Posts by KalebOutWest

299

Who told the first lie?

by nicolaou in

this is a continuation of the discussion which sprang from an unrelated topic.. so according to genesis, who told the first lie?

god told eve that if she ate from the tree of knowledge she would die that very same day.

in response to that statement the devil told her she would not die.. eve ate from the tree and did not die.

KalebOutWest

I only hate you Jeffro. Only you.

I love everyone else.

But the hate and the insults, are for your eyes only.

Love and kisses.

299

Who told the first lie?

by nicolaou in

this is a continuation of the discussion which sprang from an unrelated topic.. so according to genesis, who told the first lie?

god told eve that if she ate from the tree of knowledge she would die that very same day.

in response to that statement the devil told her she would not die.. eve ate from the tree and did not die.

KalebOutWest

Jeffro:

You can’t help yourself can you. These snide little judgements of people who point out any little thing you get wrong. Please stick to good content and just say those nonsense parts to yourself.

The "snide little judgments" I learned from copying and pasting every comment you have made on this site into a computer.

And the "snide" comments you despise are generated via Google's Gemini AI.

They are actually based upon your very own.

I designed it so that every time you posted something contrary about me, I would have AI come up with something.

You are essentially being judgemental to your own self.

It gives a new meaning to the expression: Go f#@k yourself.

Enjoy.

299

Who told the first lie?

by nicolaou in

this is a continuation of the discussion which sprang from an unrelated topic.. so according to genesis, who told the first lie?

god told eve that if she ate from the tree of knowledge she would die that very same day.

in response to that statement the devil told her she would not die.. eve ate from the tree and did not die.

And of course, the point I made, leave it to Jeffro to be nitpicky and to go off track about something because the mainpoint--that God does lie and in fact lies and that the Bible has many instances of this--and that this is just mythology where in the genre God is not bound to sensical things (again in the same myth God walks, talks, is under the Mosaic Law, and the Law itself existed before the world was founded) creates paradoxes if one takes any debate on whether "God lies" seriously.

God isn't a person or entity, even by Jewish standards, the people and culture who wrote the story.

In Judaism, "God" isn't even a "deity" which is why the founder of the Society for Humanistic Judaism had to invent a new terminology for his stand on the matter: ignosticism. One cannot argue belief for or against something that isn't a deity to begin with because no one can actually define something that is "ineffable" according to Jewish theology--so why even discuss it let alone debate it?

Of course, we are not talking about SHJ or Judaism. We are talking about people who have been influenced by the Watchtower. They get nitpicky, like Jeffro, over the wrong points.

It's okay to debate over God if that is your thing, and if this "God" lies or not.

But it is kinda ridiculous if at the same time you do not believe that this deity (or any) exists.

And when you say "God," which God do you mean? The God of the Bible? The Jewish Bible, as understood by the Jews? As understood by mainstream Christianity? They don't believe in the "God of the Bible." That is only something Fundamentalists believe in--and then only Christian Fundamentalists.

But then, which Christian Fundamentalists? Which God? Or how about the Muslim take on God? Or a non Judeo-Islamic-Christian God? Or just the JW form of God? Which God are you arguing over?

I'll bet none of you are arguing over the same one because none of you have the same one in mind.

That is why this has lasted so long on this forum. You can't decide whether God lied or not, not because God lied or didn't or because it is a myth or not, but because each of you here involved believe in different things when you use the word "God," even if you are atheist or agnostic.

Your definitions are different. We might think we imagine the same thing when you say "chocolate" and I say "chocolate," but each of us has a very different experience with chocolate. Chocolate is my favorite food, but it might be something you despise. Someone else can take it or leave it. Therefore neither us has the same chocolate in mind when we hear or say or debate the subject "chocolate."

It is the same thing about "God."

This will make it harder about any subject respecting "God," let alone whether "God" lied to Adam and Eve.

Did "chocolate" lie to Adam and Eve? It depends on how you view "chocolate."

