The snake of Genesis 3:1

by Halcon 34 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

  • Halcon
    Halcon

    It was always my impression that Balaam had little inclination to follow the Mosaic Law, unlike the person of Eve, and was rather painted as a man mostly motivated by personal gain. I'm curious as to how his character was used as a stand-in for the Jew who was naturally motivated to follow the Law.

    In both Genesis and Numbers the "speaking animal" is simply a stand-in for the Jewish conscience telling the Jew not to break any of the Ten Commandments.

    Interestingly, the platonists and gnostics and variants thereafter very much insisted that "all is mental" and that the physical and sensible was but an illusion. Your conclusion that the snake of Genesis was purely a byproduct of the mind is almost identical to the conclusion of these mystical ones.

    Going a little further, what the snake claims to offer man in the garden of Eden is seemingly entirely spiritual, since God is spirit. The gnostics would say that "God is mind". Therefore, indeed any actual provable physical and historical reference became unnecessary as it was besides the point.

  • KalebOutWest
    KalebOutWest

    The Torah wasn't written by the Gnostics or for the Gnostics. They had no idea of its existence. They were Hellenists, Greeks. The Torah was written by the Jews to teach them to observe the Mosaic Law. It wasn't written for the Gentiles.

    While I lived for a few years with a JW aunt after my family dissolved, I was born and raised Jewish and continue to be to this day. One of the things my Jewish education has afforded me is to know the difference between when the Gnostics came on the scene and when the Levitical priesthood did, which was centuries before.

    The Kohen line, otherwise known as the Levites, were influencing the people of the Levant to Judahite religion long before Babylon came and drove the people away in chains. The Yahveh God may not have been the only God the Kohens promoted at the time, but eventually they developed their trademark monotheism that Judaism became known for. Some time before 586 B.C E. these priests and their scribes (and their prophets) were a group, even though they didn't resemble the Bible tales exactly the way they are portrayed in the narratives.

    The Gnostics, who are Gentiles of Greek origin, did not come onto the scene until circa 300 B.C.E., maybe 400, but that is stretching it. Most scholars actually put their arrival at about 200 B.C.E.. But the ones who studied the Gnostics who studied the Jewish texts? Those are the generally known as the Marcionists.

    Marcion of Sinope, the 2nd-century (C.E.) Christian bishop who went rogue by creating (get this) the very first Biblical canon (as the Church Fathers did not believe the Christian congregation needed an official Biblical canon), made things worse by threatening the Church with Gnosticism and the teaching that salvation came to a select group that could glean enough gnosis from holy writings and become demi-gods like Jesus. (The Church countered this with the teaching that salvation was "katholicos" or "universal"--catholic, open to all who had faith in the gospel, whether they read it from Scripture or merely heard it preached from another Christian. And the Church thereby set to creating an official list of canonical writings, excommunicating the Marcionists.)

    Plato was born in 428 BCE. He did not read, study or teach the Hebrew text. In fact, there is no textual evidence which shows any early Greek philosopher (from Thales to Epicurus) quoting or commenting on The Old Testament. Both Phythagoras and Plato were reported by some to have traveled to Israel and the greater Middle East but there is no reliable textual evidence which proves this.

    I am Jewish. I know the interpretation of my own people's culture. The reason for the narratives and the characters of Eve and Balaam are placed in the Torah is to teach Law--this is not a book of "History." This is the Law, a book of binding commands. Any narratives within the Law teach Jews how to apply the Law by illustration, not history or a bedtime story. These narratives do not teach Greeks wisdom. They are designed to teach my people how to apply the Mosaic Law. Five books of Law. Not history. Not tales of wisdom. Law. Torah.

    In Judaism, God is not spirit or mind. God is Ineffable.

  • KalebOutWest
    KalebOutWest

    Halcon:

    ...since God is spirit. The gnostics would say that "God is mind"...

    While I don't know or cannot address Halcon's personal views on "God," neither is it any of my business, I should explain what I said at the end of my last post before I get into any debates.

    I am an ignostic. No an "agnostic" but an ignostic. That generally doesn't exist much in Christianity or in the Western world due to the influence of Christian thought. In Judaism, one can be atheist and agnostic and fully practice the religion of Judaism. It doesn't change anything. You can still "do good to your neighbor" and "not worship" any other God but the God of Abraham (the Torah doesn't require prayer or belief as worship, for instance).

    An "ignostic" is someone who doesn't view that it is possible or efficacious to discuss or debate about "God" since God is either Ineffable or people have different views, understanding or the term cannot be or isn't/hasn't been defined to the point that all can agree upon.

    In Judaism, idolatry is wrong. If you build a god out of wood or stone or metal and call that God or a deity and worship it, we know that is not right.

