I wish we could respond directly to each other's posts!
In response to Nancy's post about Enoch, Genesis 5:24 notes that "Enoch walked with God, and then was seen no more, because God had taken him away." (This was a popular Sunday school question: "Who was the only man in the Bible who never died?") His genealogy confuses me, though. In Genesis 4, his father is Cain, and his son is Irad. In Genesis 5, his father is Jared and his son is Methuselah. Shouldn't someone have caught that during the early editing process? It seems as though the different narratives are sloppily thrown together, as there are discrepancies between consecutive chapters.
In response to Jennifer's rant, I, too, am sickened by people who rip a Biblical passage out of context and spin it to mean what they want.... while completely ignoring the whole body of Scripture (After I left the CoC [you're right, Jennifer... it wasn't formed until the early 19th century], I was told by many people that I would go straight to hell because the church I now attend has a keyboard. Come on!) I think that people who call themselves Christians use Scriptures out of the context of God's love to condemn another group of people because it makes them feel holy and superior. ("You have no defence, then, whoever you may be, when you sit in judgement - for in judging others you condemn yourself, since you, the judge, are equally guilty" - Romans 2:1)
And, I didn't get the e-mail with the article!
a.b.k.r.
Tuesday, September 4, 2007
Monday, September 3, 2007
Women and the Bible
I have sent everyone an email with the chapter in the Bible as Lit. that Dr. Atkinson wanted us to scann and read.
Jennifer
Jennifer
to Jennifer
I agree with what you are saying. I also dislike when people use christianity as a tool for judgement and mistreatment of people who are not like them. If people would read the Bible for just what it is, a collection of stories meant to entertain, encourage and teach, they might not be so quick to use the Bible to harm others.
Sunday, September 2, 2007
on Satan and the serpent...
I had an epiphany! If we look at the adam and eve story, as a literary work, satan would not have been the snake. You cant infer from the text that the snake is evil, just that it represents temptation. And later, we learn that "satan or lucifer" is a fallen angel (cast out by god). If this is "true" then at the time of the adam and eve story satan didnt even exist. and if so, he would have had no reason to tempt adam and eve, because he would still be in the grace of god.
"But given the course Christianity and all its divisions have taken, and many of them basing their differences on minor theological points not present in any "revealed" scripture, it appears the church has distanced itself from the Bible."
I fully agree with this. I have had the hardest time studying scripture in a church setting. I always get the feeling that people are focusing on one quote and justifying strange beliefs using this quote. Not to step on any toes here but one of my close friends is a member of the Church of Christ and she believes that they are the only church that will get into heaven. She can even pull out parts of scripture that says so. I find it hard to believe that a sect that was formed over a thousand (I am going on the assumption that the Church of Christ was formed after the protestants came to the new world. If I am wrong please enlighten me.) years after the christian religion began to form, will be the only sect amongst so many that will go to heaven.
People take the tiniest bit of scripture that has been verbally passed down, for only God knows how many generations before being written down. Then said STORIES are sorted through and compiled by a group of MEN (no offense) who were trying to construct order and power in their worlds (and power leads to corruption especially if the ones not en charge do not know any better). After all of this the stories are translated into different languages which turn alters their meanings. It is a good bet that a large number of these stories no longer reflect their originals. I am not just saying this about the old testament. The New one also show how perception, memories, and impact can change a single event. Matthew, Mark, Luke and John all tell the story of the Life and Death of Jesus and none of them are exactly alike. Each is different according to how, when and where these people saw or heard about the events. Their are a great deal of similarities but they are not exact. People put into their writing and their reading their own beliefs and experiences therefore it is hard to take a single verse or even story and say that "this is what God says" because I am sorry but it is not.
During the American slavery people used the story of Noah's curse on his son Ham to justify slavery. There is nothing it that story that says the people that live in Africa will be the slaves to the world. It is simply the story of an Old man who is humiliated by his own actions and the fact that his son saw him. Noah is not God nor does he have any magical powers.
Even to day people are taking the Sodom and Gomorrah story and justifying their FEAR of the gay and lesbian community. I have read this section so many times because it is the section people give me when I ask where it says that it is a sin and in none of the times that I have read it have I seen or read anything that says God hates Gay people. I see where it says God hates rapists because to me that is all I see those me that come to Lots door as being. They remind me of those men in prison movies that gang up on the new prisoners and rape them. I am sorry I do not know of any gay man that is going to beat down someones door just to get to another man. Just because a gay couple moves into your neighborhood does not mean that they are going to come rape you in your sleep. I promise they do not want you.
Sorry for the rant but a close friend of mine and I were talking about her recent separation. Her girlfriend refuses to own up to being gay because of fear of what people will say so now even though they still live together she is just claiming that they are roommates. It is just a big mess. This lead us into a conversation that was very similar to what I just wrote down. It was fresh on my mind and well writing helps. If anyone agrees or disagrees or just has any pearls of wisdom please enlighten me. Maybe it will help relieve my anger and frustration.
