'Man was created in the image of G-d'

[Clear]

POST TWO

EARLY TEXTUAL USEAGE OF EIKONA / IMAGE WERE, USUALLY A VISUAL DESCRIPTION

In the case of Adam being made in the εικονα, icon or "image" of God, it is clear in much of the early sacred texts, this was not a metaphorical doctrine in early Christianity.

For example, an early Christian text describes a clear physical/visual meaning to the use of εικονα . / “image” when

“ God formed Adam with His holy hands, in His own Image and Likeness and when the angels saw Adam's glorious appearance they were greatly moved by the beauty thereof. For they saw(Fol. 5a, col. 2) the image of his face burning with glorious splendor like the orb of the sun, and the light of his eyes was like the light of the sun, and the image of his body was like unto the sparkling of crystal…. “

Contextual descriptions in such texts are clearly describing an actual visual appearance of Adam before his “fall”.

And the angels and the hosts of heaven heard the Voice of God saying unto him, "Adam, behold; I have made thee king, and priest, and prophet, and lord, and head, and governor of everything which hath been made and created; and they shall be in subjection unto thee) and they shall be thine, and I have given unto thee power over everything which I have created." And when the angels heard this speech they all bowed the knee and worshiped Him. .Cave of Treasures (chapt on Creation of Adam)

Such description don’t just use εικονα (or "image") as an indication of visual context, but also forms of greek ομοιωμα (or "likeness") are often also used in such descriptions of Adams’ appearance. Ομοιωμα is distinguished from εικων since it implies an archetype, the “likeness” or “form”.

The great Greek linguist Moulton, uses the example of ομιοωμα, “as one egg is like another” (The eggs are not exactly the same, but so close to the same that one may not tell the difference in his example from OGIS 669.62 (from first century a.d.). This is another “visual” context since, In other, non-visual contexts, one may see ομολογεω used, indicating two individuals simply “agree with” each another (without the indication of a visual “sameness&#8221.

A good example of both words being used in such a context is from the early Christian text Life of Adam and Eve (Vita) 41:2 and 42:1 when Lucifer is describing to Adam, one main reason for his (Lucifers') fall from heaven. Lucifer tells Adam : “…God blew into you the breath of life and your countenance and likeness were made in the image of God….” And “the Lord God said, ‘Behold Adam! I have made you in our image and likeness.” Life of Adam and Eve (Vita) 41:2 and 42:1

These two terms forms of εικονα and ομοιωμα became ingrained not only in texts, but into the oral liturgies and prayers of early Christianity. For example, in one Hellenistic Synagogal Prayer, the prayer reads :

“And the goal of the creative work – the rational living creature, the world citizen – having given order by your Wisdom, you created, saying, “let us make man according to our image and likeness”... 24 But when man was disobedient, You took away his deserved life. 25 You did not make it disappear absolutely, but for a time, 26 having put (him) to sleep for a little (while), by an oath you have called (him forth) to new birth. 27 You have loosed the boundary of death, You who are the Maker of life for the dead, through Jesus Christ, our hope!(aposCon 7.34.1-8)


Such examples often seen in early textual traditions are so obviously and consistently a physical, visual context that one cannot mistake some descriptions for metaphor.

For example from Jewish Haggadah repeats this same theme of physical appearance :

“When Adam opened his eyes the first time, and beheld the world about him, he broke into praise of God, “How great are your works, O Lord!” But his admiration for the world surrounding him did not exceed the admiration all creatures conceived for Adam. They took him to be their creator, and they all came to offer his adoration. But he spoke : “Why do you come to worship me? Nay, you and I together will acknowledge the majesty and the might of him who has created us all. ‘The Lord reigns,’ “ he continued, “‘he is appareled with majesty.’” And not alone the creatures on earth, even the angels thought Adam the lord of all, and they were about to salute him with “Holy, holy, holy, is the Lord of hosts, “ when God caused sleep to fall upon him, and then the angels knew that he was but a human being.” (The Haggadah -Woman)

Whether early traditions are correct or not, still, they did conceive of Adam having the same image (εικον&#945 and likeness (ομοιωμ&#945 as his creator.