    But what if you create a god out of words? If you make up definitions for God and claim that God "is" this and God "is" that, and then worship what you have created via definitions, aren't you creating a God of words? How do you know that God is really what you define God to be? Isn't God self-defining?--Exodus 3:14.

    Even the Jews stopped taking the anthropomorphic descriptions of God literally and no longer view God as personal to a great extent--not having human qualities like jealousy or anger, and not being a king or being of any gender or a "Lord." God is often not viewed as a person by many Jews. This is what is often meant by God being Ineffable.

    God is not a spirit in Jewish thought or has a spirit body like in Christian or Watchtower thought. God might be a force or something experienced as happening more than an entity as in Christian thought. The ideas in the Bible are seen as mythical compared to what "God" actually could be.

    But since "God" is Ineffable, to attempt to define and debate "God" is not worth it. Time could be better spent helping those in need, caring for family, finding ways to mend what is broken, aid others in practical terms. Be "God" to others instead of arguing God to win pointless debates, that is my motto.

  • Halcon
    Halcon
    Plato was born in 428 BCE. He did not read, study or teach the Hebrew text. In fact, there is no textual evidence which shows any early Greek philosopher (from Thales to Epicurus) quoting or commenting on The Old Testament. Both Phythagoras and Plato were reported by some to have traveled to Israel and the greater Middle East but there is no reliable textual evidence which proves this.

    I believe I'd read this as well, and found it very interesting in relation to our comments.

    How unlikely was it that an Athenian (albeit Plato) coul essentially come to the same spiritual philosophical conclusions in regards to the distinction between the physical body and spiritual one as the ones in the Torah as summarized/symbolized by the snake of Genesis?

    Plato asserts that the truest reality was in the Forms, and therefore the human being should strive to attain to this enlightenment. The material world was inferior to the spiritual in his philosophy. Plotinus, a self described pure platonist, centuries later goes on to explicitly describe that man's responsibility is to climb the chain of existence until man sheds his inferior material body and his essence incorporates into the same substance as the One or God.

    You wouldn't be accused of being farfetched to think that these platonists plagiarized the words of the snake of Genesis. Yet, there's nothing to indicate they had any knowledge of Genesis.

    Is this purely coincidental?

    Kaleb, in your studies when does this concept of man being compelled to "rise" to be God and godlike first appear? I'm assuming it was neither the Torah or its contemporary authors.

  • Vidiot
    Vidiot
    “…It was during this period that Christianity developed the idea that Jesus was likely divine, and thus an ‘archenemy’ in the Devil made more and more sense…”

    Every hero needs a nemesis.

    Holmes and Moriarty.

    Optimus and Megatron.

    The Powerpuff Girls and Mojo Jojo.

  • Vidiot
    Vidiot

    Eve and the Serpent:


  • KalebOutWest
    KalebOutWest

    Halcon,

    In Judaism there is no supernatural realm, only the natural. God is part of the natural world, the processes of nature while not being nature itself.

    Jewish thought does not consist of belief that God is spiritual or supernatural. That is a Hellenistic belief.

    The great teachers of Judaism who promoted this include not only Moses himself but Maimonides, Spinoza and the 20th century rabbi Mordecai Kaplan.

    In fact today, many modern Jews do not see God as an entity or person or a creator. Instead of belief in God as Creator, for example, they see the processes of creation as godly. Instead of God being just, they see the action of justice as being godly, and so on.

    The mythology of "being like God" in Genesis is about something Adam and Eve already were. The narrative is about the Jews losing the Promised Land due to their breaking the Mosaic Law covenant. Paradise represents the land of Israel, Adam and Eve are the forebears of Abraham and Sarah (not necessarily all humans), they are caretakers of Paradise or the Promised Land, assigned as such by God.

    They were already created in the "image of God" as Genesis 1 explains, being "like God" in every way. But unlike in Genesis chapter 1 where God rests on the Sabbath, thus obeying the Mosaic Law, the Jews did not do this, thus not reflecting God's image in themselves.

    This is represented in the narrative where Adam and Eve feel shame about their images and decided to cover it, even though they were perfect. In the story, God has to give them clothes to cover them because they no longer reflect his image.

    They are cast out of the Promised Land, "east of Eden," which is Babylon. This foreshadows Moses at the end of the Torah who also represents Israel "east of the Jordan," in Babylon, cast out of the Promised Land.

    You are reading a Hellenized Christian concept into the text. It is what Catholics and Protestants have developed from Greek philosophy, but it doesn't come from Jewish foundations.

    Some later Jewish views after the Middle Ages did adopt some more spiritual views, such as found in Chasidic circles, but these views are neither ancient nor universal.

  • Halcon
    Halcon
    Vidiot -Every hero needs a nemesis.