I fully agree with this. I have had the hardest time studying scripture in a church setting. I always get the feeling that people are focusing on one quote and justifying strange beliefs using this quote. Not to step on any toes here but one of my close friends is a member of the Church of Christ and she believes that they are the only church that will get into heaven. She can even pull out parts of scripture that says so. I find it hard to believe that a sect that was formed over a thousand (I am going on the assumption that the Church of Christ was formed after the protestants came to the new world. If I am wrong please enlighten me.) years after the christian religion began to form, will be the only sect amongst so many that will go to heaven.
People take the tiniest bit of scripture that has been verbally passed down, for only God knows how many generations before being written down. Then said STORIES are sorted through and compiled by a group of MEN (no offense) who were trying to construct order and power in their worlds (and power leads to corruption especially if the ones not en charge do not know any better). After all of this the stories are translated into different languages which turn alters their meanings. It is a good bet that a large number of these stories no longer reflect their originals. I am not just saying this about the old testament. The New one also show how perception, memories, and impact can change a single event. Matthew, Mark, Luke and John all tell the story of the Life and Death of Jesus and none of them are exactly alike. Each is different according to how, when and where these people saw or heard about the events. Their are a great deal of similarities but they are not exact. People put into their writing and their reading their own beliefs and experiences therefore it is hard to take a single verse or even story and say that "this is what God says" because I am sorry but it is not.
During the American slavery people used the story of Noah's curse on his son Ham to justify slavery. There is nothing it that story that says the people that live in Africa will be the slaves to the world. It is simply the story of an Old man who is humiliated by his own actions and the fact that his son saw him. Noah is not God nor does he have any magical powers.
Even to day people are taking the Sodom and Gomorrah story and justifying their FEAR of the gay and lesbian community. I have read this section so many times because it is the section people give me when I ask where it says that it is a sin and in none of the times that I have read it have I seen or read anything that says God hates Gay people. I see where it says God hates rapists because to me that is all I see those me that come to Lots door as being. They remind me of those men in prison movies that gang up on the new prisoners and rape them. I am sorry I do not know of any gay man that is going to beat down someones door just to get to another man. Just because a gay couple moves into your neighborhood does not mean that they are going to come rape you in your sleep. I promise they do not want you.
Sorry for the rant but a close friend of mine and I were talking about her recent separation. Her girlfriend refuses to own up to being gay because of fear of what people will say so now even though they still live together she is just claiming that they are roommates. It is just a big mess. This lead us into a conversation that was very similar to what I just wrote down. It was fresh on my mind and well writing helps. If anyone agrees or disagrees or just has any pearls of wisdom please enlighten me. Maybe it will help relieve my anger and frustration.
Saturday, September 1, 2007
Set/Satan
Satan, is derived from the hebrew "ha sheth'n," meaning "the adversary," I believe. The word satan is derived from the same root as the word "seteh," which means "to turn away." It is notable that seteh is a variant pronunciation of the Egyptian god Set (also Seteh. Sutekh, Setesh, Seth).
The location of Set worship being near the end of the Nile combined with these lexical similarities seem to likely be more than a coincidence. Also, the use of names of other deities to refer to what later becomes the new testament concept of "Satan," is quite present in the Old Testament. Examples include Beelzebub-a deity worshipped in Ekron, Levithian-a jewish mythological sea monster, Baal-though mainly used as a title it can refer to a number of deities worshiped around Carthage. This is continued in the New Testament with Lucifer, a latin translation of the greek (H)Eosphoros, or "Morning Star." This deity was likely derived from the Assyrian Ishtar or the Egyptian Astarte (a wife of Set).
The most interesting of these is Belial (also Baalat, Baalitor, Belit ili). This term is likely a perversion of the Babylonian goddess Belili, which was converted it to the hebrew Belial, a combination of the words "beli" and "yo'il" which together mean "worthless." This same goddess may have also served to be the basis for the pre-Eve figure of Lilith from jewish mythology.
Here it is important to indicate that the concept of "Satan" in the hebrew tradition differs greatly from the christian concept of "Satan". The phrase "ha sheth'n" is used to refer to many different adversaries. "Ha sheth'n" is also used to refer to the title of an angel in Yaweh's court, this angel is one of the "watchers" of mankind and his specific duty is to report the sin to god and act as a sort of prosecutor. This works with the definition of satan as "adversary," just in more of a legal-esque sense, with yaweh being the ultimate judge. This also puts the concept of christ being an "advocate" for humanity in better context.
I'm certainly not saying that Set is Satan (as some modern day theistic satanists believe). I just think the Christian concept of satan is an amalgamation of several characters from previous mythologies. While the word satan may have its roots with the god Set and some Christian stories may derive from Egyptian myths involving Set, the the New Testament character of Satan is much closer to that of the Egyptian Apep.