In fact, the most common post c.e. tradition that is common to all three Abrahamic religions (i.e. early Judaism and Christianity AND early Islam) IS the tradition concerning the fall of Lucifer, and it concerns the honoring of Adam, as the image and likeness of God. Though the story/tradition exists in multiple texts common to all three Abrahamic traditions, Christian Vita is a good example of this genre of literature. Satan explained to Adam the motive for Satans’ enmity against Adam and God, saying :

When God blew into you the breath of life and your countenance and likeness were made in the image of God, Michael brought you and made (us) honor you in the sight of God, and the Lord God said, ‘Behold Adam! I have made you in our image and likeness.’ Ch 14 1 And Michael went out and called all the angels, saying, ‘Honor the image of the LORD God, as the LORD God has instructed. And Michael himself honored [him] first, and called me and said, ‘Honor the image of God, Yahweh. 3 And I answered, ‘I do not worship Adam.’ ...’Why do you compel me? I will not worship one inferior and subsequent to me. I am prior to him in creation; before he was made, I was already made. He ought to honor me.’ (Vita) 12:1-2, 13:13, 14:2-3; 15:1-3; 16:1-3

This very famous and widespread historical tradition has Satan explaining that he not only existed before Adam, but was superior to Adam who “is made of dust” whereas Satan claims he was “made of fire” and claims superiority to Adam. The point is that almost all such traditions are in the context of Adam being made according to an actual visual image and likeness of his Creator, rather than simply a metaphorical image and likeness. Thus early Christian doctrines and traditions differed in this specific point from the later Christian traditions.

The OP was never about whether εικονα has no other usage, but whether εικονα / image was used as in a physical/visual context in early Christian tradition.

The OP was never whether Hebrew was superior to Greek for use in discussing Christian traditions but whether εικονα / image was used as in a physical/visual context in early Christian tradition.

The OP was never whether Jews, or Africans, or parking meter maids had different traditions but whether εικονα / image was used as in a physical/visual context in early Christian tradition.

The OP was that the early Christian tradition was that God the Father made Adam in his own image. My point was that the early Christians believe this was a visual description rather than a metaphorical description.

I am perfectly content to let the forum members judge whether the data shows the Christian tradition that Adam was made in the visual image of God existed and whether it existed in a detailed and mature form or not.


ingledsva, If you think the Eybers is wrong in his hebrew and you are correct, let's discuss it.

Clear
τωδρνεσιω

 

[Ingledsva]

POST TWO


The OP was never about whether εικονα has no other usage, but whether εικονα / image was used as in a physical/visual context in early Christian tradition.

The OP was never whether Hebrew was superior to Greek for use in discussing Christian traditions but whether εικονα / image was used as in a physical/visual context in early Christian tradition.

The OP was never whether Jews, or Africans, or parking meter maids had different traditions but whether εικονα / image was used as in a physical/visual context in early Christian tradition.

The OP was that the early Christian tradition was that God the Father made Adam in his own image. My point was that the early Christians believe this was a visual description rather than a metaphorical description.

I am perfectly content to let the forum members judge whether the data shows the Christian tradition that Adam was made in the visual image of God existed and whether it existed in a detailed and mature form or not.


ingledsva, If you think the Eybers is wrong in his hebrew and you are correct, let's discuss it.

Clear
τωδρνεσιω

You can post page after page after page of GREEK info - and it won't make you correct, nor change what I pointed out.


Your Greek translation means nada to a Hebrew text.


You should have used Hebrew - and you know it.


If you had done so - you would have known that the word "image" in Hebrew has more then one meaning.


CLEAR - "The OP was never whether Hebrew was superior to Greek..."



LOL! Who said anything about superior? It is a Hebrew text - use HEBREW to decide what it says. That is common sense.


You wouldn't quote a Greek text - debating certain of the words in it - and use a Swedish translation of the text! Then say the Swedish word translated "image" means this _______ - therefore that is the meaning in the Greek!

NO - you would use the Greek! Because it is GREEK.


It is Hebrew - use Hebrew.



*

 

[s2a]

'Man was created in the image of G-d'.
The G-d that is the likeness of man is Jesus, not an "invisible' god.

Jesus is The Creator G-d.

Well...at least I know what that guy in the post office poster really looks like. He's white, maybe 6' or so, and has a beard, right?

 

[Desert Snake]

Well...at least I know what that guy in the post office poster really looks like. He's white, maybe 6' or so, and has a beard, right?

Jesus may have been very dark complected. I read a description that might indicate He wasn't "white".

 

[Clear]

1) To the forum members :

As I summarized in post # 200 and 201, The early Christians believed that Adam was created in the image of the God who created him and that this was a visual image. Whether they were correct or completely incorrect, this was still their tradition.

