Is the "serpent" God?

[godnotgod]

Wow!

Where did you get this information from? It is certainly not from Gnostic literature.

When you practice Gnostic meditation, what is it you are trying to achieve?

 

[gnostic]

The Devil is called that old serpent in Revelation 12:9 and again in 20:2,

But can anything in Revelation be taken literally or seriously. It seem to be more demented rants of religious nut who had taken hallucinating substances.

You have angel or seraph with the body of man, and head of some sort of animals. You might as well as start worshipping Egyptian gods.

And is there any such thing as dragon?

 

[gnostic]

This topic has turned into a thread about Gnosticism.

 

[GabrielWithoutWings]

The Serpent was not God. James 1:13 says: Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man. The Devil is called that old serpent in Revelation 12:9 and again in 20:2, and is the father of lies in John 8:44, and "Yea, hath God said?" was the first lie told to a human at least. In Ezekiel 28:13 in a passage many Christian scholars believe is about Satan, it says, Thou hast been in Eden the garden of God...So this may indicate the Serpent was possessed by Satan in the Garden.

According to mainstream Christianity. According to Gnostic writings, the serpent was Sophia.

 

[GabrielWithoutWings]

This topic has turned into a thread about Gnosticism.

It sort of ties in. /shrug

 

[GabrielWithoutWings]

The Gnostic God is not all-knowing?

This should help you understand the God above God better.

 

[gnostic]

According to mainstream Christianity. According to Gnostic writings, the serpent was Sophia.

Or Jesus, according to the (long) Apocryphon of John.

 

[GabrielWithoutWings]

Or Jesus, according to the (long) Apocryphon of John.

:yes:

Forgot about that one.

 

[godnotgod]

This should help you understand the God above God better.

I don't quite buy it, though it is a good peripheral, though lengthy and complicated explanation of how it all happened in the beginning. But it fails to explain WHY it occurred, just that there was some sort of something that went terribly wrong. The problem with the Gnostic view, is that it is powerfully dualistic. It does not achieve the Oneness of True Reality, as in Buddhism, for example, where the two worlds which both Gnosticism and Christianity pit one against the other, come together as One. In fact, they were never apart. The split is only within the mind. There is no such split in the real world. Thus, Zen, especially, sees the divine and the ordinary as One,
the 'celestial operating system' and the 'rusty meatpacking factory' in perfect balance. Problem solved. The trick is not to be attached to the rusty meatpacking factory; to realize that it is all an illusion from the get-go.

I think the Hindu view comes closest to the why of the split in consciousness. That the godhead is at play and is manifesting a Grand Illusion called maya (illusion) via lila (play). However, God becomes lost in his own creation, and is hiding within all of its forms, including you and I. But at some point, it becomes clear that something is not quite right, so God, not knowing or remembering his true nature, begins to seek himself. This seeking stage comes in many forms: yoga, meditation, prayer, etc. until divine union is achieved. The Genesis story is just one other form of this cosmic game of hide and seek. The fruit is a symbol for higher consciousness, and when it is partaken of, their eyes are opened so they can 'see as God sees'. God and man once again become One, and the illusion of separation between flesh and spirit is once again dissolved.

Buddhists often state that: Nirvana and Samsara are One. This is understood once the illusion of the split in the mind is understood for what it is. This split mind must at last be completely transcended. It is not real.

Neither are the concepts of a 'God' and 'demi-Urge'. They are merely concepts designed by the rational mind to try to explain a world it cannot quite understand, the truth of the matter being that it will NEVER understand it. Such a mind must be dissolved, so that True Mind can at last come into play.

 

[godnotgod]

:yes:

Forgot about that one.

...the point being that the serpent and his Forbidden Fruit are aspects of Higher, or God, Consciousness all of which is designed to achieve the goal of all religious endeavor: that of divine union.

When the story is misunderstood to be that of an issue of Obedience to God's Law, then the split between man and God, flesh and spirit, just continues to go on and on and on, with all of its suffering, ignorance, and agony, because where there are the Obedient, there are also the Disobedient, and the Obedient must, of course, take issue with the Disobedient and set themselves apart as being with God, while seeing the Disobedient as subject to the wrath of their God, etc, etc.

 

[GabrielWithoutWings]

The 'why' is easier to understand with Emanation Theology. As the Aeons are progressively emanated from the Monad, they become less and less perfect. Sophia, seeing the Metropater (Mother-Father) in the midst of Creation, decides to create all alone. So, she issues forth the Demiurge who is imperfect and so on.

I agree that the dualism is difficult but it does hold some valid points. One of the main reasons that I'm not a pagan is that nature is indifferent and not really worth worshiping. Things devour other things over and over.

I have the same complaint against the Hindu view. If God decides to just play about with maya, introducing suffering, and then gets lost in his own maze, then I don't really feel a being like that is worth worshiping, either.