299

Who told the first lie?

by nicolaou in

this is a continuation of the discussion which sprang from an unrelated topic.. so according to genesis, who told the first lie?

god told eve that if she ate from the tree of knowledge she would die that very same day.

in response to that statement the devil told her she would not die.. eve ate from the tree and did not die.

KalebOutWest

Yes Jeffro, you are correct. It is an oversimplification, but it is still true nevertheless.

The Mosaic Code has greatly influenced our Western legal systems, especially that of criminal law. Concepts from the Mosaic Code, like “strict liability” and proportional punishment, are used in today's modern laws. Holding people accountable for their actions and making sure punishments are fair historically go back to the days of American Puritanism. One can therefore say America's civil and criminal justice systems are grounded on the Mosaic Code.--American Jurispruidence: Influences in Western Societal Systems, Delaware, 1976.

However this is not to say that the Western legal system is based on the Torah or the Bible. It is not. The Torah itself is not the inventor of the ideas and ideals found within its legal system, so one cannot even claim that in the purest sense.

America however did not grow up in a vacuum. It developed in one inspired by and moved due from religious values, Judeo-Christian ones. From the Founding Fathers to the Abolitionist Movement to the Women's Suffrage Movement, the Bible and especially the Mosaic Law shaped Americans and the fight for freedom in the West, not to mention inspire it in other parts of Europe as well. The laws that established the Civil Rights movement were also inspired by Exodus found in the Torah.

But directly, no. I agree with you. It was merely a simplification. The story is far more complex than what I had or have time to express here...

...Or that you give credit to.

299

Who told the first lie?

by nicolaou in

this is a continuation of the discussion which sprang from an unrelated topic.. so according to genesis, who told the first lie?

god told eve that if she ate from the tree of knowledge she would die that very same day.

in response to that statement the devil told her she would not die.. eve ate from the tree and did not die.

KalebOutWest

Imagine going to visit a solicitor or attorney. In their office you will generally see many volumes which are filled with laws, tons of them, written over many, many years.

But these law books do not consist of rows and rows of: "It is against the law to do such and such..." That would be unhelpful.

Instead, these books actually contain stories, similar to:

On November 16, 1969, one Elena P. Silverstone of Edgetown, New Jersey, was walking her poodle, when the dog broke from its leash and went chasing after the postal carrier a few yards away. The dog bit the man on the leg who, shocked and in pain, went tumbling into the street into oncoming traffic, causing a car to swerve into the front yard of a one George T. Howard and...

While quite interesting, but the stories are not there to entertain. They are there to teach how laws came to be or were applied in certain circumstances. They set a precedent by means of illustration.

This model, in the West, was adopted, interestingly, from the Mosaic Law. While the Jews were not the first to invent this formula (as they themselves adopted it from their neighbors of their time period), Christians of the West created their legal systems based on what they learned from the Bible, especially from the Old Testament (which is why one often sees the Ten Commandments in some courtrooms in the West).

As Peacefulpete noted from his conversation with the rabbi, Jews generally hold to the narrative of the Garden of Eden as being mythology (an ancient form of genre which explains how something originated). It is also important to note that God is considered a character in this play as well: he owns the garden, sets Adam as the caretaker, and takes walks in the garden to talk to the man in the afternoon.

There is more: at the very beginning of Genesis it is implied that the Torah has always existed as God is actually obedient to the laws of the Torah. God works every day of the week, performing "mitzvahs" or "good works" (which is what the Hebrew term is here) for 6 days, but rests on the Sabbath. Why would God be under the Mosaic Law?

Let us say, for the sake of argument, that God in this mythology does in fact lie to Adam or asks too much of the man and woman.

But at the same time, in the same myth, God seems to own a garden that doesn't exist anywhere that one can actually locate. It's description seems to be that of one of the hanging gardens own by Nebuchadnezzar who was long gone by the time this story was composed.

God doesn't really own a hanging garden in Babylon. God doesn't talk to humans in the way presented in this myth. God isn't under the Mosaic Law. Did God ever really rest on any Sabbath? Jesus said no.