1) Suppose hebrew has 100 different meanings for "image". Would this mean the Christians did not have these traditions? Would it change their historical tradition or their texts?
2) If I spoke and wrote in hebrew in an english speaking forum, would this mean the christians did not have these traditions?
3) Most of these textual traditions did NOT originate in the hebrew language. Would a translation INTO hebrew make such translations more correct? Would any correct translation change them?
4) Suppose we describe this same tradition in english or french, or hebrew, or dutch, or greek (pick a language). Would this mean the Christians did not have this tradition?
5) Suppose someone could prove that there is no God at all and all theists are deluded. Would this suddenly mean that the early Christians did not have these traditions?
6) If traditions regarding creation exist in other languages in older versions than hebrew, should we change the hebrew versions to match the earlier language? If we did, would THIS change the existence of and character of the historical Christian traditions?

7) If EVERYTHING that ingledsva has claimed so far is absolutely TRUE and CORRECT, would this mean that the early christians did not have these traditions?
If it would not change the fact that these Christian traditions exist and if it would not change their ancient texts or traditions, then everything she's tried to prove is irrelevant to their existence.

The traditions exist in their current form regardless of whether texts should be quoted in hebrew or greek or spanish or any other language.
The traditions exist in their current form regardless of what the Jewish traditions were.
Nothing has come up in any argument; any logic; any data that changes the fact that these historical textual traditions existed.

Does anyone on the forum, ANYONE, see any data, any logic, any reasoning, any thing presented in any argument presented in this thread which changes or modifies the existence of this the early Christian traditions regarding the creation of Adam being in the image of God. Anyone?


2) I might point out to the forum that the insistence that I "use hebrew" is quite silly. Many, if not most of these early Christian documents were NOT written in hebrew. It makes NO sense to translate them into hebrew to have a discussion about them on an english speaking forum. I think ingledsva is making the mistake of assuming that the christian documents existed in hebrew first and were then "borrowed" from hebrew. Once the Jews lost the revelatory prophetic gifts and these were transferred to early christianity, the generation of texts was not in Hebrew in the main, but in Greek, coptic and other languages. If you look at extant lists of early sacred Christian texts, if they existed in Hebrew, it was most often because they were translated from another language into hebrew. Thus, the insistence that one must use "hebrew" to discuss Christian traditions and christian texts (especially if the text was never originated in hebrew or was given through other, non jewish prophets and apostles or jesus), is simply a strange request.


3) Ingledsva : Eybers would say the hebrew word you presented to the forum was NOT an equivalent of εικονα as you claimed in your example to us. If you, as a "translator of hebrew" are correct and Eybers is wrong, tell us why. Lets discuss the Hebrew you seem to want to discuss so badly.



4) S2a : Well...at least I know what that guy in the post office poster really looks like. He's white, maybe 6' or so, and has a beard, right

So, S2a, :
Are you describing his visual "image" or his visual "illusion"?
Would it be more proper for you to describe him in hebrew than english?
Is he actually 5'6" and eastern indian but you are talking metaphorically and speaking of how he wants to be seen?

S2a do you ever read the petty arguments that go on in Christian forums and pity theists who find life affirmation through argument?


Clear

 

[s2a]

To the forum members :

The early Christians believed that Adam was created in the image of the God who created him and that this was a visual image. Whether they were correct or completely incorrect, this was their tradition.

Does anyone, ANYONE, see any data, any logic, any reasoning, any thing which changes or modifies the existence of this historical fact? Anyone?

Clear

It might be more helpful if you provided some accurate visualization that you consider authoritative, instead of relying upon data/logic/reason/skeptics to challenge your "facts".

I note the word "believed" as your supportive context in your claim. That's cool. I don't "believe" you have "factual" evidence of Adam's appearance. Fair enough?

 

[s2a]

Clear;38224171) To the forum members :


So, S2a, :
Are you describing his visual "image" or his visual "illusion"?

I have no idea.It's not my claim to substantiate or describe. Is that not your burden to provide? I have no clue as to Adam's appearance. Evidently you do...from "something".

Would it be more proper for you to describe him in hebrew than english?

I have absolutely no idea, but your certainty is most compelling.

Is he actually 5'6" and eastern indian but you are talking metaphorically and speaking of how he wants to be seen?

