The Fall of Man

[Pipedreamer]

Very interesting interpretation, Julie. I think that was a very insightful way to look at it. However, I reject the idea that we come from one man, one woman...created by an omnipotent God who is able to materialize all of creation out of thought, but for some reason had to form man out of dirt, and woman from the man's rib. And then later was sorry for creating all he had. I guess...he made a big boo boo? A perfect, omnipotent God made a boo boo? How so? The whole thing is so archaic and childish it's almost laughable to me.
I believe the tale is symbolic. After reading Zecharia Sitchin's theories, I'm inclined to believe he has the most valid point concerning our true beginnings and for me it's easy to see how primitive man might have interpreted what was passed down to them in telling whence we came, which after time became quite distorted. Therefore, I find that Jesus could have been no more a son of God than you or I or anyone else. So, after all this time what Jesus said through a source which has been translated and added to umpteen times is really only hearsay.

[mystic444]

I figure the best way to hold my head above water with "converters" is to educate myself so I know what the hell they're talking about! Is that wrong?

It's not at all wrong, Julie. In fact, if you're going to hold a respectful conversation with someone about his/her beliefs, the best possible approach is to familiarize yourself with both his beliefs, and the source from which he/she derives those beliefs.

You should always be unafraid of asking yourself at least a couple or three questions about the Bible (in this case) as you read it. (1) Does the Biblical passage under consideration actually teach what your friend quotes it to prove? In fact, is it even possible that those old writers could possibly have had in mind what our modern friends see in the passage? (2) If you conclude that your friend does understand the Bible correctly, does that necessarily mean that the teaching is actually correct? Could the Bible authors have been mistaken? Or have later editors distorted the original teachings? Whether the original writers said it, or later editors changed it, you should still feel free to deny its validity if it appears to you contrary to reason, experience, or good sense and morality. Psalm 137:8 and 9 says this: "O daughter of Babylon, you devastator! Happy shall he be who requites you with what you have done to us! Happy shall he be who takes your little ones and dashes them against the rock!" I don't care how Biblical that is, I cannot be convinced that someone who does such thing enjoys the 'blessing' of God in doing so!

If you are familiar with the Bible and the beliefs your friend thinks he finds in that book, at least you'll be able to carry on an intelligent and respectful conversation.

[dean3333]

The Genesis stories, IMHO, are Hebrew mythological concepts created by ancient man to explain their existence. I'm sure many in those days wondered how man and the world began, and these stories were one explanation. The problem I have with the Old Testament is that it explains God as some sort of maniacal and jealous being with human traits and frailties. The grand designer of all is far above any explanation or understanding.

[MarkN]

The Genesis stories, IMHO, are Hebrew mythological concepts created by ancient man to explain their existence.

I don't think that is just your opinion. That is exactly what the Old Testament is. It is no different than Greek or Norse Mythology. Personally, I would prefer to follow the lessons of "The Lord of the Rings". Better lessons and much more coherent.

[mystic444]

Lily wrote:

Mystic, I'm interested in more about this. From this passage (Rom 5) it certainly does seem that Paul believed that we are all subject to a sinful nature. What are you seeing in this that I don't? What does this passage mean, if it's not about original sin?

Okay, I've been doing a lot of thinking about Romans 5:12-21, and I don't really think it will take a 'sermon' or 'dissertation' to explain the different perspective I have on this passage (different from traditional Christianity). Really, it all boils down to the understanding of one phrase: "Therefore as sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all men sinned..." Since the time of Augustine of Hippo (354-430 C.E.) the 'orthodox' church has been pounding into people's heads the notion that this means: "When Adam sinned, we all sinned IN HIM"; or when Adam sinned, it was 'as if' we all had sinned also. We all became condemned for what he did. The shift in perspective that can give a completely different understanding to this passage is simply to understand that Paul really meant that ALL MEN sinned. Adam did not sin FOR us (or 'in our place'), but he acted as a leader whom everyone followed and imitated. Adam sinned and brought death into the world. We imitated him, so death spread to us. Read in this way, it does not teach anything different than what Jeremiah (31:29 and 30) and Ezekiel (in the whole of chapter 18) taught. To use Ezekiel's summary in 18:20 - "The soul that sins shall die. The son shall not suffer for the iniquity of the father, nor the father suffer for the iniquity of the son; the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself."

