Freethought & Rationalism Archive

11-09-2003, 05:45 PM

Eve is the lesser serpent and I call her "lesser" because she presides over our conscious mind, or TOK, which was a blank slate at birth. Each human being has an Eve and she is the cause of our ambition and determination to succeed in whatever we may wish to undertake. That is why "Eve strikes at our heel" and so a vivid Eve is a good quality in humans who must accumilate a wealth of knowledge before paradise can be regained = metamorphosis is prepaid and is never cheap (sounds awfully Catholic doesn't it?).

But Eve is not alone in humans and her ambition to motivate us towards a greater end is caused by the "woman" who is the greater serpent of the TOL (our soul) that strikes at the head of Eve who therefore is always in want of 'something else' to satisfy her identity crisis as queen in our [blank slate] conscious mind.

The woman is the greater serpent because she is incarnate upon man and she retains the essence of our existence (here called Tree of Life). To help modify this essence and to make adaptation possible she needs Eve to keep her informed and that is what Gen.3: is about.

The emnity between them is based on the freedom enjoyed by Eve to get what she wants while woman remains subjugated to man (here called Lord God) who himself is subdued by the rational nature of Adam that rules in each one of us. Their aim is the exhaust the human nature of man and once this Adamic naure is exhausted the man identity can be reborn into the conscious mind.

In the NT the "woman" is called Mary, Eve is Magadalene (and Martha), Lord God is Christ and Adam was Joseph.

The redemption of man requires that Joseph be crucified, Magadale raised, Jesus ascend, and Mary (who had come down from heaven to give birth to man) must be assumed and crowned queen of heaven and earth which now becomes the new heaven and the new earth without the seperation of land and sea and therefore peace of mind has been restored (no rain is needed but a stream of living water rises from the soul to water the lands between the Tigris and Euphrates as was foreshadowed in Gen.2:14).

Devilnaut · 11-09-2003, 06:04 PM

Interesting!

What I don't quite understand is why Lord is Christ. Is it because he is not God but points to him?

I associate Lord with form and usually form with femininity. Though I suppose Lord is more than just form, because it is more like God incarnate (existant). So it's not potential but realized potential. Is that right?

"Well the author(s) of Genesis would have been around hundreds of years before the 2nd century bce book of Jubilees.... I guess some information that wasn't written down in Genesis could have been passed on"

It seems to me that either the same message could have emerged independantly, or the second author could've simply understood what the genesis author was trying to convey...

11-09-2003, 08:04 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Devilnaut
Interesting!

What I don't quite understand is why Lord is Christ. Is it because he is not God but points to him?

Lord God is the generic identity of man and Christ is the individual as he appears through the ages (Jesus promised that we shall do greater things and the complexity of our mythology and art forms reflect this). God as first cause has no existence of being and needs the individual Lord God to make God known. The two, God and Lord God first unite with the descent of the HS (in or shortly after the beatific vision of which the transfiguration is evidence) and they become fully one after the purgation period. Hence Thomas' exclamation when all doubt was removed "my Lord and my God." I dare say that God is conscious mind after complete illumination. Be reminded here that Jesus Christ (not just Jesus or just Christ) was the Alpha and Omega wherein Christ was the Alpha and the contribution of Jesus was from Alpha to Omega and this combination equals Lord God and God.

Quote:

I associate Lord with form and usually form with femininity. Though I suppose Lord is more than just form, because it is more like God incarnate (existant). So it's not potential but realized potential. Is that right?

Lord is form and therefore never an -ity (-ities are conditions of being that pertain to the being). Lord is the 'thing' and the suchness of the thing is retained by the woman who is therefore in complete submission to the thing. Remember here that woman was taken from man and does not have the created identity of "man in the image of God." Lord God is realized potential that has been brought forth from the previous generation to become exposed during midlife and to which this generations contribution can be added. This will close the yang period wherein the isolated ego ruled and begins the yin period wherein the total man rules following to the updated essence of woman (both serpents now both in the tree of life).

excreationist · 11-09-2003, 09:26 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Devilnaut
"Well the author(s) of Genesis would have been around hundreds of years before the 2nd century bce book of Jubilees.... I guess some information that wasn't written down in Genesis could have been passed on"

It seems to me that either the same message could have emerged independantly,

I thought Jubilees would be a Jewish book, and Jews would be well aware of the Genesis story. If it is a totally independent story then it has little relevance for interpreting the Genesis story since that would mean that the two stories are just similar by chance. (Or because God revealed himself to 2 authors, which I doubt)

Quote:

or the second author could've simply understood what the genesis author was trying to convey...

