them, "You are mistaken, not understanding the Scriptures nor the power of God. 30"For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven. 31"But regarding the resurrection of the dead, have you not read what was spoken to you by God:…This passage is misinterpreted. People wont marry like they do here. Each individual will be united with their one true opposite. You cannot obtain infinite life without it.
Let us rejoice and be glad and give him glory! For the wedding of the Lamb has come, and his bride has made herself ready.
Look at the song of Solomon. The whole book is about this paired relationship. Its not some symbolic book. Its meant to be taken literally. This ideology is what life in all about.

 

No, since Ch!st Jesus never says this. However, you are enttitled to believe that.

That may be yuor church's translation, 'tis not mine!

. I believe I read this a little less literally.

. Not quite. it is an analogy from the Hebrew, not literal at all.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by donnann
Jesus didn't contradict the old testament. Its important to know what happened in the beginning. The new testament is about obtaining eternal life in paradise through jesus christ. Don't you think the knowledge of how human beings lost eternal life is important? How do you obtain eternal life without knowing what things keep you from it and once you do obtain it the knowledge of what actions could cause you to lose it is very important. This knowledge in no way contradicts the new testament but supports it.

No, since Ch!st Jesus never says this. However, you are entitled to believe that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by donnann
Even the bible sometimes can seem to contradict itself if you do not understand the meaning of a passage. But jesus answered and said to them, "you are mistaken, not understanding the scriptures nor the power of god. 30"for in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven. 31"but regarding the resurrection of the dead, have you not read what was spoken to you by god:…this passage is misinterpreted. People wont marry like they do here. Each individual will be united with their one true opposite. You cannot obtain infinite life without it.

That may be yor church's translation, it is not mine!

Quote:
Originally Posted by donnann
let us rejoice and be glad and give him glory! For the wedding of the lamb has come, and his bride has made herself ready.

I belive I read this a little less literally then thou.

Quote:
Originally Posted by donnann
look at the song of solomon. The whole book is about this paired relationship. Its not some symbolic book. Its meant to be taken literally. This ideology is what life in all about.

Not quite. it is an analogy from the Hebrew, not literal at all.

 

It is literal. Some like to make things more complicated than they are. If you write it in Hebrew or English it is still a very sexual book. Don't think an analogy of the relationship with god would be written in such a sexually based manner. That would just be gross.