Jesus said, “My Father has never stopped working, and this is why I keep on working.”--John 5:17 CEV

This narrative is part of the five law books that make up the Torah, the Mosaic Law. Just like the stories that you find in law books of today, the stories in the Mosaic Law are not there to tell history lessons. They were placed there to teach the Jews how to apply the Law in their daily lives.

Some of the stories, like that of Abraham, are folklore, based on oral traditions that come from their culture and ancient communities, but they are still selected for the Torah to teach the same thing, namely how to apply the Law in one's daily life. There are other stories about Abraham, for example, that were preserved in the Talmud that are just as ancient but not applicable to the Law (i.e., "Abraham and the Idol Shop" for example, which while also folklore has origins far older than its Talmudic preservation).

I am not here to say that God did not lie. In fact, in the Hebrew Bible God does lie many times.--1 Kings 22:23; 2 Chronicles 18:22; Jeremiah 4:10.

The problem is that there might be some readers on this site that could still be influenced by Watchtower theology and misread the following texts in light of Jehovah's Witness religion even though they may no longer be JWs, namely Numbers 23:19, Titus 1:2, and Hebrews 6:18*.

Regardless of how you wish to read Christian texts, literally or not, these were not envisioned at the time of the writing of the Torah. And in the end, it doesn't matter. If one makes the case that God is lying in the Garden of Eden narrative, then along the same logic, one can make the case that God walks in gardens in the afternoon, and that God is under the Mosaic Law, and that the Torah existed for eternity before the earth was created--for all these things are also in play in the same mythology. You cannot escape one without the other.

Silly, but there you go. It's called anthropomorphism. If you believe in Biblical literalism and ignore Jewish sages like Maimonides who very cleverly taught that you can just as easily make an idol out of words as you can out of stone or gold or wood, then you are essentially worshipping an idol too since the Ineffable God of Abraham is not made in the image of man with arms, legs, etc., and does not speak, nor walk, nor becomes jealous or lies like humans. If that is what you believe God is, even if it is just in words, it is an "idol" of words.

The narrative of Genesis, however, is meant to teach the application of the Mosaic Law to Jews. God is no less a character than Adam and Eve in this illustration, to teach the application of law no less than Elena Silverstone, the runaway poodle, and the biten postal carrier in our demonstration regarding narratives in legal books of modern days. Is it that Elena is a lady who likes poodles of all things that is the point of there being a story in a law book or are the stories those law books placed there to set a legal precedent the important thing?

In various stories of the Bible, at least the Hebrew ones, you find the "character" of God doing all kinds of things due to anthropomorphic composition. But this is not meant to be seen as a dogmatic definition on the theology of God the way Jehovah's Witnesses claim the Bible is to be read. There are various genres in play. Did the Jews wait until the words were written down before they worshipped to become Jews or were they Jews there first and then wrote down the words? Was there God first and then they wrote about God (whether or not God is real)?

But yes, in the Hebrew Bible God does in fact lie. Just because Christians wrote one thing in the New Testament doesn't change the fact the Jews didn't write what they did in the Hebrew Bible. And what the Watchtower taught doesn't stand as the last word on any New Testament text.

____

*--Numbers 23:19 is Balaam's Oracle to Balak, telling him that God doesn't change course or "his mind" like mere humans; Titus 1:2 is saying that God never lies about his promises; Hebrews 6:18 is saying that people can depend upon God's promise and oath, because God wouldn't lie about these two things.

299

Who told the first lie?

by nicolaou in

this is a continuation of the discussion which sprang from an unrelated topic.. so according to genesis, who told the first lie?

god told eve that if she ate from the tree of knowledge she would die that very same day.

in response to that statement the devil told her she would not die.. eve ate from the tree and did not die.

