I have been examining the doctrine commonly know as the “Serpent Seed”. I looked up this topic and it is associa
ted with the Christian identify movement and racism. I don’t know what the Christian identify movement is; but I do see how this doctrine or belief could be used to justify literal racism, but I do not take away any racist beliefs from this doctrine when it is fully understood: just like criticising Obama or being a tea party member does not automatically make one racist. The application of the word racism to this doctrine appears to be as inaccurately applied towards the serpent seed doctrine as it is towards the above mentioned area in politics-- the word racism is usually used to silence people.The serpent seed is another explanation for what the narrative of the story of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden is. The prevailing and accepted view in the Christian community, Biblical scholars, and the Higher Critics is that the narrative of the events in the Garden of Eden state that sin entered the world through Adam and Eve’s disobedience of God's command--this is the concept of original sin, see the book of Concord Augsburg Confession Article II or the encyclopedia Britannica’s entry on original sin. This disobedience entailed being deceived by a snake into eating an apple or some fruit from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. God told Adam that he can freely eat the fruit of any tree in the garden except for the tree of knowledge of good and evil, Gen 2:16-17. The interpretations of this story depends on whether one takes it literally or as an allegory which is “a representation of an abstract or spiritual meaning through concrete or material forms; figurative treatment of one subject under the guise of another”. One's interpertation of these events is also determined if one goes into the original language of the Bible. According to how trees are used throughout the Bible and going back into the Hebrew for the word serpent, this narrative is to be taken as an allegory. What were these two trees? What was this serpent? What was the nature of this disobedience and what did it led to?
In the midst of the Garden their were two trees, “And out of the ground made the Lord God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.” (Gen 2:9) Trees are often used to describe people in the Bible. In Hosea 14:8 God states that He is like a green fir tree “Ephraim [shall say], What have I to do any more with idols? I have heard [him], and observed him: I [am] like a green fir tree. From me is thy fruit found". In Psalms 1:3 God states of a blessed man that,"And he shall be like a tree planted by the rivers of water, that bringeth forth his fruit in his season; his leaf also shall not wither; and whatsoever he doeth shall prosper". Trees are also used to represent actual people as in Ezekiel 31 where God is asking who the Pharaoh king of Egypt who is like unto his greatness,
Behold, the Assyrian was a cedar in Lebanon with fair branches, and with a shadowing shroud, and of an high stature; and his top was among the thick boughs. The waters made him great the deep set him up on high with her rivers running round about his plants, and sent out her little rivers unto all the trees of the field. Therefore his height was exalted above all the trees of the field, and his boughs were multiplied, and his branches became long because of the multitude of waters, when he shot forth. All the fowls of heaven made their nest in his boughs, and under his branches did all the beasts of the field bring forth their young, and under his shadow dwelt all great nations. Thus was he fair in his greatness, in the length of his branches: for his root was by great waters. The cedars in the garden of God could not hide him: the fir trees were not like his branches; nor any tree in the garden of God was like unto him in his beauty. I have made him fair by the multitude of his branches; so that all the trees of Eden that were in the garden of God, envied him. (Ezekiel 31:3-9)According to the "Companion Bible", the word Assyrian is box cedar, a type of tree. The Assyrian is often used to represent a type for Satan--there is not enough space to explain this. Taking the Assyrian as Satan, according to the above passage Satan was physically in the Garden of Eden. The Bible often uses trees to represent or describe people. (Also see below about Gen 3:2 and what the word tree means: the back bone of the body or the spine.) In everyday usage people often use terms that are applied to trees to describe various parts of our bodies. What do people call their legs and arms? Limbs. What do we call our torso? Our trunk. The spine gives firmness to the body and holds it up right like that of the trunk of a tree. If you look at a depiction of the human nervous system it looks like a tree with all of the various branching nerves. So describing a person in terms of a tree is fairly common.
Who or what did the serpent represent? According to Revelation 12:9, “And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him”. The Devil has many names each signifying a different office or function that he performs. Of course we can branch this out some more. A good description of what the serpent was is provided in appendix 19 of the Companion Bible. This goes into the Hebrew and shows that the word serpent refers to an angelic being. According to Ezekiel 28: 12-17 Satan, the anointed cherub is a beautiful creature that was in the Garden of Eden--note Tyrus means rock in the Hebrew and represents Satan due to length I won’t further explain this. Also note in the above passages that it is very obvious that Satan is being discussed as he was the only Cherub that covered the mercy seat. According to 2 Corinthians 11:14 where Paul is warning about being deceived by false apostles “And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light”. So it appears from the appendix above that the serpent was Satan. Satan is not some beastly-looking creature--this ideal originated in the middle ages, but according to the descriptions in the Bible he is beautiful angel of light.
The two trees were not literal trees but represented actual beings and the serpent was an angel of light. What was the sin in the Garden? What was the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil? According to Gen 3:2 Eve states that she was told by God to not partake of the fruit or touch the trees in the midst of the garden. The word tree that Eve was not to partake of means an opening and closing of the eyes and can be traced all the way back to the meaning of “the spine (as giving firmness to the body):--backbone”. (Click on the word tree and trace it back to 6096 and to 6095. This is the “Strong’s Concordance”.) Also check out the function that the spinal cord plays in the central nervous system. This same word tree is used numerous times throughout the Old Testament and is used when referring to a literal tree. But when referring to the particular tree of the knowledge of good and evil which represents an angel of light it has a more specific meaning: it imparted knowledge to Eve thorough the spinal cord or central nervous system. In Gen 3:3 Eve is telling the serpent that she was commanded by God to not touch the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Look up the word touch and one of its meaning is, “as an a primitive root; properly, to touch, i.e. lay the hand upon (for any purpose; euphem., to lie with a woman).” Paul speaking 2 Corinthians 11 2-3 For I am jealous over you with godly jealousy: for I have espoused you to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ. But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so you minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.” This word beguiled according the the Stong’s concordance is “to seduce wholly:--beguile, deceive”. One of the meanings of the word seduce in English means to induce to engage in sex. Eve eventually partakes of the fruit and gives it to Adam and he partakes and the eyes of both of them were opened and they realized they were naked and sowed fig leaves to cover themselves. (Gen 3:6-7) As a result of the serpent beguiling Eve; God states to the serpent that, “And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.” God tell Eve, “Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire [shall be] to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee”. How does eating a fruit led to this? It appears that partaking of the fruit had something to do with a seed line and conception. Is this seed literal or spiritual? In Matthew 13:36-39 Jesus is explaining--not talking in a parable but explaining it--the parable of the sower to the disciples, “He answered and said unto them, ‘He That soweth the good seed is the Son of man; The field is the world; the good seed are the children of the kingdom; but the tares are the children of the wicked one; The enemy that sowed them is the devil; the harvest is the end of the world; and the reapers are the angels”. (Note that the angels are the ones that will separate this seed and not man. So it would be inaccurate to use this as a reason to go after a certain people.) Check out the word seed which includes the male sperm. In John 8:44 Jesus is speaking to the Pharisees, “Ye are of [your] father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.” Of course you have to read the whole chapter to put it into context. Look up the preposition "OF" in the Greek. It means out from. (Note that when the Jews were returning to Jerusalem from the captivity that very few Jewish priest returned. The priest line had been polluted. I won't cover this.) Who was the first murder mentioned in the Bible? Back in Genesis 4, Adam knows his wife and they bare Cain and Abel. It states that Cain came from the Lord. Or according to "The Companion Bible" "a man even Jehovah". It also states that she bare again Abel. The word again means to continue. Did she continue in labor? If so they were twins. It is a medical fact that a woman is capable of having twins that are each from different fathers, check it out. Cain ends up murdering Abel. Cain is not listed in Adam’s genealogy in Gen 5. So the sin in the garden was not simply eating some fruit. According to the Hebrew and other passages in the Bible it appears that this was an act between Eve and Satan that involved the producing of children and a seed line. The reason Satan wanted to beguile Eve was that God created the specific man Adam distinctly from the other peoples to serve as the seed line through which God would be born in the flesh. This is one of several attempts by Satan to derail this plan, Gen 6 being another. This explains the first prophecy in the Bible, “And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel”. (Gen 3:15) The woman's seed led to Jesus and the Serpent's seed led to that certain people that cried out before Pilate for the crucifixion of Jesus. In Revelation, God is describing the various types of Churches and states that there were only two of them that he found no fault with. The two Churches taught who those are that blasphemy by saying they are Jews but do lie and are of the synagogue of Satan. (Rev 2:9) And in Rev 3:9, God talks about these same people in relation to the other Church he found no fault with. Who were these people?
Overall, it appears to me that one of the accepted or prevalent narratives of the Bible is not accurate nor does it tell the whole story: it is over simplified. There appears to be more to the Garden of Eden narrative than is widely taught. This makes a lot more sense to me than the traditional narrative of the sin in the Garden of Eden which states that a talking snake somehow deceived a woman into eating a forbidden fruit. I have yet to hear a better explanation which could be one. If accurate, this would not be any surprise as is the case in many areas the accepted narrative or prevailing view is inaccurate. (This post does not cover half of the topic, but is a basic overview of the subject.) This relates to politics in that the accepted view on things are not always correct and/or not the whole story.
There is one obvious flaw. Hosea 14:8 and Psalms 1:3 are simile's. They use the word "like" to give more of an illustrious meaning to something. Genesis account uses no like. Its states simply that there are trees.
ReplyDeleteEzekiel 31 is anthropomorphism. It is obvious by the use of the language that it is giving a human non-human traits. It uses words like "his" and "him" when speaking of the tree. There is no language like this in the Genesis account. It speaks simply.
We can't mistake blatant figurative language for being literal narratives.
Clarify the word anthropomorphism. I think you are making the exact point that I was trying to make which was that the trees were not literal trees but represented actual people. I was using those verses to show that the Bible uses trees in a figurative way to describe men. Also the word tree in the Hebrew can be used to mean the human spine.
ReplyDeleteOther than that I am not sure what you are trying to say about taking figurative languae for being literal narratives. It sounds like the point I was trying to make.
I'm impressed with all y'all's detailed knowledge of biblical passages. I really have no idea how to attack the issues you guys bring up here, but that won't stop me from doing it anyway.
ReplyDeleteAny study of any ancient record or tale is plagued by the fact that we can't talk to the people who wrote it to clarify obsure passages or to know for sure when something is meant literally or figureatively. In the Bible, it's of course clear when Jesus tells a parable, but outside of that, when? A further problem for lay people is that we only know what our NIV or King James version of the Bible tells us, or what our pastor tells us, or what scholars tell us. What percent of Christians can read Biblical Greek or Aramaic or Hebrew? I would bet less much than 1% can read any one of those languages and a vanishingly small percent can read all three. So we are discussing something for which we have zero ability to draw from the original documents. And when we say original documents, what do we mean? Until the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls in, I think the 1960s, even those who could read the original documents were reading copies of copies of copies. And of course, we don't even know for sure how many copies removed from the original recordings of Jesus' and the Disciples' speech and deeds the Scrolls are. Most of the copies being hand-written by human scribes regardless of the level of infallibility of those who originally wrote them. The impressive and completely surprising thing about the Dead Sea scrolls is that it apparently shows that the Biblical writings in the Dead Sea Scrolls matched modern translations fo the Bible very closely. How do I know that? I read it in somebody's book. But, we should salute the dedication and professionalism of the many scribes throughout history that accurately made the copies and translations. Maybe God has continued to have a hand in keeping things true.
But that only gets us through the New Testament. What about the Old? What is the oldest surviving manuscript of the Pentateauch? How long before that manuscript was written were the events that it describes? How many generations of oral storytelling were required before things were finally written down to begin with?? Maybe not many, as God gave Moses the Ten Commandments in written form, and certainly, as a tribe with some access to upper government of Pharoanic Egypt, the leaders of the Jews were probably able to write, so then the question is, how many generations of copies were required to get to the oldest surviving copies from the time of Moses? And what about the pre-Egyptian times, ie before Joseph, when the Jews were a nomadic people and almost certainly illiterate? Some people can make educated guesses. I can't. I can guess about Beowulf (whose origin is one of the most fun things to debate regarding Old English), but not about anything in Greek or Aramaic or Hebrew. So, we are all 100% dependent on others, either living or long dead for what we see and need to interpret.
My quick answer is find someone you trust who you know is as familiar as could be reasonably expected wtih the 'originals' and ask him for guidance. Everyone has an angle. Everyone has an agenda. Some are smarter, and some have delved more deeply than others. But there is no person living or dead outside of Jesus himself that can give you the for sure answer.
Consider this a first response to Toe Jamm's 1st religious article as well as to Jeff's. I will do a full blown article to try to more fully respond to your very interesting investigations, conclusions, and questions.
I will clarify.
ReplyDeleteThe texts that you quoted: Hosea 14:8 and Psalms 1:3 are obvious simile's. They use the word "like" to compare two unlike things. Using the word "like" immediately makes it figurative language. The Genesis account does not use these poetic tools. It just tells a direct story. This makes me believe that it means trees and nothing symbolic.
Ezekiel: 31 is giving a human unhuman qualities. In this case, it is the qualities of trees. The text routinely says "he" and "his", and it also begins with "the Assyrian". This makes it clear that it is giving a human unhuman characteristics. The Genesis account does not call the trees "he" or "her" or "the Babylonian".
The only thing in question (for me) is that it calls them the "tree of life" and "tree of the knowledge of good and evil". These are not characteristics of a tree. So maybe something was lost in translation. I just think that it is a stretch to start speculating on Eve having sex with the knowledge tree. If we are to treat these trees as humans then does every tree in the bible have to be a human? The Serpent Seed Crowd has an aura that smells like the Bush Planned 911 Crowd. I've read a little about the Serpent Seed and it has very few convincing arguments.
It will be interesting to hear what Bud-D's opinion is on this. I was hoping your etymological experience could maybe clarify or shed light on some things.
ReplyDeleteWas the author of Beowulf a christian?
Many of the questions you raise, Bud-D, are the ones I have about where the Bible came from. But I am dealing with the bible that we have before us now and how Christians interpert it. We can trace the King James Bible back to the original languages fairly well by using a Strong's Concordance in the links above. It is an accepted work so I tend to take it to be fairly accurate. Also there are notes on the original languages and manuscripts in "The Companion Bible" that help with translation of the text we have before us. There are a lot of holes in the questions the Higher critics raise. Here is an older book that agrees and disagrees with them. Read the 1st chapter http://openlibrary.org/books/OL7073921M/The_higher_criticism_and_the_verdict_of_the_monuments
ReplyDeleteIT raises some of the same questions that you have.
Toejamm, when the bible calls Jesus the bread of life, John 6:35, is that figurative or literal. Most of the imagery in the book of revelation is figurative or symbolic. Also the issue of the serpent being Satan is not addressed either. Every time the word tree is used does not refer to a human. In Genesis, the two trees are given specific names. Eve had sex with the angelic being that was the Serpent. Read the appendix in the post to make that more clear. And the bible straight up calls the serpent the devil and satan. The fruit was the spinal cord that transmits knowledge. The word tree when taken back to its prime root means spine, see the link above. And what about all the other passages in the NT that seem to back it up? What is these two seed lines spoken of in Genesis. The problem is talking literal what should be figurative and taking figurative what should be literal. The serpent seed makes a lot more sense. The narrative of Eve eating an apple came from the middle ages. I will say more later.
On Bud-D's point about the scrolls we have to day being copies of copies, there was a way that the people who transmitted these scrolls down through the ages used to lock preserve what the originals scrolls, at least the OT, said. It is the Massoretic notes "that record the number of times the several letters occur in the various books of the bible; the number of words, and the middle word; the number of verses, and the middle verse; the number of expressions and combinations of words." http://www.therain.org/appendixes/app30.html
ReplyDeleteAlthough this does not address the question of where the original scrolls came from, but it does help determine the accuracy of the various copies we have.
And on your point of "In the Bible, it's of course clear when Jesus tells a parable, but outside of that, when?" The parable of the tares I mentioned in the post was explained by Jesus to his disciples and it seems fairly clear as to what it says. Also in the book of Revelations, most of it is symbolic imagery, and that can be clearly shown especially where it is stated that God interperts the imagery. Also when the bible states that Jesus is the bread of life, it is fairly obivious that this is meant to be taken in a figurative sense because it is obvious that Jesus was not a loaf of bread. So it seems that determining if something is to be taken literal or figurative is not so hard to decide and is determined by common sense.
And you point "What percent of Christians can read Biblical Greek or Aramaic or Hebrew?[...]So we are discussing something for which we have zero ability to draw from the original documents."
As already mentioned, the English speaker can use an concordance and trace the English words back to the original languages. Although that does depend on the reliabilty of those who made the concordance. The Strong's seems to be fairly accurate.
And your point, "How long before that manuscript was written were the events that it describes? How many generations of oral storytelling were required before things were finally written down to begin with??" I would like those questions answered. I have read two book that tries to explain this, but if the serpent seed seems too "far out there" than you probably will scoff at them. One of the books states that the bible or its story is written in the stars. See this for a short excerpt from it
http://www.therain.org/appendixes/app12.html
The other one points to the similarities to all the religions in the world to each other and especially the Babylonian religions and its similarities to the Jewish religion. It points out that all might have been drawn from a single source.
On Toejamm and the trees being actual trees or representing things, the tree of life is found in the book of Revelation that states that it will be in the "heavenly kingdom". So that is one way to point out that appears to not be a real tree. And in the Ezekiel 31 passage, it seems to be giving human unhuman qualities to satan because the Assyrian is a type of Satan or represents him. So the Ezekiel passage, "The cedars in the garden of God could not hide him: the fir trees were not like his branches; nor any tree in the garden of God was like unto him in his beauty. I have made him fair by the multitude of his branches; so that all the trees of Eden that were in the garden of God, envied him." This seems to be drawing a connection between Genesis and what is being said in Ezekiel. It seems to be stating that satan was in the Garden of Eden and stating that he was like a tree.
Just because a tree is found in the heavenly kingdom does not make it human at all. God can't take souveniers?
ReplyDeleteThe Ezekiel passage exemplifies nothing.
Like you were saying about the two trees being different from an ordinary tree. In Gen 2:9 the two trees are further set apart from the other trees mentioned in the same verse by noting that the other trees were out of the ground and the Two trees were in the "midst" of the garden. I think it is clear what the tree of life is supposed to represent, God, and what the tree of knoweledge of good and evil is supposed to represent. Tree also means spine.
ReplyDeleteOn your point about Ezekiel, It seems very clear to me that these two passages are referring to the garden of eden. In EZ 31:8, it is talking about the cedars in the garden of God. The Assyrian in the Hebrew means box cedar. It is a type of Satan or stands for him. In Ez 28:12, it is talking about the king of tyrus another type for Satan which is made very clear. Tyrus means rock. Notice that there are two main rocks in the word of God: God or Satan. Deut 32 which is referred to in Revelation. And in verse 13 it states that he was in the Garden of God. In verse 14 it makes it clear that we are talking about Satan because he was the only anointed cherub that coverth and a cherub is an heavenly being and not a human king. So it seems clear that we are talking about Satan here. So it does exemplifies something, one way are the other, if read completely and with comprehension.
Also no one has addressed the other points about the serpent being an angelic being or Satan. Nor has the two seed lines spoken of in Gen 3:15 "And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel." Nor has the issue of what is stated in the NT. Paul saying Eve was wholly seduced by Satan. Nor has the explaintion of the parable of the tares given by Jesus.
It seems clear to me what is stated, but different people will see different things and there are unanswered questions in this doctine. The point of the post was to present another viewpoint on a basic religious belief and to show that it has holes and appears to be incorrect. Take it or leave it for what it is worth.
Gen 3:15 (according to the majority of protestant religions including Lutherans) is the first Messihanic prophecy. There will be enmity between Satan's follower or people and God's people and Satan will ultimately harm Jesus with the cross but in doing so Satan's kingdom will be crushed.
ReplyDeleteWell, the majority of Christians also follow a straight-up pagan holiday called Easter on the highest holy day of Christianity which is Passover. I did a speech on Easter for one of my speech classes. It comes from a pagan holiday Ishtar or the Astaroth of the OT. Part of the religion involved sexual orgies and wooden object shaped after a male organ. The point being that mainstream Christianity has a lot of doctrinal issues.
ReplyDeleteBack to your point, that is what the majority believe. I disagree with it to some extent. It is the 1st prophecy. I take the seed to be an actual seed or blood line, the son's of Cain, who called for the crucifixion of Christ before Pilate. They were certain Jews. Refer back to the post to see that the two types of churches that Christ found no fault with taught who those who say they are Jews but lie and are of the synagogue of Satan.(Rev 2:9) So it seems like I would have to know who these people are if I am in a Church that was approved of by God. The purpose of Christ's death on the cross being to destroy death or Satan, Heb 2:9-14 being one place. Satan's seed killed Jesus or God, so now God can kill one of his children with no second thoughts. One of the questions I have about the doctrine is if this seed is spiritual or an actual seed. It appears to be an actual seed to me.
Maybe you can ask you Pastor about this issue and see what he has to say.
Regarding Christianity in Beowulf: Even that is a contentious issue. The manuscript that the poem comes to us on was written ~1000AD, and must have been done by Christian scribes. However, the poem itself most certainly is older, the question is how much older? In the poem, there is no mention of anything out of the New Testament, no Jesus. There are numerous references to God, both as Creator and as All-Father. Neither of which is a necessarily Christian identifier for God. The only explicitly Biblical remark in the poem is that Grendel is of Caines kin, and exiled from other humans by God because of the slaying of Abel. So, two lines out of a 3200 line poem remark on explicitly Christian things.
ReplyDeleteI think the consensus is that the poem predates fullblown conversion to Christianity, though there may be some lines (such as the one above) that were inserted after the conversion. Or possibly, the conversion process had begun, but not thoroughly taken when the poem as currently written was done, and possibly the poet had latched on to that Christian story to explain Grendel. This would indicate around 650-700 AD for it's creation. I could go on quite a bit on this, but won't.
I remember reading Beowulf in literature class. My book seemed to state that it was compiled by a Christian from older non-Christian or pagan text. My book also pointed out how it showed some respect to the pagan religions. The word creator is associated with the Hebrew word for God. Elohim, one of the words used for God, in the Hebrew literally means creator. Same could be said about all father.
ReplyDeleteAlso another reference is made to Christianity or the Hebrew Bible in chapter 1 of Beowulf when it refers to Cain as being of the race of giants that warred with God,
"Grendel this monster grim was called,
march-riever5 mighty, in moorland living,
in fen and fastness; fief of the giants
the hapless wight a while had kept
since the Creator his exile doomed.
On kin of Cain was the killing avenged
by sovran God for slaughtered Abel.
Ill fared his feud,6 and far was he driven,
for the slaughter's sake, from sight of men.
Of Cain awoke all that woful breed,
Ettins7 and elves and evil-spirits,
as well as the giants that warred with God
weary while: but their wage was paid them!"
Summary :
The kingdom was left to *Healfdene who upheld the reputation of the *Scyldings.[...]But a creature heard the reveling, the music, and the happiness of the hall. The creature from the moor-land was *Grendel, descended from *Cain--one of the giant race who had survived God's flood."
The reference being to Chapter 6 in Genesis, verse 2 and 6 especially. The purpose of the flood being to kill the giants or fallen angels which mated with man for the purpose of thwarting God's plan of being born in the flesh of the seed of Adam. Of course giants are present in mythology too.
Nobody here can say anything but educated guesses about any of it. Jeff, if you are to use common sense to answer all the questions, then your question regarding "is the accepted narrative always right" kind of falls apart. Rather than go after everyone's points, I would just point out that numerous educated people could punch holes in anything any of us say regarding these topics, but we still wouldn't be 100% sure who's right.
ReplyDeleteMy take is that the Tree of Good and Evil represents the point where humans or Adam & Eve specifically, however you want to interepret it, became aware that they were not mere animals following the flow of nature, but that they were above it, and understood why everything was happening (for example sex, and the need for them to cover themselves where before they didn't), and also possibly became able to manipulate nature in a way that resulted in nest-spoiling. In other words, there is danger in our great Human level of self-awareness, similar to Satan's I suppose. That's my take, and I'm sure it could be easily taken apart by a reasonably educated critic who disagreed with it, but, it's mine. So, tough.
Regarding Easter as well as the Twelve Days of Christmas, those are two Germanic holidays that were wisely coopted by Christians, rather than supressed. The word Easter is specifically Anglo-Saxon. In no other language is Easter called Easter. Mostly Paschal or something like that in the Romance languages. Easter was a fertility goddess. Christian Easter of course is tied to Jewish Passover, so this is not to say that Christian Easter is nothing but a papered over Germanic holiday. Of course it would be there whether there was an Easter goddess or not. It's just that the early Christian church felt it was wise to coopt the name and allow the native Anglo-Saxons to continue with their name for the Christian holiday. In my opinion, the reason for this is that the conquered Celts, who were the ones who converted the Anglo-Saxons to Christianity, at least initially, were not in a position to just flat out eliminate the Anglo-Saxon holiday. That's just my opinion though.
Old English, December is Aerra Geolu (before Yule), and January is Aefterra Geolu (after Yule). And they were called that before the conversion to Christianity. But, whether this was, like Easter, a pre-existing Christian holiday that the early missionaries to the Germanic tribes re-used, or whether Christmas was not celebrated until the Christian missionaries encountered (and were conquered by) the Germanic tribes, I don't know.
This is a small part of my response to Dusty's article, some of which touches on the (mostly) peaceful conversion of the Germanic tribes from the Germanic religion to Christianity.
Regarding 'Creator'/Elohim, it is not at all specific to Christianity or Judaism to call the God of Gods the Creator. That is the point of the uncertainty regarding whether the poet of Beowulf was Christian: that God could just as easily have been the Germanic god Woden/Odin, but there is that bit about Cain & Abel.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteOne's opinion on a matter doesn't change the facts or truthfulness of a matter.
ReplyDeleteThis is a good article, long http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/04/the_deconstructed_jesus.html
I will end discussion on this topic.