There is really no concept of Yaweh having an opponent before the Babylonian exile. Upon being rescued by the Persians and coming into contact with Zoroastrianism they may have adopted the Persians' concept of dualism. In Zarathustrianism the all benevolent Ahura Mazda battles the universally evil snake deity Ahriman continuosly. If Yaweh were involved in a similar sort of struggle, it could explain the Babylonian captivity. However, Yaweh is far from all benevolent, and Satan wasn't quite uniformly evil either. This makes Satan and Apep a much better match because both Ra and Yaweh inflicted brutal punishments on humanity and both Satan and Apep are evil chiefly because they oppose their counterparts.
There is quite a gap in time between the end of the exile and Satan really having a developed character. The vague dualism in Judaism eventually gave way to the developed character of Satan, but not until Christianity began to spread around the region. Satan likely picked up his Apep like traits when it spread through Egypt, about ten to twelve years after the death of Jesus. This was well before the New Testament was written, and notably the writer of the oldest canonical gospel, Mark, spread Christianity in Egypt. The notion of dualism was already there, and the very vague character of Yaweh's opponent left plenty of room for the locals to impress some of their pre-existing beliefs on the new religion.
Noah
The location of Set worship being near the end of the Nile combined with these lexical similarities seem to likely be more than a coincidence. Also, the use of names of other deities to refer to what later becomes the new testament concept of "Satan," is quite present in the Old Testament. Examples include Beelzebub-a deity worshipped in Ekron, Levithian-a jewish mythological sea monster, Baal-though mainly used as a title it can refer to a number of deities worshiped around Carthage. This is continued in the New Testament with Lucifer, a latin translation of the greek (H)Eosphoros, or "Morning Star." This deity was likely derived from the Assyrian Ishtar or the Egyptian Astarte (a wife of Set).
The most interesting of these is Belial (also Baalat, Baalitor, Belit ili). This term is likely a perversion of the Babylonian goddess Belili, which was converted it to the hebrew Belial, a combination of the words "beli" and "yo'il" which together mean "worthless." This same goddess may have also served to be the basis for the pre-Eve figure of Lilith from jewish mythology.
Here it is important to indicate that the concept of "Satan" in the hebrew tradition differs greatly from the christian concept of "Satan". The phrase "ha sheth'n" is used to refer to many different adversaries. "Ha sheth'n" is also used to refer to the title of an angel in Yaweh's court, this angel is one of the "watchers" of mankind and his specific duty is to report the sin to god and act as a sort of prosecutor. This works with the definition of satan as "adversary," just in more of a legal-esque sense, with yaweh being the ultimate judge. This also puts the concept of christ being an "advocate" for humanity in better context.
I'm certainly not saying that Set is Satan (as some modern day theistic satanists believe). I just think the Christian concept of satan is an amalgamation of several characters from previous mythologies. While the word satan may have its roots with the god Set and some Christian stories may derive from Egyptian myths involving Set, the the New Testament character of Satan is much closer to that of the Egyptian Apep.
There is really no concept of Yaweh having an opponent before the Babylonian exile. Upon being rescued by the Persians and coming into contact with Zoroastrianism they may have adopted the Persians' concept of dualism. In Zarathustrianism the all benevolent Ahura Mazda battles the universally evil snake deity Ahriman continuosly. If Yaweh were involved in a similar sort of struggle, it could explain the Babylonian captivity. However, Yaweh is far from all benevolent, and Satan wasn't quite uniformly evil either. This makes Satan and Apep a much better match because both Ra and Yaweh inflicted brutal punishments on humanity and both Satan and Apep are evil chiefly because they oppose their counterparts.
There is quite a gap in time between the end of the exile and Satan really having a developed character. The vague dualism in Judaism eventually gave way to the developed character of Satan, but not until Christianity began to spread around the region. Satan likely picked up his Apep like traits when it spread through Egypt, about ten to twelve years after the death of Jesus. This was well before the New Testament was written, and notably the writer of the oldest canonical gospel, Mark, spread Christianity in Egypt. The notion of dualism was already there, and the very vague character of Yaweh's opponent left plenty of room for the locals to impress some of their pre-existing beliefs on the new religion.
Noah
Satan
I found Noah's arguments on the Hebrew-Egyptian tension interesting. I wonder about the Set/Satan connection though. The first thing I'd ask is about the ancient Hebrew or ancient Greek words for this entity. Then I'd see about the connection.
and on the Bible and church...we need to recall that the first people who thought themselves Christian--the original ones--didn't have a new Testament. They only had a church.
and on the Bible and church...we need to recall that the first people who thought themselves Christian--the original ones--didn't have a new Testament. They only had a church.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)