KalebOutWest

MeanMrMustard

I'm sticking with my theory that God lied to Adam and Eve because that's all he do to keep them in line...Telling Adam not to eat the fruit of the tree because it was "wrong" would be like trying to convince your dog not to drink from the antifreeze spill in your garage - you just can't do it.

This is an example of "The Mandela Effect," the belief in an occurrence of an event which never actually took place. None of the above happened in the story. Even the punishment phase of the story is famous for showing this did not take place, but people constantly say this is what happened.

It's like people quoting Darth Vader from The Empire Strikes Back: "Luke, I am your father!" That never happened. The line was: "No, I am your father!" That is "The Mandela Effect."

Genesis 2:16 and 17 says that God only told "the man" this instruction. According to this narrative, neither the woman nor the serpent had even been created yet. (See Genesis 2:18-22.) So it is not possible for either the woman or the serpent to have overheard the instruction from God. Let's say, for the sake of argument, that it was a genuine lie. According to the narrative, the woman and the serpent were not around to hear it. Only Adam was. But in the story there is no indication that Adam ever told either one of them.

Oddly, in the punishment phase, Adam gets the death penalty for the following:

"Because you listened to the voice of your wife and have eaten of the tree..."--Genesis 3:17.

Adam gets punished because he obeyed Eve instead of obeying God. According to the narrative, this was not the way God had intended.

As The SBL commentators point out:

The woman is the focus of the story, while the man is her passive companion: [the text reads] her husband, who was with her [and not the other way around]. The woman's command over the man will be reversed in v. 16, the curse of (and justification for) male authority [in this narrative]...Woman gets cursed with male authority, which reverses her previous command over the man.

If you are saying that Adam was created without literal knowledge of "good and evil" and that God's command was therefore like expecting a dog to know the difference between sweet poison and sweet juice, then you are also saying that the other aspects of the text are literal too.

How did the woman learn the command not to eat of the fruit? The text does not say that Adam told her, does it?

How does the serpent know the command? Why does it speak and the other animals do not? If Adam taught the command to Eve, and that is how she learned it, then does that mean according to the same logic that the serpent learned it the same way--from Adam?

And then if you are to be believed, why did you remember this narrative incorrectly in the first place? How can we trust someone who can't even remember the narrative correctly to start with?

299

Who told the first lie?

by nicolaou in

this is a continuation of the discussion which sprang from an unrelated topic.. so according to genesis, who told the first lie?

god told eve that if she ate from the tree of knowledge she would die that very same day.

in response to that statement the devil told her she would not die.. eve ate from the tree and did not die.

KalebOutWest

And before you ask:

"If it is myth, then what did Jesus die for?"

The word "myth" does not mean "false" in academia. It means "origin." It only means "false" among people who tend to use it that way in the vernacular. (Like when some people call all soda pop "Coke," even though all soda pop is not "Coke.")

"Mythology" is an ancient genre where writers who did not know exactly how to express facts or truths about the origin of something used tropes common to their culture to explain it. For example, Pandora's Box is a myth that explains the origins of the world's troubles and why human's still hold onto hope despite them all, employing metaphors as a means to explain this.

The narrative of the Garden of Eden is not about Jesus Christ or this sacrifice however. That is a completely different religion, namely Christianity. The Church Fathers admit that their interpretation of the narrative is based upon seeing new meaning into the story, such as they did with Jonah and the resurrection of Jesus, with Jonah being a type of Jesus, and Jonah's coming out from the whale as a typification of Christ's resurrection (based upon something Jesus himself briefly taught).

The original Garden of Eden origin story is about the Fall of Man, but not about original sin. It is about disobeying the Mosaic Law, notably the Jews being disobedient to God, and likely their losing access to the Temple and the Promised Land at the Exile to Babylon. The question is: Why do we sin like this? Because we have been like this since the beginning. It is part of our nature. Like God tells Cain, you need to fight this beast or it will get the better of you.The choice is yours.--Genesis 4:7.

In Watchtower theology, the story is historical fact: it happened as written. No questions asked. And Jesus died to counter Adam's death. It is not a Jewish story. It is a Christian story. End of line.

In nomimal Christian theology, Jesus died as part of his life: God came in the Person of Jesus to experience everything you and I experience from birth to life to death, even unjust rejection--the worst even. God allowed this to happen to him so that we could experience life "in his image" to the fullest. God was partaking of our life by undergoing a death life ours.

The allegorical/mythical understanding of the Genesis story is not required where there is not an exact ransom as demanded by Watchtower standards. For the Watchtower, where there is not a God that lays down His life so that you and I can be "partakers of the Divine Nature" (2 Peter 1:4), the idea becomes cartoonish with literal talking snakes and demanding deities and a Governing Body that sets all kind of weird dates confusing people with perfection and confusion about myths from an old book that don't tell you much about the real world you are living in.

The Jew in me is not necessarily claiming you should or should not believe in one Christian standard or another. I am just reporting on these things.

And thus the meaning of "myth."

299

Who told the first lie?

by nicolaou in

this is a continuation of the discussion which sprang from an unrelated topic.. so according to genesis, who told the first lie?

god told eve that if she ate from the tree of knowledge she would die that very same day.

in response to that statement the devil told her she would not die.. eve ate from the tree and did not die.

KalebOutWest

TonusOH:

So we could have had a universe where everyone was always happy and no one ever suffered.

According to The SBL Study Bible, Oxford's Catholic Study Bible, and the JPS Jewish Study Bible, the narrative of Genesis never promises immoratality or eternal life to humans even if they never partake of the fruit of the tree from which God forbids.

"Man seems to have been made mortal" states The SBL Study Bible in its commentary to Genesis chapter 3, pointing to the fact that after his "eyes are opened" that "he will be conscious of his mortality, another addition to his self-knowledge."

There are a set of ironic realities mentioned regarding this via a play on words: Adam renames Woman after his condemnation or curse. Why?

Adam's name in Hebrew is basically the name from which he was formed and where he is told he will return, which is a reminder that he is not immortal (adamah), being told that he was formed "from the dust of the ground."--2:7.

Adam renames his wife "Eve," which means (of all things) "Life." This is ironic as they have been cut off from the Tree of Life. (In Hebrew, the same root word is used for both by the way, as in the Hebrew expression "L-Chaim," meaning "To life!")

The Tree of Life is guarded by "cherubim" and a "flaming sword." It represents, originally, the Holy of Holies in the Hebrew Temple. According to The SBL Study Bible:

The eastern entrance, the cherubim, and the sacred trees suggest an analogy with the Jerusalem temple, which had similar architectural and iconographic features as well as a limitation on access into it.

When the Church Fathers interpreted this story by means of allegory, the narrative to suggest the Fall of Man, the Tree of Life changed from the Holy of Holies to the Cross of Christ. With the 'tearing of the veil in two' at the death of Jesus (Matthew 27:50-51), access to God by means of the Cross was made possible, making eternal life available and turning what would normally be a wooden instrument of death into a "Tree of Life."

While I think it would have been great that nobody would be suffering today, I don't think this mythical text describes the origins of reality. The religious groups that created this work (as their study Bibles prove) do not believe it is historical nor do they describe "God" in anthropomorphic terms as simple as this narrative or in the language of Watchtower theology. They understand the value of looking at this as it was written: myth.

We might learn good lessons from lore like this, even truths perhaps, but not facts.

171

Alteration of Revelation 3:14 in the 4th century to support the emerging Trinity doctrine

by slimboyfat in

in an earlier thread another poster asserted that there is no evidence that revelation 3:14 played a part in the 4th controversy that led to the trinity doctrine.

this was claimed as evidence that the description of jesus as “the beginning of the creation of god” in the verse was not understood to mean that jesus was god’s first creation.

the scholarly greek–english lexicon of the new testament & other early christian literature 3e (2001) by bauer, arndt, gingrich, and danker, in its latest edition states that “first creation” is indeed the probable meaning of the greek phrase.