In the same way, Jesus Christ acts as a leader, whom we are to follow. His righteousness spreads to us as we 'follow his steps' in obedient faith. A person who identifies himself/herself with Jesus Christ 'dies' with him to sin, and 'becomes alive again' with him to righteousness. He/she becomes a 'slave' of righteousness. So when, in Revelation 19:7 and 8, the "Bride" of "the Lamb" is shown dressed in "fine linen, bright and pure", that fine linen is not 'the righteousness of Christ' "placed on their account", but it is "the righteous deeds of the saints" themselves.

So reading this passage from the perspective that Adam and Jesus Christ are not 'Heads" who act 'instead of' their 'descendants', but rather 'Heads' who 'lead' their descendants, we can watch the massive structure that has been erected on a bad interpretation by Augustine crumble to the ground. (It is my contention that Paul as a Pharisee believed in the preexistence of all 'souls', and reincarnation - both Pharisees and Essenes believed in this - so he would have seen all men as having sinned at the same time as their leader Adam. We may indeed be born into this world with a 'sinful nature', but it is one we have acquired from lifetime to lifetime by our own actions, not passed down to us from Adam through no fault of our own. Such a 'sinful nature' is acquired, and does not negate the existence of the 'image of God' in which we were created. The 'sinful nature' can be overcome, and the 'image of God' uncovered, by becoming followers of the new leader, Jesus Christ. The story of Adam and Eve is legend or myth, though, so we shouldn't tie ourselves in knots trying to figure out 'when' this 'fall' actually occurred, and what the 'original sin' symbolized by eating the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil really was.)

Let me just apply this interpretation to a couple more of the verses in this passage. Verse 16: "And the free gift is not like the effect of that one man's sin. For the judgment following one trespass brought condemnation [into the world, and that condemnation spread to all men when or as all men imitated that original trespass], but the free gift following many trespasses [since we have imitated our leader, Adam] brings justification [as we 'trust and obey' our leader, Jesus Christ]."

Verse 17: "If, because of one man's trespass, death reigned through that one man [reigned by spreading to all men, who imitated their leader Adam], much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man Jesus Christ [by means of their faith which follows and obeys him].

This life of righteousness, according to the 'good news' proclaimed by Paul (and the other apostles as well) can only be achieved by losing our fear of God, and believing the message that God loves us. Mankind has been afraid of God, and thought that we must beg and plead for him not to destroy us, and do a lot of ritual 'good works' (circumcision, various 'washings', sacrifices, etc.) to try to 'buy' a return to favor with God. The 'good news' of Jesus Christ is that this is simply not true! God loves us, even when we're 'sinners' and 'enemies' (according to our own distorted estimation), and the death of Jesus Christ is intended to show God's love, not buy it. I love the statement of Paul in 2 Corinthians 5:19 -"...in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them". According to Strong's Concordance, the word translated here 'counting' means "to take an inventory, that is, estimate". God, through Jesus, showed us that he was not taking an inventory of our sins, drawing up a list He can use against us to condemn us. Instead He proclaims forgiveness because that is His character. He doesn't need to be 'bought off' by us or Jesus; love for us and forgiveness is just the way He is. When we see and really believe this, it will be life changing! God's 'law' will be written on our hearts instead of being outward demands. We'll want to 'please God', not unsuccessfully try to do so out of fear of condemnation.

Well, I wasn't going to 'preach a sermon', but it looks like I got into 'preacher mode' anyhow. (I've never been a preacher, but I used to really want to be one. Does it show? )

[Lily]

Mystic, thank you. I understand what you meant now, that's pretty much how I see it. Our "sinful nature" means only that we're human, we screw up from time to time. Jesus' message was that we are not bound by these things, but a righteousness that transcends them. Culturally, it was believed that something must be done to release the bonds of sin, so Jesus gave them what they thought they needed. I especially like the idea that he wanted us to know we don't need to be afraid of God, and that we don't need to jump through hoops to please Him.

I also like your understanding of Paul, of the sort of man he would have been. I appreciate you sharing your thoughts with me and helping me to understand my own.

The Genesis stories, IMHO, are Hebrew mythological concepts created by ancient man to explain their existence

Not mythology so much as allegory. Mythology concerns a made up god. I believe the OT to be an attempt at explaining a very real God. Many of the events are surely fictional stories, others are based on actual events. In either case, they are stories that impart wisdom through allegory.

Julie, I loved your interpretation as a "coming of age" story. I've been able to correlate it to what I've seen in my children at different stages of their lives. I now have an 18 month old I call my "evil little demon." Of course, he's not evil, but he is most certainly sneaky and conniving, qualities that, according to some, are evil. This is just how he learns and gains knowledge. It will take him from one stage into the next.
I also correlate it to the plight of my 18 year old daughter, and how it is that she left home. In fact, it is a perfect allegory for that phase of her life. She is not evil or fallen either, just a kid trying to find her way.

[julie]

I'm glad you can relate to my interpretation, Lily! I've been spending my time reading the bible from a literalist point of view so if I'm cornered I can say, but this happened and the bible left it out; or the bible says this, do you think that could possibly be true? ; how is this even possible?; why would god even do this? Etc. So I'm very new to reading it from the fictional standpoint where its teaching a lesson. I still grapple with what good comes from some of its stories, such as the passage you mentioned Mystic, about bashing babies heads in or something like that. Mystic, your interpretations really make sense out of passages that would be lost on me!

[mystic444]

Lily wrote:

Culturally, it was believed that something must be done to release the bonds of sin, so Jesus gave them what they thought they needed. I especially like the idea that he wanted us to know we don't need to be afraid of God, and that we don't need to jump through hoops to please Him.

I'm glad you picked up on that idea. I think you are referring to my blog article, where I pointed out that in the story of 'the fall' God did not try to argue Adam and Eve out of the notion that He found their 'nakedness' shameful and offensive - but instead provided clothes for them so their 'shame' could be covered. I don't think I made an explicit connection to Jesus' 'sacrifice', but you obviously got the point. While there can be a whole lot of valid meanings for Jesus' death and resurrection, that is certainly a very important one. 'Sinful' humanity thought God needed to be appeased by sacrifice, so Jesus (as God's 'anointed messenger') provided 'clothing' in the form of a 'sacrifice for sins'. At the same time, he turned the tables on the notion by teaching that it was God in His love who had sent him to do this! So he was actually teaching that God did not need to be appeased; such an idea is a figment of our own 'darkened' imaginations! He provided the 'appeasement', while at the same time saying it's entirely unnecessary!

In the same way, even though God Himself - in the 'Garden of Eden' story - provided clothes for the embarrassed couple, the Gospel of Thomas has Jesus making this statement in verse 37: "...Jesus said, 'When you disrobe without being ashamed and take up your garments and place them under your feet like little children and tread on them, then will you see the Son of the Living One, and you will not be afraid." When we can see that a 'sacrifice for sins' was not at all necessary from God's viewpoint - only from our own deluded viewpoint - and God Himself in LOVE providing the 'sacrifice' proves that point, then we have true confidence before God and 'rejoice' in Him. We'll 'disrobe' and trample our 'clothing' under our feet as it were.

Julie wrote:

I still grapple with what good comes from some of its stories, such as the passage you mentioned Mystic, about bashing babies heads in or something like that. Mystic, your interpretations really make sense out of passages that would be lost on me!

I rather think the only 'good' that can come out of that verse from Psalm 137 is the realization it gives a thinking person that God is willing to work with and through very imperfect people! The Psalm is a 'lamentation' of Jews in captivity in Babylon, as they remember their past joys in Jerusalem ('Zion', the city of God) in contrast to the cruelties and mockeries of their present captors. They have heard the prophecies of their coming deliverance, and their vivid (and still very imperfect) imaginations provide images of their Babylonian captors getting the vengeance they 'deserve' - and they're thrilled with it. They haven't yet learned what Jesus later taught about loving one's enemies, doing good to them, and praying for God to bless them. We still have problems with that, don't we? (Though most of us probably wouldn't envision God's retribution on our 'enemies' in quite such hideous terms, I hope). And it is from just such passages as these that a thinking person will be led to realize that the 'scriptures' are not 'infallibly authoritative' words directly from God - though they are perhaps (in 'spirit' as opposed to 'letter') a message about and 'from' God (if we can conceive of the 'Spirit' of God within men moving and directing their thoughts in subtle ways).

I'm delighted if you find my comments on Biblical themes helpful. Hopefully you won't turn me into a 'prophet' though . You may very well find that I'm "all wet" about some things, and I doubt very seriously I'll be offended if you say so. I've been corresponding (via the comments section) on a blog called "groans from within" written by a Christian who is a bit more 'conservative' than I am. What originally drew my interest though was an article he wrote asking: if you could delete anything from the Bible, what would it be? I read it with delight, because this man (who is a Christian minister) and his readers clearly showed that they were willing to question traditional ways of thinking, and arrive without embarrassment at some very different conclusions. He and those who commented were (generally speaking) quick to point out that they weren't denying the 'authority' of the Bible, and knew God must have had a reason for putting those 'embarrassing' passages in the 'scriptures'; but "nevertheless" they did admit to finding those passages disturbing, and they 'sometimes' wish God hadn't put them there! I started commenting on the blogs; and though frequently I find myself in agreement with the author, sometimes he lets me know that he strongly disagrees with me. He's very polite though; occasionally some of the other commenters are not quite so 'polite' . At least they keep me from getting overweight in the head!

[julie]

But Mystic, why can't you be my prophet? Its just the bible is written in such a way, it is difficult for me to make much sense of it. Even if I don't agree with some of your interpretations completly, they provide a jumping off point for me. Does that make sense? They help produce that aha moment for me. Now I need to start learning the Koran and Torah so I can learn more about them as well..My brother in laws Jewish so I like to bug him with my silly questions from time to time. After the wedding I asked him if that meant I was Jewish now. Lol! It was amusing to me anyway...He did get a kick out of it too.Maybe noone else finds it amusing.....

[Lily]

Mystic, I think you can, in all humility, call yourself a teacher!

I know this is off subject, but I want to offer some of my own insight into passages like Psalm 137. I had spent 10 years (captive) in a relationship that was very abusive emotionally and physically. Toward the end, I was so broken, I imagined driving into a certain tree every day on my way home from work. I also imagined several different ways of forcing retribution on my abuser, things I would do to him for all the pain he caused me, things he deserved. I didn't intend to think this way, the ideas just came, and I have to admit to finding some comfort in them, and it was better than driving into a tree. Of course, controlling these thoughts and learning to forgive was one of the most important aspects of my healing, (Yes, it was quite a struggle, and it still is) It was wrong for me to think that way, but it was real, I see passages like this the same way. The writers of these passage were not always right, but they kept it real. I don't assume that everything they thought and wrote was right, any more than I believe my own thoughts to be right. When we read these things, we have to remember that they come from the wounded hearts of imperfect people.

Julie, when you pester your brother in law, do you call him Rabbi? That would be a hoot!

[Bobbertsan]

Just a short note to let you all know that I'm enjoying this topic.

[gainesvillecathy]

I'm enjoying it too! Great thread! You guys have come a long way in your discussions from a few months ago!