    An inevitability, or perhaps even a full blown necessity, arising out of free will?

  • Halcon
    Halcon

    Kaleb, a couple of questions if you please.

    The mythology of "being like God" in Genesis is about something Adam and Eve already were. The narrative is about the Jews losing the Promised Land due to their breaking the Mosaic Law covenant. Paradise represents the land of Israel, Adam and Eve are the forebears of Abraham and Sarah (not necessarily all humans), they are caretakers of Paradise or the Promised Land, assigned as such by God.

    What I am understanding, correct me if I'm wrong, is that the Law directly in relation to the promised land took precedent over everything...even (and perhaps wasn't even close) defining and understanding what God is.

    Which comes across to me as a reversal of sorts (I could be misinterpreting the general convention here too), which is to first establish clearly who or what has authority then present its laws.

    It would seem that understanding the who or what would naturally motivate obedience to the laws. It seems simply human nature to expect this (vs obeying a law from someone or something that is clearly hidden and utterly unrelatable to the degree you are describing it in Judaism).

    They were already created in the "image of God" as Genesis 1 explains, being "like God" in every way. But unlike in Genesis chapter 1 where God rests on the Sabbath, thus obeying the Mosaic Law, the Jews did not do this, thus not reflecting God's image in themselves.

    Here, I perceive, occurred a separation of sorts between the state of being like God and what Adam became afterwards. Am I understanding that Adam was already the fullest state of being God (in every way as understood in Judaism)?

    And if he was, how does Judaism differentiate God from Adam?

  • KalebOutWest
    KalebOutWest

    The religion of Judaism does not have a central theology or creed. It's theology floats within a spectrum which is often described sitting within each Jew and also the culture of Judaism at the same time as being "THEIST-AGNOSTIC-HUMANIST" even though there is no real "theistic" view of God in Judaism (nor has there been since the teachings of Maimonides has become standard during the Middle Ages).

    Theology flows in the religion/culture/individual along this spectrum as necessary, and is quite complex being that there is some 4000 years of it. The evolution of God itself is far beyond anything that exists in Western thought. For instance, there are atheist Jews who daily pray and worship, something that cannot even begin to happen within Christian practice.

    I see there are already problems with me trying to discuss some of the concept I have with you as you are reading my posts via Western eyes, as if they have a spiritual or supernatural subtext that you are used to, whereas they don't. So we might have to try something else.

    First, I don't think you are wrong in what you believe. That is not the way that I view things. So you might want to keep that in mind at all times. No matter what you read, no matter how it sounds, even if it goes against what you believe, I personally never think you are wrong or should change your beliefs. Jews don't think that others are condemned or unloved by God or need to change in order to be approved by God, whatever their beliefs are.

    Second, a Jew, even a religious Jew, may not believe in God. That is not a requisite. The only requisite for a Jew is to be born Jewish. Judaism is a civilization, a culture, a way of life. If a person is a religious Jew, then their practice merely restricts them from the worship of any of other God than the God of Abraham. There are no laws that demand belief, faith or prayer to God. Therefore agnostics and atheists among the Jews may be among the most pious. It is what someone does, not what one says, claims, or prays that makes them a good person.

    Finally, Judaism is not based on the Bible. The Bible is based on Judaism. Judaism came first and then that religious system created the Bible. Therefore the people know it is made up of a particular type of writings, either in this section or that section--and from childhood onward, they learn it in ancient Hebrew. So for a non-Jew to tell a Jew what the Bible means is sort of like a reader telling an author that their book should actually mean this or that. Jews know their book consists of mythology, folk tales, and oral traditions. Judaism has history, but you are not going to go to the Bible for most of it.

    Your questions...

    What I am understanding, correct me if I'm wrong, is that the Law directly in relation to the promised land took precedent over everything...even (and perhaps wasn't even close) defining and understanding what God is.

    Not really. The Mosaic Law is about preserving a culture in the midst of a lost one, the Babylonian Exile. How does one do that? The Levitical priesthood developed holy days and practices around a law system based on cultural practices the Jews already had, giving these days and practices new meanings. The celebrations of Passover and Sukkot, for instance, were Spring and Fall harvest festivals, respectively, that existed before the Levites gave them their religious meaning. With the connection to the Exodus and then the "wandering through the wilderness," these practices were ibued with new life and new meaning for the return to the Promised Land.

    The idea was based on the belief that people lose their land they live on due to angering the gods and go into exile. All national evils that befall us, whether it be famine, war, or exile, came from the gods due to national sin. This is what some of the prophets that the Jews once ignored, like Isaiah and Ezekiel. So to avoid this, the Levites built up the Mosaic Law which at the time of the exile consisted only of the book of Deuteronomy--and only a smaller portion of the book than what we know today according to scholars.