 

[javajo]

*****

Originally Posted by javajo
The Serpent was not God. James 1:13 says: Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man.

So when God told man NOT to eat of the Forbidden Fruit, He fully expected obedience? If you placed a mystery box in your child's room, and told him NOT to open it, what do you suppose the first thing he will do when you leave the room? If God did not want Adam & Eve to eat of the Forbidden Fruit, he would never have placed it in their paths. Besides, whatever happened to the Forbidden Fruit tree? It did not seem to have survived evolution.

Hi. I believe the Bible is the Word of God. From that, I believe: James clearly teaches that God does not tempt anyone. It says we are tempted when we are drawn away and enticed by our own lust, its all on us. All have sinned and every mouth will be shut at the Great White Throne Judgement. Eve was hit with a 3 fold punch, for temptation comes in 3 ways, the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life. She saw the fruit, it looked good, it looked like it tasted good, and it would give her knowledge of good and evil. She believed the first lie and disobeyed God and ate. Whatever happened to the Tree? The Bible does not say. It just says they had to leave the Garden and a guard of Cherubims and a flaming sword was set to keep the Tree of Life. Perhaps the Garden was destroyed in Noah's Flood. (it depends on if you interpret it literally or figuratively)

The Devil is called that old serpent in Revelation 12:9 and again in 20:2, and is the father of lies in John 8:44, and "Yea, hath God said?" was the first lie told to a human at least. In Ezekiel 28:13 in a passage many Christian scholars believe is about Satan, it says, Thou hast been in Eden the garden of God...So this may indicate the Serpent was possessed by Satan in the Garden.

This is what Rev 12:9 actually says:

9 The great dragon was hurled down—that ancient serpent called the devil, or Satan, who leads the whole world astray. He was hurled to the earth, and his angels with him.

This what Rev 20:2 actually says:

2 He seized the dragon, that ancient serpent, who is the devil, or Satan, and bound him for a thousand years.

In both cases, it is a DRAGON that is also a SERPENT, SATAN, or a DEVIL. First of all dragons, as we all now know, DO NOT EXIST. So if dragons do not exist, then no dragon could have been a serpent, satan or a devil, or anything else for that matter. All we know for certain is that serpents exist. Dragons, Satans, and Devils do not exist, or have you ever experienced any of them yourself?

Secondly, dragons are portrayed as MUCH, MUCH larger than mere serpents, in the class of dinosaurs.

Thirdly, if Adam and Eve had been dealing with a dragon, Genesis would surely have made an issue of this. The fact is, however, that no mention of any dragon, Satan, or devil is to be found in the Genesis story. These images are added LATER in Revelation, which, by the way, is written by John of Patmos, who was exiled to the island of Patmos by the Romans. Hallucinatory mushrooms grow rampant on Patmos, and it has been observed that the descriptions found in Revelation are consistent with someone who is under the power of hallucinatory mushrooms.

Here we see another name to describe Satan as a great dragon. It says he was cast to the earth. Jesus says he fell "as lightening" in Luke 10:18. Peter says he walks about as a "roaring lion". So this passage is descriptive, calling Satan a dragon and serpent. But the fact that he is called a serpent and that Ezekiel says he was in "Eden, the Garden of God", suggests he did enter the serpent, just as he entered Judas, and as the legion entered the swine. I believe John was not on 'shrooms', as he was "in the Spirit on the Lord's Day". He was filled and controlled by the Holy Spirit which I strongly believe is not the same kind of spirit he would be influenced by if he was on 'shrooms. Twice in Revelation, it says people still wouldn't turn from their sorceries. The Greek is Pharmacia for sorcery, and means use of drugs like hallucinogens, which, John having written the book, would have known they were forbidden. This is just me, my personal belief, but I, myself would be very careful about calling Jesus Christ's Revelation of the culmination of all things a hallucination. I believe Jesus Christ, who came in the flesh and died for our sins and rose again is coming again soon as he promised many times. I believe it is time to get our house in order. That's my belief. You are welcome to yours.

 

[Awoon]

The "serpent" is the whisperer (thoughts) of your own mind. Thoughts of grandeur that Jesus encountered from his own whisperer in the desert, wilderness story.

 

[doppelganger]

The serpent is the best thing to happen to "God." Without separation from God, without being ejected from "nature" into the conflict of the ego (knowledge of good and evil) there is no psychological mechanism by which "God" can even become. "God" needs "sin" for its very existence.

 

[drakonyx]

The serpent is a symbol of resurrection and the renewal of life - resurrection. He actually told the truth in the garden - the people didn't die in the day they ate of the fruit, and they did come to know (distinguish between) good and evil. This story has always presented a conundrum to me. If the people didn't know the difference between good and evil before eating of the fruit, how could they have known it was "evil" to disobey the Elohim? This myth appears to be an allegory about growing up: The naive children are corrected by their parent, grow up, leave home, have to earn their own keep, have sex, have children. I think literalists miss the entire point that's being made.

 

[godnotgod]

Hi. I believe the Bible is the Word of God. From that, I believe: James clearly teaches that God does not tempt anyone. It says we are tempted when we are drawn away and enticed by our own lust, its all on us. All have sinned and every mouth will be shut at the Great White Throne Judgement. Eve was hit with a 3 fold punch, for temptation comes in 3 ways, the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life. She saw the fruit, it looked good, it looked like it tasted good, and it would give her knowledge of good and evil. She believed the first lie and disobeyed God and ate. Whatever happened to the Tree? The Bible does not say. It just says they had to leave the Garden and a guard of Cherubims and a flaming sword was set to keep the Tree of Life. Perhaps the Garden was destroyed in Noah's Flood. (it depends on if you interpret it literally or figuratively)

However, God knew exactly what he was doing when he placed a Fruit that, as you admit, 'looked good'. In other words, God knew that Eve's desires would be aroused just by catching sight of the Fruit; making it a taboo makes it even more inviting, does'nt it? Therefore, it is clear that, by God's knowing the score, he was, in effect, putting Temptation directly and squarely in their paths. The problem with your take on it is that your concern is with obedience to the Law, rather than understanding why God would want to first place a succulent treat right in their paths, and then turn right around and forbid them to eat of it.

You make the naturally occurring state of spontaneous lust seem like a terrible sin. Why is that? Lust is merely a more developed form of Desire, is it not? But here in this story we have a paradox: we are told NOT to follow our natural desires, while at the same time, our natural desires cannot help but be aroused. Can you figure it out?

I will give you a clue: The Hindus say something like this:

"Though you must become Desireless, it is through Desire that you must be born"

Otherwise, the flesh will forever be in conflict with the spirit, and no resolution or peace between the two can ever be achieved. The truth of the matter is that what we refer to as 'flesh' and 'spirit', as much as we think them to be real, are but mental concepts. In truth, they are one and the same.

"...and the Word BECAME flesh"

Notice it does not say that the Word dwelt in the flesh, but was actually transformed into the stuff. If people truly understood what this was actually saying, they would go screaming into the streets.

The real question here is: was there really a sin that was committed?

If we understand that God, by telling Adam and Eve NOT to eat of the Fruit, actually meant that he wanted them to, then this story must make a 180 degree about-face, which puts us face to face with the question as to what the eating of the Fruit is all about. Remember that the serpent told Eve that God did not want them to eat of it because they would then 'see as He sees'. Well, what is this but God Consciousness. In other words, God is giving man the ultimate gift with no strings attached: the gift of Divine Union, given out of the purest of Love, that Love being completely Unconditional. Those who believe that a sin was committed do not understand. They want a blood sacrifice and atonement and all the rest of the bloody mess as payment. But that turns the Love of God into something like a contract, making it Conditional, and not real love at all.

Understand the message, partake of God's gift, realize union with the Divine, and story end. Everyone lives happily ever after.

Think that a sin has been committed and the rest is bloody history. Separation from God and no union until after death. Long way home.

Try to understand God's humor and divine sense of playfullnes in all of this. It is not serious, folks. Or will you deny God his game while you enjoy yours?


Here we see another name to describe Satan as a great dragon.

But why demonize the dragon or the serpent? Are they intrinsically evil entities?

That's my belief. You are welcome to yours.

Why would anyone be welcome to something that puts one further from what is real? Belief is not reality; it is a model of reality based upon emotional considerations. Why not go direct to reality itself for what we need to know? Yeshua did: he was a mystic.

*****

 

[godnotgod]

The 'why' is easier to understand with Emanation Theology. As the Aeons are progressively emanated from the Monad, they become less and less perfect. Sophia, seeing the Metropater (Mother-Father) in the midst of Creation, decides to create all alone. So, she issues forth the Demiurge who is imperfect and so on.

I agree that the dualism is difficult but it does hold some valid points. One of the main reasons that I'm not a pagan is that nature is indifferent and not really worth worshiping. Things devour other things over and over.

I have the same complaint against the Hindu view. If God decides to just play about with maya, introducing suffering, and then gets lost in his own maze, then I don't really feel a being like that is worth worshiping, either.

So the creation is a serious matter with worship a must?

Could the devouring be illusory?

 

[Acim]

The serpent is a symbol of resurrection and the renewal of life - resurrection. He actually told the truth in the garden - the people didn't die in the day they ate of the fruit, and they did come to know (distinguish between) good and evil. This story has always presented a conundrum to me. If the people didn't know the difference between good and evil before eating of the fruit, how could they have known it was "evil" to disobey the Elohim? This myth appears to be an allegory about growing up: The naive children are corrected by their parent, grow up, leave home, have to earn their own keep, have sex, have children. I think literalists miss the entire point that's being made.

This comes closest to my understanding.

As a reminder, prior to Serpent appearing in the narrative, Adam has been caused to fall into a deep sleep, and no reference is provided for his awakening.

I mostly interpret Serpent as Holy Spirit (Voice for God) within dream (illusion) where man is to believe in a god that is separate, jealous, prone to punishment, and denier of Knowledge and ultimately of (Tree of) Life. Oh, did I mention deceiver.

I could be persuaded to understand Serpent as Lucifer, though with clear understanding that Lucifer was, in early physical existence, the first 'Bringer of Light.' But this mainly doesn't work for me, cause I see Holy Spirit as essentially covering that role, and too many spiritual cooks confuseth the split mindeth.

The story is told 'after the fact' and so in the tale, Adam (as Eve) was never meant (then) to listen to Serpent, while clearly that message was intended to be included (for the listening audience).

The variety of interpretations continues to fascinate me. That the Serpent is seen in popular interpretation as the 'great deceiver' does surprise me, but less so when I look on world that is convinced the Creator is into punishment and suffering. I guess if you can attribute that to God, then whatever Serpent is saying could be interpreted as blasphemy and temptation to be disobedient to he who is like Queen of Hearts in Wonderland.

What I don't get is how any reader of the OT can say God in Gen. 1 is same god as that which appears in Gen. 2. The literary signs between the two are fairly obvious and the narrative clearly takes a turn that is gross diversion away from Gen. 1 (where all Creation is Good).

Did I mention Adam was asleep?
And who caused this?

 

[godnotgod]

As a reminder, prior to Serpent appearing in the narrative, Adam has been caused to fall into a deep sleep, and no reference is provided for his awakening.

Did I mention Adam was asleep?
And who caused this?

That is an interesting point as it relates to the scenario I have been presenting; that the serpent is God himself insuring that his children eat of the Fruit. In order for man to see that God is telling them NOT to eat of the Fruit with a *wink* *wink* the intuitive mind must be awake. It is the feminine essence in man that is the intuitive, so it must take precedence over the masculine for the pathway to divine union and enlightenment to take place as symbolized by the Forbidden Fruit. The logical, rational mind (the masculine) must be subdued, otherwise it will take God seriously. As you pointed out, they did NOT die, and their eyes WERE opened.

This idea of the feminine being the key to divine union is the case in Kundalini, where Shakti, the feminine serpent power, is asleep at the base of the spine, coiled. Man is asleep (spiritually). When this serpent power is awakened, it travels up the spinal chord and illumines the cranium, but it does so in conjunction with the male power, Shiva. (Eve offers the Fruit to Adam; there is a sharing of the gift of divine consciousness):

Tantra Kundalini

According to the philosophy of Tantra, the entire universe is a manifestation of pure consciousness. In manifesting the universe, this pure consciousness seems to become divided into two poles or aspects, neither of which can exist without the other.

One aspect, Shiva, is masculine, retains a static quality and remains identified with unmanifested consciousness. Shiva has the power to be but not the power to become or change.

The other aspect, Shakti, is feminine, dynamic, energetic and creative. Shakti is the Great Mother of the universe, for it is from her that all form is born.

According to Tantra, the human being is a miniature universe. All that is found in the cosmos can be found within each individual, and the same principles that apply to the universe apply in the case of the individual being.

In human beings, Shakti, the feminine aspect is called Kundalini. This potential energy is said to rest at the base of the spinal cord. The object of the Tantric practice of Kundalini-yoga is to awaken this cosmic energy and make it ascend through the psychic centres, the chakras, that lie along the axis of the spine as consciousness potentials. She will then unite above the crown of the head with Shiva the pure consciousness. This union is the aim of Kundalini-yoga: a resolution of duality into unity again, a fusion with the Absolute. By this union the adept attains liberation while living which is considered in Indian life to be the highest experience: an union of the individual with the universe.

In Tantrism the state of ultimate bliss is a transcendence of dualities male-female, energy-consciousness, Shiva-Shakti...

Tantra kundalini

In both the Genesis allegory and Kundalini, it is divine union, oneness with God, that is the goal. The orthodox Christian view of separation via sin fails this goal due to a corruption of the original story from into the one handed down to us as being the official one, where obedience to Law becomes the primary focus, rather than union with the divine essence, which is both essence AND Law. In other words, the mystic is directed from within, rather than from without.

 

[NeedingGnosisNow]

The serpent is the best thing to happen to "God." Without separation from God, without being ejected from "nature" into the conflict of the ego (knowledge of good and evil) there is no psychological mechanism by which "God" can even become. "God" needs "sin" for its very existence.

I've always felt this was true. Everything is relative. How can we know "up" without knowing "down". Maybe GOD put us here so HE could know HIMSELF.