See how this rhetoric appears as a dodge? How would I know? It is your claim to substantiate with lil' pics (or at least revealing stats and descriptions). This is not a metaphorical or guessing game... you claim to KNOW. Cool. Just requesting you provide what you deem as an authoritative representation of Adam. This is NOT a trick question ya know

S2a

do you ever read the petty arguments that go on in Christian forums and pity theists who find life affirmation through argument?


Clear

Again, you only seek to change the subject and inquire as to my affirmations of life?

Really?

Whether your "arguments" have merit or remain utterly discreditable is solely your responsibility to bear. I simply asked that you provide a an acceptable visual representation of Adam (conceding that photography is a more recent innovation) that you believe to be "true".

 

[Clear]

Hi S2a : "I note the word "believed" as your supportive context in your claim. That's cool. I don't "believe" you have "factual" evidence of Adam's appearance. Fair enough?"

Yes, it is certainly fair enough, and you are certainly correct. I do NOT have factual evidence of adams appearance nor even that he existed. Also, I am NOT trying to prove that God exists nor that he has an image if he does exist. I am not trying to prove that that early Christian doctrine and traditions are true in this thread, but merely describe what they were regarding this specific point from early texts.

I am a historian who is simply describing the early Christian tradition from their texts to show that THEY, themselves, believed Adam was created in a visual image of God.

Whether they were correct or whether they were diluded, still, early christian texts described in detail their tradition regarding their belief that Adam was created in the visual image of God.

I am actually very happy to have an athiest or agnostic look at my raw data and logic from their perspective.

I think that Theists mistake a claim that a certain doctrine or tradition existed for a claim that a certain doctrine or tradition is true. There is a difference between a historical claim and a claim to religious truth and I think often, the apathetical athiest and apathetical agnostic are in a better position to think logically about these issues than theists who are over-eager to prove their personal belief is correct. (I am a christian theist so I am not trying to dishonor theists, but I recognize we often have logical faults.)


I actually quite appreciate and respect your opinion as an athiest on this point. Thank you.

Clear

I hope that clears it up. My other comments were simply sarcastic mirroring irrelevant claims made earlier such as the demand that we discuss these things in hebrew when they (mostly), do not originate in hebrew, etc. I had assumed you understood the context. I'm Sorry to have confused you by doing this.

 

[Desert Snake]

I am a historian who is simply describing the early Christian tradition from their texts to show that THEY, themselves, believed Adam was created in a visual image of God.

What you're doing is exemplary, I had no idea most of these references you provide were even extant, it's fascinating.

 

[Clear]

POST ONE

1) Disciple # 209 said : “What you're doing is exemplary, I had no idea most of these references you provide were even extant, it's fascinating.”

Disciple, thank you for your kind words.

I think the vast majority of us Christians grow up in a modern context, adopt a modern Christian theory and are completely unaware that the early Christian lived in an entirely different theological world. Much doctrine was lost to modern consciousness, much of the doctrines simply evolved into other versions, much is scattered about in varying degrees of clarity. I do not believe that any modern Christian theology has any advantage over early theological models. I’ll use the origin of Satan (i.e. the Fall of an archangel Lucifer / war in heaven) as an example later.




2) To Forum members:

The consequence of petty and inconsequential arguments

As I tried to point out in post #205, Even IF all points within one side of any argument, will not change any base premise being argued, then those arguments are irrelevant and inconsequential to the base premise.

The time spent in irrelevance and inconsequential activities have an effect on the type of people we become and the types of lives we will live.

If we develop the habit of spending our lives in petty, irrelevant and inconsequential activities, our lives will become petty lives; irrelevant lives and inconsequential, to a great extent. The same is true of our time on the Religious Education Forums. If we argue about petty and inconsequential things, especially if this type of argumentiveness becomes habitual, this habit will contribute to pettiness, illogic, irrationality and irrelevance in the lives we are creating for ourselves.

For example, we have spent multiple posts now on inconsequential points about using a relatively irrelevant language in an English speaking forum; about whether a specific word can be used as a metaphor; etc. The time spend in these inconsequential and irrelevant posts mean that we cannot spend the same time discussing great and profound issues that provide tremendous insight and understanding into the great and profound issues of religious belief. Let me give an example from this thread.



3) Early Christian traditions, doctrines, and practices are vast, interrelated, coherent, and provide insight and relevance to authentic religion

We have, so far, simply discussed a single, simple, separate, doctrine in this introduction to the early Christian doctrine and belief that Adam was created in the visual image of God.

We became so mired down in inconsequential issues that we did not move on to possible related doctrines and consequences of this doctrine. However, placing this single doctrine into it’s context of surrounding theology can give us a eye-opening glimpse into the depth and profound implication of early Christian theology which, in most cases (I believe) is more logical and rational than most of the Christian theories and theology that was generated in the more modern eras such as the eras when doctrine originated from theologians, rather than from apostles and prophets.


An example of placing the doctrine of Adam being created in the visual image of God, back into it’s larger theological context.

Athiests, Agnostics and other types of Theists have often complained (with Good reason) that the more modern Christian theology has great holes in it’s theological basis. For example, The origin of Evil and the continued allowance of suffering by an omnipotent God within the Christian context have been debated for almost 2 millennia . This is partly due to changes and evolutions and losses that have occurred in Christian traditions over this time period (especially in the first few centuries).

While modern Christians have few answers regarding the “origin of evil” such as the “fall of Lucifer” and his becoming satan, the early Christian traditions are quite clear, coherent and detailed. The closer one returns to the earliest doctrines, then the more they agree with early Jewish AND Islamic traditions on this subject. As an example, let me tie in the early Christian belief that Adam was created in the visual image of God with the Early Judeo-Christian-Islamic tradition concerning the Fall of the Arch-angel Lucifer and thus, the “creation” of him as “Satan”, the enemy of God.


A) THE FALL OF LUCIFER IN EARLY JUDEO-CHRISTIAN-ISLAMIC TRADITION

In response to an inquiry as to the origin of Satan, I saw a comment from a Christian who was explaining to an investigator of Christianity, the origin of Satan as a source of evil in God’s creation. The christian commented :

“...there's nothing, scripturally speaking, that addresses the question of the origin of evil (or Satan, if you prefer). The only hint is in Genesis 3 where the serpent (in later tradition -- again without scriptural support -- identified as the devil) appears quite suddenly as part of an apparently very good creation. Nary a word of comment on the origins of this creature.... “

That’s it, in toto.

Such statements reveal a lack of a framework for understanding the basic issues surrounding what is going on with all of this “good” and “evil” that none of us avoid inside of creation; and demonstrate the value of turning to the earliest Christian teachings and their writings on such issues (in the period before many of the important doctrines were lost or changed). I do not believe that modern christian theory is as coherent; nor as understandable as the early Judao-Christian doctrines regarding Lucifers origins and motives for his fall from heaven.

[FONT=&quot]However, I think the early christian teachings from early texts regarding the fall of Lucifer are important as such issues apply to Satan and to the principle of evil itself. I felt that a discussion of early Jewish, Christian and Islamic texts would demonstrate that the early Judeo-Christians has much greater detail and depth in their traditions and worldviews as compared to most modern Christian interpretations.

Though there are many modern theories regarding how Lucifer, an archangel with some authority became Satan, an enemy to all righteousness, there is a great deal of early literature regarding what the early christians themselves believed regarding the Origin and motives of Lucifer (his “name” before he became “satan” or the “devil”...) The early traditions concerning the Fall of Lucifer (as well as other important traditions) are tied into the tradition that Adam was created in the visual image of the Lord God.

I think it is an important historical context to keep in mind that Lucifer’s “fall” did not happen suddenly nor in a contextual vacuum. That is, the “good” Archangel Lucifer did didn't simply wake up in a bad mood and decide to be “evil” one morning. But instead, Lucifers fall was more logical and it occurred in the context of several frustrating controversies, (some more important than others). Though LDS readers will be aware of other controversies, the most famous controversy in the ancient texts occurred during the honoring of Adam which itself takes place in the greater context of God the Fathers Plan. To best understand this cascade of events, I think one should start with God’s original plan and consider events from there forward.

B) It is contextually important to understand that, to this ancient christian theology :

1) The spirits of angels, mankind and God existed prior to mortality

2) God the Father’s plan entailed moral advancement of the spirits of men

3) The Honoring of Adam was logical in view of his role in God’s plan for mankind

4) Lucifer’s “rebellion” was more than a refusal to “honor Adam”.

5) Lucifer’s “punishment” relates to his rebellion against the plan AND God himself

6) Lucifer’s current “dominion” plays a “role” in God’s ultimate plan


Without considering conditions PRIOR to Lucifer’s rebellion, then the rebellion cannot be understood as the ancient Christians (who wrote the texts) understood it. Without considering the nature of the rebellion, then Lucifer’s punishment and his current dominion cannot be understood as the ancient Christians understood and taught such doctrines.