KalebOutWest

And my final word is that none of this has to do with Revelation 3:14 or the significance of the Codex Sinaiticus.

If it did, then one could argue about accepting what else is in the same Codex, such as why don't Christians recognize the Epistle of Barnabas? There is far more of this that that tiny change.

Or better yet, as there are far more witnesses in far more canons all the way up until the canon was closed by the Church, why was the Shepherd of Hermas dismissed? This book repeatedly shows up not merely in canon lists but gets mentioned again and again by the Church Fathers and historians.

It is in this Codex. If were are going to argue on how significant this change must mean to history, why not accept the Shepherd of Hermas? Are you not reading it and living your life by it?

You are not.

Because the point is not this Codex. The point is not this verse.

The point is not that history has accepted the Trinity either.

The point is holding on to the Watchtower's view of the Trinity and trying not to admit that you still agree with the Watchtower.

So people often look for other lines of evidence and try not to say what they are actually saying because they don't like what they are saying.

But in reality there is only one type of Christianity. The issue has always been one thing. If it wasn't for the "Son of God" issue and what it means, Jews would likely have had an easier time with Jesus of Nazareth. Resurrection is not far-fetched. Coming back to finish the job--hey, Bar Kokhba did nothing before he was anointed "nasi" or "prince" (Messiah). It has always been the "I AM always with you, even to the end of the world" thing (see, even a Jew can see the connection in these verses--it's very, very plain).--Matthew 28:20.

So exJWs sometimes look for other ways to hold on to Watchtower views as last resorts. Hey--you don't have to accept Christianity. But you don't have to make up stuff either. You can be a Unitarian. There is a name for it, you know.

But you cannot change history. It happened a certain way. It's even recorded in Jewish history. My people know what the claims of Christianity were as it happened. The Pagans (capital "P" meaning the Romans also knew it meant worshipping Jesus as a deity) without reserve. One little change on one manuscript means nothing.

I know some of you--and it is just a few, very few--have trust issues with Bibles and books from mainstream scholars and religions, but that is where the information is: Oxford and the SBL and Judaism and yes, the Catholic Church. You are not joining these groups by reading and studying their works. These are the top notch scholars. You are losing out by not studying and knowing this stuff.

So I get very frustrated--only because that same very very few CLAIM you know things. And if you CLAIM, you had better walk the talk. Otherwise--like I did with you earlier Slimboyfat--someone else will embarrass you worse than I did.

Now believe whatever you want. I don't give a crap.

171

Alteration of Revelation 3:14 in the 4th century to support the emerging Trinity doctrine

by slimboyfat in

in an earlier thread another poster asserted that there is no evidence that revelation 3:14 played a part in the 4th controversy that led to the trinity doctrine.

this was claimed as evidence that the description of jesus as “the beginning of the creation of god” in the verse was not understood to mean that jesus was god’s first creation.

the scholarly greek–english lexicon of the new testament & other early christian literature 3e (2001) by bauer, arndt, gingrich, and danker, in its latest edition states that “first creation” is indeed the probable meaning of the greek phrase.

KalebOutWest

But it has nothing to do with the formation of the Trinity dogma.

Dogmas are negative responses to heresy not positive expressions teaching doctrine. By the time the Church developed the dogma of the Trinity, it was due to a controversy that was threatening a basic belief of Christianity.

Revelation is a book chosen to counter the Marcionist movement. It has nothing to do with the Trinity. Christianity did not grow from a text. It wrote a text. Religion first, controversy (Marcionist canon), then response: the New Testament.

It took some 200 to form the New Testament Canon, during which some of these texts changed. The Trinity was a done deal by the time that change in the Codex in question is being discussed. The Church had no more use for anything in Greek. Latin was the new standard being used for the Lectionary.

The official canon of the New Testament is the Latin text of Jerome of 383 CE. Any Greek changes to any Greek text made no difference to Christians after either the Trinity dogma or the New Testament Canon or Jerome's work.

That is history.