    Narratives in the book, like the Garden of Eden, the Flood, the Towel of Babel, and other tales, are combinations of stories from the northern kingdom (Israel) and the southern kingdom (Judah) whose inhabitants had mixed after the Assyrians had invaded the north prior to the Babylonian invasion. When survivors came into Judah, they brought their stories with them, and after the Exile into Babylon, the Levites wove their stories into what we know as not only the Torah but as the books of Joshua through Chronicles.

    The idea was to prevent the Jews from being exiled again due to the belief in this theology, namely that national disasters are caused by anger one's national God. This was later proven false by the Holocaust. The theology would thus be abandoned as flawed. National disasters are not brought upon any people due to angering deities but by chance and misfortune.

    Does the Mosaic Law define what God is?

    No. The Law was written during the Iron Age attempting to use tropes of the Bronze Age to make it look like it was written by the patriarchs of the Jews. So the Levitical priests gave God anthropomorphic features, like the gods of the Gentiles. The only problem is that God is never the same in any of the stories. If God needs to debate with someone, he is more like a man. If he needs to be more impersonal in another tale, he is more aloof. If God needs to be more like a force of nature, than so be it, that is how God is written. God becomes a character of need in any of the stories of the Hebrew Bible, fulfilling what he told Moses: "I Shall Be What I Shall Be."--Exodus 3:14.

    Am I understanding that Adam was already the fullest state of being God (in every way as understood in Judaism)? And if he was, how does Judaism differentiate God from Adam?

    This is just a mythology, an origin story, an allegory. Adam cannot be literally anything anymore than any of the characters in any of Jesus' parables are anything or the characters in Aesop's fables or literally anything or the characters in the myths of the Greeks are literally anything.

    A mythology is a type of genre that explains how some began via visual representations or demonstrations. In the Genesis story, the Levites used the Babylonian King's personal garden as a setting for their story.

    In Judaism, Adam and Eve are believed to the be the patriarchs of Abraham and Sarah. Their bodies are even considered to be buried to this day in the Cave of Machpelah which is why Abraham purchased it as a burial site for him and his wife since, according to Jewish tradition, his forbearers were buried there. (Genesis 23) The site still exists as a holy place today, a Muslim shrine, since Abraham is the father of Ishmael, the father of Islamic people.

    To tell the story about the loss of the Promised Land to open the Torah, Adam and Eve are used as symbolic of the Jewish people. They are placed as employees--caretakers within an enclosed Babylonian-type garden or paradise, with all types of animals, trees of all types, and even the types of canals or rives that flow with "gold" and "jewels," just like one would imagine a kings treasured garden might be since it was walled and could not be seen by the common people.

    The first chapter of Genesis opened with telling us that God obeys the Sabbath, doing "mitzvahs" or "good deeds" every day of the week, but obeying the Law by resting on the Sabbath. He creates "man and woman" in His image, to be "like Him."

    These caretakers are given rules on how to care for his land and everything they need. They are just not to steal from him under the penalty of death. Unfortunately the caretakers of God's land do not do obey his Law. They end up stealing from his one special tree (even though they may eat from any of the other trees in the garden). Stealing, by the way, is breaking one of the Ten Commandments.

    Even though made in His image, the two people, cover themselves, ashamed. So God, covers them, and sends them out of his garden. Interestingly, like Babylon, there is not merely an angel but a "cheribum," the same type of creature on the walls of the gates of Babylon, and it has a sword, the same that Nebuchadnezzar's guards carried.

    Instead of performing a "mitzvah" or a good deed, Adam and Eve do what is wrong. Instead of living up to their potential in the "image of God," they ruin this reflection and end up being cast out in shame.

    It isn't literal. Adam and Eve never lived in a Babylon paradise garden. Babylon did not exist at the time they were alive, and that is not likely the names of the ancestors of Abraham and Sarah's forbearers buried in that cave. It is just what we call them. This is a mythical tale that opens the book of the Torah to warn the Jews to obey the Law and to perform the mitzvahs within.

    If you don't, the Law is saying, you will lose the Promised Land and be cast out, "east of Eden."

    The Torah ends the same way, with Moses not entering the Promised Land for his sin, "east of the Jordan." That also likely did not happen, but that is just a legend for a religious purpose.

    Genesis through Exodus is a book of Religious Laws. The idea is to teach the Laws within. The stories are secondary to the Laws. It's designed for Jews to apply them to everyday life. The stories just teach them lessons to explain how these laws might apply in everyday situations or what the laws mean or why the Law itself is so important.

    Everything else is secondary to obeying the Law. In the eyes of the priesthood, obedience to the Law was tantamount.

    This isn't what all Jews believe today, but it is what the original writers were thinking.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit