Hey, when was Eve named?

[Politesse]

There was a show that summarized and interpreted all the Hebrew/biblical archeological evidence. Academic not religious.

The evidence is that in in the form of carved images there was both a male and female form of deity in the early culture that became Hebrews. The female half was dropped over time.

Even after they had become Hebrews. There is a well-known panel that greets visitors in the name of "YHWW and his Asherah (Consort)". The Hebrew Bible itself talks about Goddess worship all throughout Israel and Judea repeatedly through the centuries, though of course from the perspective of horrified monotheistic priests who wanted quite badly to murder the worshipers in question. Seen without the screen of their bias, though, the Scriptures themselves are documentary evidence that ancient Israel was at least partially polytheistic throughout much of history, and that female deities were among those worshiped by them.

 

[DBT]

Yes, you can.

Well, you can, I can...but not if you consider the History of belief, not if you seek to establish the truth of the story, that the God of the Bible exists, that Jesus was the son of God, that Jesus was the prophesied Redeemer, and that without nothing to be redeemed from, no fall, no Original Sin, there is nothing to be redeemed from, no forgiveness or atonement needed, thus rendering the sacrifice of Jesus pointless and that Christianity as a Religion rests on a foundation of allegory and metaphor.

Which is not what the thinkers and writers at that time the Gospels were penned, believed. Their belief was in a literal Fall, a literal Original Sin, a literal need for a Redeemer.

Which is why you don't get the point of the song, if you think that proving the literal existence of unicorns is the purpose of the same.

Oh, I get the point of the song. I understand that there is metaphor and allegory to be found in the Bible....I am simply pointing out that the ancients believed in an actual Creation, an actual Fall and an actual need for a Redeemer to repair our relationship to God.

False beliefs, faith, to be sure, but beliefs that they held nonetheless.

 

[Politesse]

Oh, I get the point of the song. I understand that there is metaphor and allegory to be found in the Bible....I am simply pointing out that the ancients believed in an actual Creation, an actual Fall and an actual need for a Redeemer to repair our relationship to God.

False beliefs, faith, to be sure, but beliefs that they held nonetheless.

Well, no. They really didn't. Do you have any evidence whatsoever that the ancient Judeans believed in either a "Fall" or the need for a medieval-Christianity-style Redeemer?

Or even the early Christians, say those before the legalization and reorganization of the faith?

It is certainly the case that your explanation of the significance of either the garden or Christ's sacrifice make no logical sense whatsoever from a Gnostic point of view; and most scholars think that the majority of Christians held essentially Gnostic beliefs prior to the 4th century. Evil, to that sect, was created long before humanity itself came to exist, and the snake in the garden was very nearly a hero, unmasking the designs that the demiurge had for us and opening up the possibility of ascendance to the Pleroma. And indeed, if you feel that the material world is generally evil in character, then your wider project of proving that everything in the Scriptures is an exclusively physical rather than symbolic reality would seem like a disparagement of the Bible, not honoring it.

 

[DBT]

Well, no. They really didn't. Do you have any evidence whatsoever that the ancient Judeans believed in either a "Fall" or the need for a medieval-Christianity-style Redeemer?

I was clearly referring to the bible as a whole. We know that Judaism does not accept Jesus as being the prophesied Messiah. We know that there are probably as many interpretations of scripture as there are believers.

Plus there are several elements at work, the thinkers such as Augustine who argued that Genesis was written to suit the understanding of the people, in a way that all people could understand, in simpler, allegorical fashion, but not as a denial of a literal Creation.

And of course 'the people' in question, the common people, who apparently needed a simpler version written of the act of Creation written in 'allegorical fashion' - but still an explanation of how the world came about - ''it was created by God'' - and how, given Creation by an Omniscient/Omnipotent Creator - how Evil came into the World through disobedience.

This of course was further developed by Christianity, Christ the Redeemer, etc, but rejected by Orthodox Judaism.

 

[repoman]

I think Politesse is crushing you, DBT and I say that from the peanut gallery.

The process of literalizing so much in the collection of text of the Bible (which is not really a singular book) is so imbedded now, we in general can't even conceive of thinking in the way that Politesse is describing the ancients thinking. And the much older sources (Sumerian, Ugaritic) that were molded into the Old Testament were even more magical, mystical and metaphorical.



Now if only Christians can deliteralize their thoughts as well.

 

[Politesse]

Well, no. They really didn't. Do you have any evidence whatsoever that the ancient Judeans believed in either a "Fall" or the need for a medieval-Christianity-style Redeemer?

I was clearly referring to the bible as a whole. We know that Judaism does not accept Jesus as being the prophesied Messiah. We know that there are probably as many interpretations of scripture as there are believers.

Plus there are several elements at work, the thinkers such as Augustine who argued that Genesis was written to suit the understanding of the people, in a way that all people could understand, in simpler, allegorical fashion, but not as a denial of a literal Creation.

And of course 'the people' in question, the common people, who apparently needed a simpler version written of the act of Creation written in 'allegorical fashion' - but still an explanation of how the world came about - ''it was created by God'' - and how, given Creation by an Omniscient/Omnipotent Creator - how Evil came into the World through disobedience.

This of course was further developed by Christianity, Christ the Redeemer, etc, but rejected by Orthodox Judaism.

So you are admitting that your statement was wrong?

And if you are aware of the existence of Judaism, and the fact that the Genesis account is not, in fact, an exclusively Western Christian property, then you should know why "the Bible as a whole" is at best an awkward phrase. Whose Bible are you "taking as a whole", as you ignore the way the specific text in question was understood for the first seven centuries of its existence?

 

[repoman]

This is missing the point that Politesse gets, the bible was never initially made to be universal and literal. That shit came later. For a smart guy Hitchens could be dumb. Did he care how the Bible was made and know how the ancients were not literal in our current sense?

The most universal in theme, yet still local in scope thing I have seen is the Epic of Gilgamesh. But the wide scope of its theme is really amazing stuff.

Some here need to shatter the reactive atheistic literalism against the theistic literalism that is boring and also misses the real coolness of these stories. The appreciation of drama in the stories while seeing that they are ONLY stories may deconvert more people than Hitchen's hard nose tactics.

Granted the Hebrews started to fuck it up by making God the history maker of their parochial tribe. The stuff the Jews stole and molded is much better than what they made it into.

 

[DBT]

Well, no. They really didn't. Do you have any evidence whatsoever that the ancient Judeans believed in either a "Fall" or the need for a medieval-Christianity-style Redeemer?

I was clearly referring to the bible as a whole. We know that Judaism does not accept Jesus as being the prophesied Messiah. We know that there are probably as many interpretations of scripture as there are believers.

Plus there are several elements at work, the thinkers such as Augustine who argued that Genesis was written to suit the understanding of the people, in a way that all people could understand, in simpler, allegorical fashion, but not as a denial of a literal Creation.

And of course 'the people' in question, the common people, who apparently needed a simpler version written of the act of Creation written in 'allegorical fashion' - but still an explanation of how the world came about - ''it was created by God'' - and how, given Creation by an Omniscient/Omnipotent Creator - how Evil came into the World through disobedience.

This of course was further developed by Christianity, Christ the Redeemer, etc, but rejected by Orthodox Judaism.

So you are admitting that your statement was wrong?

You misunderstand. I don't deny that there were many different interpretations, that there were both literalists and non literalists.

I am pointing out that probably most early Christians were literalists, the common folk, and that St Paul, the great promoter of Christianity was a literalist. That is what he taught, a literal Adam,a literal Sin staining the world through an act of disobedience.

I am pointing out that the story of Jesus as the sacrifice, the lamb of God, the redeemer makes no sense if the story of the fall and original sin are not taken literally.

I am not arguing that these things are true, but that for the integrity of the Christian message, the role of Jesus, etc, a literal interpretation of the Fall and Original Sin is necessary.

 

[Politesse]

So you are admitting that your statement was wrong?

You misunderstand. I don't deny that there were many different interpretations, that there were both literalists and non literalists.

I am pointing out that probably most early Christians were literalists, the common folk, and that St Paul, the great promoter of Christianity was a literalist. That is what he taught, a literal Adam,a literal Sin staining the world through an act of disobedience.

I am pointing out that the story of Jesus as the sacrifice, the lamb of God, the redeemer makes no sense if the story of the fall and original sin are not taken literally.

I am not arguing that these things are true, but that for the integrity of the Christian message, the role of Jesus, etc, a literal interpretation of the Fall and Original Sin is necessary.

I meant your statement that "the ancients" all interpreted the Bible the same way as you do. Clearly that is not so, if the most ancient ancients did not, and many if not most of the more recent ancients did not, with a strong showing for your particular interpretation popping up about 750 years into the life of a 2550 year old text (this particular section of which is likely much older, if not unmodified by the centuries of oral transmission and priestly modification it had survived).

For what it's worth, comments from the peanut gallery notwithstanding, I do not see myself as "winning" anything here. I just have a fair number of opinions on the subject, having studied it for some time. But these are matters of interpretation after all, and inherently subjective to a large degree. I think everyone wins, when a good discussion is had.

 

[DBT]

So you are admitting that your statement was wrong?

You misunderstand. I don't deny that there were many different interpretations, that there were both literalists and non literalists.

I am pointing out that probably most early Christians were literalists, the common folk, and that St Paul, the great promoter of Christianity was a literalist. That is what he taught, a literal Adam,a literal Sin staining the world through an act of disobedience.

I am pointing out that the story of Jesus as the sacrifice, the lamb of God, the redeemer makes no sense if the story of the fall and original sin are not taken literally.

I am not arguing that these things are true, but that for the integrity of the Christian message, the role of Jesus, etc, a literal interpretation of the Fall and Original Sin is necessary.

I meant your statement that "the ancients" all interpreted the Bible the same way as you do. Clearly that is not so, if the most ancient ancients did not, and many if not most of the more recent ancients did not, with a strong showing for your particular interpretation popping up about 750 years into the life of a 2550 year old text (this particular section of which is likely much older, if not unmodified by the centuries of oral transmission and priestly modification it had survived).

A literal interpretation of Genesis - as in a literal Creation and a literal Adam - is taught in the New Testament, St Paul was a literalist, that is what he believed and taught.

That there was division on the issue does not change that fact, the New Testament teaches a literal creation, a literal Adam, a literal disobedience to God.

That this was questioned by some in the early Church changes nothing.


My question to you being; in consideration of the context of Christian theology, Original Sin, Christ the Redeemer, the Lamb of God, as taught by St Paul...what is the point of the story of Christ as redeemer, lamb of God, etc, etc, without a literal creation, a literal Adam, a literal original sin?

So when Genesis tells us, as an allegory, 'In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth' - what is the point of this allegory?

Is it supposed to mean something other than what it clearly says and clearly claims?

For what it's worth, comments from the peanut gallery notwithstanding, I do not see myself as "winning" anything here. I just have a fair number of opinions on the subject, having studied it for some time. But these are matters of interpretation after all, and inherently subjective to a large degree. I think everyone wins, when a good discussion is had.

It's not an issue of winning or losing. I am merely pointing out that the genesis an allegory makes no sense in relation to Christian Theology, the teaching of Paul, etc.

That as an allegory, Genesis has no point in relation to Christian Doctrine. The ancients believed in the existence of their God or gods, that some of the more sophisticated thinkers viewed Genesis as allegory and/or metaphor does not change the necessary relationship as Paul describes it.

As allegory, it all unravels into creation myths and morality tales....which of course it is.

 

[Politesse]

If Paul was a literalist in belief, why doesn't he ever say so in any of his letters?

I have no grand objection to the theologies you describe (though I do not ascribe to all of them personally) but I still don't see how they have anything to do with a literal reading of scripture, which says nothing literally about a Fall, Original Sin, or any of those doctrines in fact. The literal events described are much smaller and specific in scope - a garden, some fruit, a couple of people, and a cherubim with a sword. It's not until you read into the story an allegory about the sinful nature of humans and their disobedience to God being their own condemnation, etc, etc, that they become meaningful. The literal events of the text would have no bearing on the lives of anyone now living aside from the consequences God literally outlines in the text (needing to work for a living, the pangs of childbirth, etc), without a figurative interpretation attached to them about the deeper meaning they are a symbol for. Absent symbolism, there's simply no reason why two people eating some fruit would have any bearing on anyone else's life. My own great-grandparents ate a lot of apples while they were alive, and it never caused me any injury, nor would it ever have occurred to me to offer a human blood sacrifice to cure whatever illness they might have transmitted to me if they somehow did. None of those things make sense, from a strictly literal standpoint. Taken as a metaphor, they are much clearer.

 

[DBT]

I think Politesse is crushing you, DBT and I say that from the peanut gallery.

Only if you don't understand my point.

My point being strictly related to the coherence of Christian Doctrine, that if Creation is not literal, the need for a redeemer is also not literal, not being literal, the whole thing collapses into an incoherent collection of allegory and metaphor, creation myths and morality tales. Plus, Christianity tends to cherry pick. Cherry picking because Genesis is absurd if taken literally....except of course for the Fundamentalists such as AiG, etc.....who, while maintaining the coherence of the narrative, Creation, Original Sin, Redeemer, etc, are forced to defend a world view that is absurd.

But at least they are consistent.

 

[DBT]

If Paul was a literalist in belief, why doesn't he say so?

He does.

Romans 5;

Sin entered the world through one person (5:12).

Many people died through what one person did wrong (5:15).

The judgment that came through one person’s sin led to punishment (5:16).

Death ruled because of one person’s failure (5:17).

Judgment fell on everyone through the failure of one person (5:18).

Many people were made sinners through the disobedience of one person (5:19).

There are those, of course, who say Paul's words may be interpreted allegorically, but the words and their meaning are clearly related to Redemption.

So if you relate the origin of sin, one persons disobedience, to the need for redemption, you cannot say the former is allegory but the latter is literal without the whole thing falling apart.

 

[Politesse]

If Paul was a literalist in belief, why doesn't he say so?

He does.

Romans 5;

Sin entered the world through one person (5:12).

Many people died through what one person did wrong (5:15).

The judgment that came through one person’s sin led to punishment (5:16).

Death ruled because of one person’s failure (5:17).

Judgment fell on everyone through the failure of one person (5:18).

Many people were made sinners through the disobedience of one person (5:19).

There are those, of course, who say Paul's words may be interpreted allegorically, but the words and their meaning are clearly related to Redemption.

So if you relate the origin of sin, one persons disobedience, to the need for redemption, you cannot say the former is allegory but the latter is literal without the whole thing falling apart.

No, I meant, if he was a literalist, why didn't he say so? Rather than allegorically describing the past, as you describe above.

 

[DBT]

If Paul was a literalist in belief, why doesn't he say so?

He does.

Romans 5;

Sin entered the world through one person (5:12).

Many people died through what one person did wrong (5:15).

The judgment that came through one person’s sin led to punishment (5:16).

Death ruled because of one person’s failure (5:17).

Judgment fell on everyone through the failure of one person (5:18).

Many people were made sinners through the disobedience of one person (5:19).

There are those, of course, who say Paul's words may be interpreted allegorically, but the words and their meaning are clearly related to Redemption.

So if you relate the origin of sin, one persons disobedience, to the need for redemption, you cannot say the former is allegory but the latter is literal without the whole thing falling apart.

No, I meant, if he was a literalist, why didn't he say so? Rather than allegorically describing the past, as you describe above.

Why would he have to say that he was a literalist, when his comments are references to what he considered to be literal personages, a literal Adam, the one who brought sin into the world, and Jesus who, as the redeemer, atones for that sin.

If there is no sin through Adams disobedience, there is no need for redemption.

Paul's references are quite specific: ''When Adam sinned, sin entered the world. Adam's sin brought death, so death spread to everyone, for everyone sinned.'' 5:12

Creation.com puts the necessity for integrity well enough, even though they are wrong about its veracity;

Adam and Christ must be equally historical

Paul is using a typology in this passage which requires Adam and Christ to be equally historical; he is arguing that both individuals acted in ways that had real and lasting consequences in human history. It is impossible for either to be symbolic for Paul’s argument to be coherent. Paul sees Adam and Christ as history’s two most important figures: Adam causing humanity’s downfall by his disobedience, and Christ triumphing over that downfall by his obedience.15 Using Adam as a type of Christ sets the stage for the contrast between ‘I’ in chapter 7 and the person in Christ in chapter 8.16 A literal interpretation of the first few chapters of Genesis, then, underlies a fairly large section of Romans.

This passage is not the only place where Paul clearly regards Genesis to be a historically accurate document. Three chapters later, Paul points out that the whole creation was subjected to futility because of the Fall.17

Also, in another epistle, 1 Corinthians 15, Paul calls Jesus ‘the Last Adam’, bringing resurrection from the dead, in contrast to ‘the first man, Adam’, who brought death. And in 1 Timothy 2, Paul teaches on the role of men and women in church by appealing to the order of creation, Adam being created before Eve and the fact that Eve was deceived and Adam was not.18

Conclusion

It is not uncommon to read commentaries on Genesis that argue that the first 11 chapters are poetic, or that Adam was just a symbol for all mankind. However, as shown here, Paul’s argument depends completely on a historical individual man called Adam, who committed a real sin bringing real death. Otherwise, why believe in a real historical Jesus who brought justification from sin? No, it is clear from this passage, and many others in both the Old and New Testament, that Scripture itself takes Adam to be a historical person, and the Fall to be a historical event.19 Without these historical facts, the Gospel itself has no foundation (cf. Psalm 11:3).''


Now don't get me wrong, I am not a theist and I do not take Genesis literally or the Gospels literally....I am arguing that for the sake of the integrity of the narrative that underpins Christianity, you cannot pick and choose things that integral to the narrative, fall, redemption, etc, claiming that this is too be taken figuratively, but that is literal....a literal Christ but a figurative Creation account, because the integrity of the story falls apart, regardless of it being a work of fiction.

 

[repoman]

Was the early Christianity using Adam as a generalized, symbolic Adam and not a specific "vector agent of sin" duped by the the Serpent Adam? Do we as men all have the fall from grace within us even without a literal Adam?

Was Jesus a role model to a degree and not just a savior? Or was he a metaphysical savior, not a physically slaughtered one?

If there was no real and singular Adam, what actually remains? Is it more damaging to Christianity than Judaism?

Did the need to have a previously symbolic Adam be a literal Adam, lead to tinkering and retconning of earlier stories? Was the fall being for all humans added because of this?

 

[DBT]

Was the early Christianity using Adam as a generalized, symbolic Adam and not a specific "vector agent of sin" duped by the the Serpent Adam? Do we as men all have the fall from grace within us even without a literal Adam?

Was Jesus a role model to a degree and not just a savior? Or was he a metaphysical savior, not a physically slaughtered one?

What did the first Christians believe? Christ the redeemer in symbolic form, a morality tale, or a literal Christ who 'died for our sins?' A literal God or a metaphor for existence?

 

[repoman]

Was the early Christianity using Adam as a generalized, symbolic Adam and not a specific "vector agent of sin" duped by the the Serpent Adam? Do we as men all have the fall from grace within us even without a literal Adam?

Was Jesus a role model to a degree and not just a savior? Or was he a metaphysical savior, not a physically slaughtered one?

What did the first Christians believe? Christ the redeemer in symbolic form, a morality tale, or a literal Christ who 'died for our sins?' A literal God or a metaphor for existence?

There should be some facts about this.

Seems like initiate cults and the civic cults would be into the symbolic aspects, so how it become literal is odd.

 

[DBT]

Was the early Christianity using Adam as a generalized, symbolic Adam and not a specific "vector agent of sin" duped by the the Serpent Adam? Do we as men all have the fall from grace within us even without a literal Adam?

Was Jesus a role model to a degree and not just a savior? Or was he a metaphysical savior, not a physically slaughtered one?

What did the first Christians believe? Christ the redeemer in symbolic form, a morality tale, or a literal Christ who 'died for our sins?' A literal God or a metaphor for existence?

There should be some facts about this.

Seems like initiate cults and the civic cults would be into the symbolic aspects, so how it become literal is odd.

The initiate cults kick started Christianity followed by the adherents of literal belief?

 

[repoman]

Found this article,

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/oldest-latin-commentary-gospels-translated-english-first-time-180964804/