But how do we KNOW that this author that lived many centuries later knew what message the Genesis author was trying to convey? It is possible the Jubilees author got it right, but they could also be wrong, after all, it isn't part of the official Bible so the church doesn't take it very seriously. And Jubilees apparently puts Satan/Mastema in God's role which is quite clearly not what the author of Genesis intended... since those problems exist in Jubilees' interpretation it seems plausible that other interpretation problems exist as well.

lpetrich · 11-10-2003, 01:46 AM

That Genesis snake is called in the original Hebrew nachash, which is the usual Hebrew word for "snake". So calling it a snake is entirely correct. Also, it is sentenced to crawling on its belly, which makes this story seem like a Just So Story for why snakes crawl on their bellies.

Jim Larmore · 11-10-2003, 06:51 AM

I know I'm going to get hammered here but I have to add my two cents worth.

I believe in the literal and factual account of the creation story. I don't believe its a myth as many of you do. I believe Satan used the serpent to deceive Eve. I'm not sure if all animals could talk right after creation or not, this is an interesting thought. I don't believe they could however and if the deception occurred close to the beginning of time for this world its not unreasonable for a new creature called a woman to NOT be surprized by an animal talking to her. They could have still been in the process of discovering their world and the serpent being a beautiful creature at the time was used to communicate via the super-natural influence of the evil angel lucifer. I'm not alone in my philosophy here, it is widely believed by many christians that satan brought sin into this world and he did it at the fall via an animal called the serpent.

Regarding Gen. 3:15 , I believe like the above poster said that it is the first prophetic verse used in the cannonized scripture to set the stage for the "great controversy" between good and evil . That the woman ( who symbolizes the church for the most part) would bear the promised messiah who by His sacrifice would take away the sin of the world and end Satan's rule over this planet, i.e. the brused head or deadly wound.

excreationist · 11-10-2003, 07:50 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Jim Larmore
I know I'm going to get hammered here but I have to add my two cents worth.

I believe in the literal and factual account of the creation story. I don't believe its a myth as many of you do. I believe Satan used the serpent to deceive Eve.

Hi,
Why isn't Satan (or the devil?) mentioned at all in Genesis? Why does Genesis 3:1 say that the *snake* "was more crafty than any of the wild animals the LORD God had made". It seems to be saying that the snake possessed the intelligence. If Satan controlled it then it would be Satan who had the intelligence.
Also, 2 Corinthians 11:3 says that "Eve was deceived by the serpent's cunning" - so it was the serpent/snake who was intelligent - there is no mention of Satan. Do you know of anything in the Bible that proves that Satan possessed the snake?

Quote:

....the serpent being a beautiful creature at the time was used to communicate via the super-natural influence of the evil angel lucifer.

Here's some information about "Lucifer":
http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_sat3.htm

Quote:

Isaiah 14:12-24 is interpreted by some as referring to Satan by the name "helel" in Hebrew. This is often translated as "Lucifer" or "Morning Star." The passage describes how he had fallen from heaven, was thrown to earth, expressed a desire to sit "on the mountains where the Gods assemble", wished to be like God, and had attacked many cities, leaving them in ruins. At first glance, this looks like a description of some of the activities of Satan. However, verse 4 clearly states that the passage refers to the King of Babylon, not to Satan. Isaiah was simply showing "sarcastic contempt for the mighty Babylonian monarch that had recently fallen, vanished as does [the morning star] Venus from the daytime sky." 1

What do you think about that?

Quote:

I'm not alone in my philosophy here, it is widely believed by many christians that satan brought sin into this world and he did it at the fall via an animal called the serpent.

Those Christians are living a very long time after Genesis was written.... BTW, apparently Jews believe that it was just a serpent - not Satan... I think Jews would be more knowledgeable about these things. The Jews already have Satan in their OT so they could have interpreted the serpent to be Satan if it really did fit. I suspect that many Christians like to have Satan be the serpent because it emphasizes the gospel message more - that Satan is the bad guy - even right at the beginning.

Quote:

Regarding Gen. 3:15 , I believe like the above poster said that it is the first prophetic verse used in the cannonized scripture to set the stage for the "great controversy" between good and evil . That the woman ( who symbolizes the church for the most part) would bear the promised messiah who by His sacrifice would take away the sin of the world and end Satan's rule over this planet, i.e. the brused head or deadly wound.

Christians sometimes criticize others for taking things out of context...

Here is the context:
Genesis 3:14-19

Quote:

So the LORD God said to the serpent, "Because you have done this,

"Cursed are you above all the livestock
and all the wild animals!
You will crawl on your belly
and you will eat dust
all the days of your life.
And I will put enmity
between you and the woman,
and between your offspring and hers;
he will crush your head,
and you will strike his heel."

To the woman he said,

"I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing;
with pain you will give birth to children.
Your desire will be for your husband,
and he will rule over you."

To Adam he said, "Because you listened to your wife and ate from the tree about which I commanded you, 'You must not eat of it,'

"Cursed is the ground because of you;
through painful toil you will eat of it
all the days of your life.
It will produce thorns and thistles for you,
and you will eat the plants of the field.
By the sweat of your brow
you will eat your food
until you return to the ground,
since from it you were taken;
for dust you are
and to dust you will return."

Those 6 verses talk about the curse. From an obvious literal reading it all makes sense... it seems to be talking about a literal snake, etc.
You're claiming that it is simultaneously prophesizing about Jesus. But you're picking out only 1 of those verses.
You said that the woman could represent the church... well what about the other things that are said about the woman - that her childbearing pains will be increased, that she will desire her husband and her husband will rule over her? If this is taken literally, Adam is the husband, not Jesus. And in Revelations Jesus has the church as a *bride*... it isn't described as merely a woman.
It talks about the woman's offspring... that would mean the offspring of the church... that can't mean Jesus since the church came *after* Jesus was born.
BTW, it talks about the serpent crawling on its belly and eating dust all the days of its life... how does that relate to Satan? How come in the gospels Satan was able to show Jesus all the kingdoms in the world and say that Jesus could have all that if he worships Satan? Having so much wealth doesn't seem like "crawling on your belly and eating dust".

3:15 begins "I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers".

It seems to be saying that God created the hostility between the snakes and the humans. Are you saying that God also created the hostility between Satan and Jesus?

BTW, you can read all about Satan here:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_sat1.htm
See also the links about his history, etc.

Jim Larmore · 11-10-2003, 10:37 AM

Excreationist,
Have you ever heard of duality of meanings when it comes to the Bible? I am not really prepared to give specific examples but the Bible is full of texts and storys that have symbolism for later occurrences and represent a dualism if you will for that story, its context may say one thing but the symbolism may referr to things in the future. One example I can think of off the top of my head is Abraham and Isaac are symbolic of God the Father sacrificing Jesus on the cross. The dualism is present in the passage in Ezek. and Isaiah where it talks about the king of Tyre, but it plainly is also speaking of Lucifer and his fall in heaven. Its easy to obfuscate the Bible if you want to by not seeing the obvious, for instance when it talks about lucifer walking among the stones of fire and being in the presence of the most high, how could this apply to an earthly king? Its obviously talking of the once perfect angel lucifer who became satan. You have to look beyond the context and see the applicable dualism.

I don't know why it doesn't say the serpent was possessed by satan or that he had influenced the serpent, but if you do just a little logical thinking it only makes sense that evil was introduced via the originator of evil and thats satan. Like I said I don't know if the animals could talk before the fall or not but I know that the Bible says man had dominion over all the earth and "if" they couldn't talk then it would have to take a super-natural influence to make the serpent talk. That influence had to be satan.

The church per se' has existed way before Jesus came along and they called them "Christians" . If you consider what a church is , its a body of believers who worship God. All the old patriachs of the Bible represent the church. The sanctuary itself represented God's house and was a forerunner of the church building proper. Most churches are fashioned similar to the temples or tabernacles of old. The Bible ( I'll have to find the text) specifically says the church is symbolically represented by a "virtuous woman". So in Gen.3:15 when it says I will put enmity between thee and the woman it symbolically and dualistically spoke of the enmity between the church ( woman ) and satan ( serpent ) that would occurr in the future and the seed of the woman ( Jesus ) would be the messiah which would give a deadly wound to the deceiver satan. The messiah would come from this body of believers symbolically represented by the "woman" or church and by His sacrifice would forever make the end of sin a certain thing. The outcome for satan and his demons is writtten in stone he will receive a deadly wound in the lake of fire at the end of the world's age. In Ezek it says and "never shall thou be anymore", so satan will be destroyed along with all the wicked who refuse to accept the plan of salvation and receive etenal life. This is the deadly wound to the head.

Doctor X · 11-10-2003, 11:29 AM

This is merely attaching later interpretation to an older text and has no relevance to the Genesis myths.

--J.D.

Abel Stable · 11-10-2003, 11:41 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Jim Larmore
it only makes sense that evil was introduced via the originator of evil and thats satan

small nitpick:

Isaiah 45
7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.

God is the originator of evil.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

11-09-2003, 05:45 PM	#11
Amos Guest Posts: n/a	Eve is the lesser serpent and I call her "lesser" because she presides over our conscious mind, or TOK, which was a blank slate at birth. Each human being has an Eve and she is the cause of our ambition and determination to succeed in whatever we may wish to undertake. That is why "Eve strikes at our heel" and so a vivid Eve is a good quality in humans who must accumilate a wealth of knowledge before paradise can be regained = metamorphosis is prepaid and is never cheap (sounds awfully Catholic doesn't it?). But Eve is not alone in humans and her ambition to motivate us towards a greater end is caused by the "woman" who is the greater serpent of the TOL (our soul) that strikes at the head of Eve who therefore is always in want of 'something else' to satisfy her identity crisis as queen in our [blank slate] conscious mind. The woman is the greater serpent because she is incarnate upon man and she retains the essence of our existence (here called Tree of Life). To help modify this essence and to make adaptation possible she needs Eve to keep her informed and that is what Gen.3: is about. The emnity between them is based on the freedom enjoyed by Eve to get what she wants while woman remains subjugated to man (here called Lord God) who himself is subdued by the rational nature of Adam that rules in each one of us. Their aim is the exhaust the human nature of man and once this Adamic naure is exhausted the man identity can be reborn into the conscious mind. In the NT the "woman" is called Mary, Eve is Magadalene (and Martha), Lord God is Christ and Adam was Joseph. The redemption of man requires that Joseph be crucified, Magadale raised, Jesus ascend, and Mary (who had come down from heaven to give birth to man) must be assumed and crowned queen of heaven and earth which now becomes the new heaven and the new earth without the seperation of land and sea and therefore peace of mind has been restored (no rain is needed but a stream of living water rises from the soul to water the lands between the Tigris and Euphrates as was foreshadowed in Gen.2:14).

11-09-2003, 06:04 PM	#12
Devilnaut Regular Member Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada Posts: 374	Interesting! What I don't quite understand is why Lord is Christ. Is it because he is not God but points to him? I associate Lord with form and usually form with femininity. Though I suppose Lord is more than just form, because it is more like God incarnate (existant). So it's not potential but realized potential. Is that right? "Well the author(s) of Genesis would have been around hundreds of years before the 2nd century bce book of Jubilees.... I guess some information that wasn't written down in Genesis could have been passed on" It seems to me that either the same message could have emerged independantly, or the second author could've simply understood what the genesis author was trying to convey...

11-10-2003, 01:46 AM	#15
lpetrich Contributor Join Date: Jul 2000 Location: Lebanon, OR, USA Posts: 16,829	That Genesis snake is called in the original Hebrew nachash, which is the usual Hebrew word for "snake". So calling it a snake is entirely correct. Also, it is sentenced to crawling on its belly, which makes this story seem like a Just So Story for why snakes crawl on their bellies.

11-10-2003, 06:51 AM	#16
Jim Larmore Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Bartlesville, Okla. Posts: 856	I know I'm going to get hammered here but I have to add my two cents worth. I believe in the literal and factual account of the creation story. I don't believe its a myth as many of you do. I believe Satan used the serpent to deceive Eve. I'm not sure if all animals could talk right after creation or not, this is an interesting thought. I don't believe they could however and if the deception occurred close to the beginning of time for this world its not unreasonable for a new creature called a woman to NOT be surprized by an animal talking to her. They could have still been in the process of discovering their world and the serpent being a beautiful creature at the time was used to communicate via the super-natural influence of the evil angel lucifer. I'm not alone in my philosophy here, it is widely believed by many christians that satan brought sin into this world and he did it at the fall via an animal called the serpent. Regarding Gen. 3:15 , I believe like the above poster said that it is the first prophetic verse used in the cannonized scripture to set the stage for the "great controversy" between good and evil . That the woman ( who symbolizes the church for the most part) would bear the promised messiah who by His sacrifice would take away the sin of the world and end Satan's rule over this planet, i.e. the brused head or deadly wound.

11-10-2003, 10:37 AM	#18
Jim Larmore Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Bartlesville, Okla. Posts: 856	Excreationist, Have you ever heard of duality of meanings when it comes to the Bible? I am not really prepared to give specific examples but the Bible is full of texts and storys that have symbolism for later occurrences and represent a dualism if you will for that story, its context may say one thing but the symbolism may referr to things in the future. One example I can think of off the top of my head is Abraham and Isaac are symbolic of God the Father sacrificing Jesus on the cross. The dualism is present in the passage in Ezek. and Isaiah where it talks about the king of Tyre, but it plainly is also speaking of Lucifer and his fall in heaven. Its easy to obfuscate the Bible if you want to by not seeing the obvious, for instance when it talks about lucifer walking among the stones of fire and being in the presence of the most high, how could this apply to an earthly king? Its obviously talking of the once perfect angel lucifer who became satan. You have to look beyond the context and see the applicable dualism. I don't know why it doesn't say the serpent was possessed by satan or that he had influenced the serpent, but if you do just a little logical thinking it only makes sense that evil was introduced via the originator of evil and thats satan. Like I said I don't know if the animals could talk before the fall or not but I know that the Bible says man had dominion over all the earth and "if" they couldn't talk then it would have to take a super-natural influence to make the serpent talk. That influence had to be satan. The church per se' has existed way before Jesus came along and they called them "Christians" . If you consider what a church is , its a body of believers who worship God. All the old patriachs of the Bible represent the church. The sanctuary itself represented God's house and was a forerunner of the church building proper. Most churches are fashioned similar to the temples or tabernacles of old. The Bible ( I'll have to find the text) specifically says the church is symbolically represented by a "virtuous woman". So in Gen.3:15 when it says I will put enmity between thee and the woman it symbolically and dualistically spoke of the enmity between the church ( woman ) and satan ( serpent ) that would occurr in the future and the seed of the woman ( Jesus ) would be the messiah which would give a deadly wound to the deceiver satan. The messiah would come from this body of believers symbolically represented by the "woman" or church and by His sacrifice would forever make the end of sin a certain thing. The outcome for satan and his demons is writtten in stone he will receive a deadly wound in the lake of fire at the end of the world's age. In Ezek it says and "never shall thou be anymore", so satan will be destroyed along with all the wicked who refuse to accept the plan of salvation and receive etenal life. This is the deadly wound to the head.

11-10-2003, 11:29 AM	#19
Doctor X Banned Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: USA Posts: 3,794	This is merely attaching later interpretation to an older text and has no relevance to the Genesis myths. --J.D.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.