[/FONT]

 

[Clear]

POST TWO

[FONT=&quot]

A) GOD THE FATHER’S PLAN FOR MAN, (WHICH LUCIFER ULTIMATELY REBELS AGAINST)

Long before the creation of this world, God was in the midst of spirits. Early textual testimonies describe innumerable spirits existing in “heaven” before creation and, they describe what God intended to do with these innumerable spirits.

Regarding his vision of pre-creation heaven, Enoch records : "No one could come near unto him [God the Father] from among those that surrounded the tens of millions (that stood) before him". (1 En 14:23). Enoch continues : [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Quote:[/FONT] [FONT=&quot]"I saw a hundred thousand times a hundred thousand, ten million times ten million, an innumerable and uncountable (multitude) who stand before the glory of the Lord of the Spirits". (1 Enoch 40:1-2)" [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]“At the time that the Holy One, be blessed, was about to create the world, he decided to fashion all the souls which would in due course be dealt out to the children of men, .... Scrutinizing each, he saw that among them some would fall into evil ways in the world. Each one in it’s due time the Holy One, be blessed, bade come to him, and then said: “Go now, descend into this that this place, into this and this body.” (The Zohar - The Destiny of the Soul) [/FONT][FONT=&quot]God was in the midst of spirits of all the spirits who ever lived or will live on this earth according to such early texts.



B) BECAUSE GOD WAS INTELLIGENT AND POSSESSED POWER AND CHARITY, HE DEVISED A PLAN SO AS TO ALLOW OTHER SPIRITS TO ADVANCE

The ancient Jewish doctrine that God had instituted a divine plan is interwoven into multiple texts : "Before all things came to be, he [God] has ordered all their designs" (Dead Sea Scrolls 4Q255-264) [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Quote:[/FONT][FONT=&quot]“....I (the Father), in the midst of the light (glory), moved around in the invisible things, like one of them, as the sun moves around from east to west and from west to east. But the sun has rest; yet I did not find rest, because everything was not yet created. And I thought up the idea of establishing a foundation, to create a visible creation." (2nd Enoch 24:4) [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]The Prophet Enoch describes the earliest stages of this plan before it was known among the heavenly host : "for not even to my angels have I explained my secrets, nor related to them their origin, nor my endless and inconceivable creation which I conceived." (2nd Enoch 24:3) In these descriptions of his Plan, God the Father seems to take great care in both the planning of and in ensuring the deep involvement of the Heavenly Hosts (for whose benefit the plan existed).

Though these texts tell us that all the spirits of men existed before the creation of the earth, the spirits were in no way equals (just as we are not equal now). Among them were the more intelligent and gifted; i.e. those who were more full of grace and truth than others. In addition to Lucifer, God the Father and Adam, all other key players are all present in this pre-mortal realm. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]In Enoch’s vision, he also see’s the pre-mortal Jesus with the Father. Upon seeing the two together, Enoch asks who this individual (Jesus) is and what role he has in the Father's Plan : [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Quote:[/FONT][FONT=&quot]"At that place, I saw the Beginning of days [i.e. the Father] And his head was white like wool, and there was with him another individual, whose face was like that of a human being. His countenance was full of grace like that of one among the holy angels. And I asked the one – from among the angels –who was going with me,..."Who is this and from where could he be, and for what reason does he go with him who precedes time?" And he answered me and said to me, "This is the Son of Man, to whom belongs righteousness, and with whom righteousness dwells...the Lord of the spirits has chosen him, and he is destined to be victorious before the Lord of the spirits in eternal uprightness...." (1 Enoch 46:1-4) [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
It is in this context that the Apostolic Father Ignatius taught that among those spirits was "Jesus...who before the ages was with the father..” (Ignatius :6:1). The ancient records show the Father and Jesus, from early on, possessed a great similarity and unity. Jesus was given greater authority and administrated much of the Father’s plan from early on (God’s "right hand" was one of the Pre-Creation Jesus’ appellations). Diogenes relates this ancient doctrine : [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]"And when he revealed it (his plan) through his beloved Child and made known the things prepared from the beginning, he gave us to share in his benefits and to see and understand things which none of [us] ever would have expected.. So then, having already planned everything in his mind together with his child... (Diog 301:8-11) [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]


C) DESPITE CONCERNS, THE PLAN WAS GENERALLY, RECEIVED JOYOUSLY

Ancient pre-creation histories describe that the Father’s plan, revealed to these spirits before the foundations of the earth were laid was generally joyously received. God’s question to Job was not merely rhetorical, but was a contextual reminder to Job of an actual occurrence. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]"Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding. Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it? Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof; When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy? (Job 38:4-7) [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]The advancement entailed by God's plan was something the spirits wanted : Enoch says that he saw : [/FONT][FONT=&quot]"...the fountain of righteousness,...surrounded completely by numerous fountains of wisdom. All the thirsty ones drink (of the water) and become filled with wisdom. (Then) their dwelling places become with the holy, righteous, and elect ones.‘ [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
Who among these spirits would not have wanted to drink from that same wisdom and take their place with others who were holy, righteous and elect? [/FONT][FONT=&quot]


The Zohar relates mortality to a moral education received by coming to mortality : [/FONT][FONT=&quot]“...why do they [the spirits of mankind] descend to this world only to be taken thence [back to heaven] at some future time? “This may be explained by way of a simile: A king has a son whom he sends to a village to be educated until he shall have been initiated into the ways of the palace. When the king is informed that his son is now come to maturity, the king, out of his love, sends the matron his mother to bring him back into the palace, and there the king rejoices with him every day..... “ (The zohar - A seal upon your heart) [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]


D) GOD’S PLAN CONTINUED TO PROGRESS[/FONT][FONT=&quot]

God’s plan moved forward and preparations were made over a great deal of time including a physical creation in preparation for mortality.

Though multiple creation accounts exist, the earlier Christian accounts make it clear both that God created the Planets and Stars (often translated “orbs” or “circles&#8221 out of “lessor”, or more chaotic material, and, importantly, he commissioned the Pre-creation Jesus (Often called “the word” or his “right hand&#8221 to administrate over this material creation of an earth which will then be populated with embodied spirits for their education and testing.

Thus the early Synagogal prayer reflects this doctrine : “We give thanks to you, O God and Father of Jesus our Savior...O Master Almighty, the God of the universe, you created the world and what is in it through him,... (Hellenistic Synagogal Prayers - thanksgiving following Communion (aposCon 7.26. 1-3) Or prayer #3 “ Blessed are you, O Lord, King of the ages, who through Christ made everything, and through him in the beginning ordered that which was unprepared” (i.e. chaotic matter) (#3 prayer That meditates upon God’s Manifold Creative Power) (aposCon 7.34.1-8) or prayer #4 that addresses God the Father : “For you are the Father of wisdom, the Creator, as cause, of the creative workmanship through a Mediator....” #4 (aposCon 7.35.1-10);
[/FONT]

 

[Clear]

POST THREE

[FONT=&quot]The Jewish Geninza 4Q texts are clear that, despite delegation of important roles, the plan IS the Father’s plan and that he “determined all your works before you created them, together with the host of your spirits and the assembly of your holy ones… - all your designs for the end of time..” God counsels with those whose involvement he wants, but it remains God the Father's plan : “Moreover the Holy One, blessed be he, does nothing in his world without first taking counsel with them; then he acts, as it is written” (3Enoch :4 283).

This early Jewish teaching that the physical creation was accomplished for the purpose of advancing mankind is the same tradition as the early Christians held. New Testament Hermas taught : [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Quote:[/FONT] [FONT=&quot]"...don’t you understand how great and mighty and marvelous God’s glory is, because he created the world for the sake of man, and subjected all his creation to man..” (Her 47:2-4). [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]The physical creation of the earliest ancient accounts was accomplished by taking “lessor” or more chaotic matter, and organizing it into a “higher” or more organized and purposeful form such as the organized earth had. Old Testament Enoch describes this same process: [/FONT][FONT=&quot]“And I called out a second time into the very lowest things, and I said, ‘Let one of the (in)visible things come out visibly, solid.’..” (2nd Enoch 26:1). [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]From this lesser organized, chaotic debris, the earth and other planets were formed :[/FONT] [FONT=&quot]“And thus I made solid the heavenly circles (orbs). ...And from the rocks I assembled the dry land; and I called the dry land Earth. “ (2nd Enoch 28:1-2). [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]And thus, in company with the Pre-Mortal spirit of Jesus (called "the word” or “the right hand” in some accounts), the Father accomplished creation. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]“I said, “O Lord, you spoke at the beginning of creation, and said on the first day, ‘Let heaven and earth be made, ‘ and your word accomplished the work...Again, on the second day, you created the spirit of the firmament and commanded him to divide and separate the waters...On the third day you commanded the waters to be gather together...For your word went forth, and at once the work was done. “ (4th Enoch 3:38-42). [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT][FONT=&quot]I believe that is it partly this closely unified and joint administration between God the Father and his Son that contributes to much of the later confusion as to the relationship between Father and Son in later doctrines[/FONT][FONT=&quot]. Whatever the truth is, in such early texts it is clearly taught that they are two individuals that are profoundly unified, that is, they are "one' in purpose.


It is Baruch that reminds us of the innate ability of the spirit of men to advance in knowledge consistent with God’s plan. He says : [/FONT][FONT=&quot]“For the nature of men is always changeable. For as we were once, we are no longer, and as we are now, we shall not remain in the future. For if an end of all things had not been prepared, their beginning would have been senseless”. (2 Baruch 21:16-17) [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Even at this early, less sophisticated stage of existence, spirits were able to exercise their agency.[/FONT][FONT=&quot] Thus the spirits of men were able to exercise choice to take part in this plan despite difficulties they will experience in mortality (as Job was reminded), just as they are allowed moral choice in this life.

Given the grandeur and the pure intent and profound implications of God’s plan for mankind, it may start to make some sense of what it meant for Lucifer, not only to refuse to take part in the plan, but to openly rebel against the plan, and ultimately rebel against God the Father himself.


[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot]THE EARLY TEXTUAL CHRISTIAN TRADITIONS MAKES CLEAR THAT, IT IS PARTLY BECAUSE OF THE HONOR DUE ADAM AND HIS ROLE IN INAUGURATING THE FATHERS' PLAN THAT HE WAS CREATED IN THE IMAGE AND LIKENESS OF HIS GOD. AND IT WAS PARTLY BECAUSE HE WAS CREATED IN THE IMAGE OF THE LORD GOD THAT SPIRITS, ANGELS AND ALL OTHERS WERE COMMANDED BY THE LORD GOD TO HONOR ADAM, WHO WAS CREATED IN GOD'S OWN IMAGE. These other doctrines and traditions do not stand apart from the doctrine that adam was created in God's image, but many other prominent doctrines DEPEND UPON and draw from this first doctrine. Many such doctrines have interconnections.[/FONT]


E) LUCIFER’S REFUSAL TO HONOR ADAM WAS AN ORTHODOX TEACHING IN EARLY CHRISTIAN RELIGION

Regarding my referencse to Lucifer’s refusal to honor Adam. It is important to me that readers understand that I did not simply pick out a single “obscure” reference describing this story. Rather, this early doctrine was taught is described in many texts over a great deal of time and space.

For examples: Sedrach relates : [/FONT][FONT=&quot]“You commanded your angels to honor Adam, but he who was first among the angels disobeyed your order and did not honor him: and so you banished him because he transgressed your commandment and did not come forth (to honor) the creation of your hands." (The Apocalypse of Sedrach 5:1-7) [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]The Christian text “Life of Adam and Eve” relates the same incident : Speaking to Adam, the Devil said : [/FONT][FONT=&quot]“ ...because of you I am expelled and deprived of my glory which I had in the heavens in the midst of angels, and because of you I was cast out onto the earth.” 2 Adam answered, “What have I done to you, and what is my blame with you? Ch 13 “The devil replied,...It is because of you that I have been thrown out of there. 2 When .......Michael brought you and made (us) honor you in the sight of God, and the Lord God said, ‘Behold Adam! I have made you in our image and likeness.’ Ch 14 3 And I answered, ‘I do not honor Adam.’ ...’Why do you compel me? I will not worship one inferior and subsequent to me. I am prior to him in creation; before he was made, I was already made. He ought to worship me.’ 15 1 When they heard this, other angels who were under me refused to honor him. (Life of Adam and Eve (Vita) 12: 1-2, 13:13, 14:2-3; 15:1-3; 16:1-3) [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]The early Christian Text “Cave of Treasures” relates :[/FONT][FONT=&quot]“And when the prince of the lower order of angels saw what great majesty had been given unto Adam, he was jealous of him from that day, and he did not wish to honor him. And he said unto his hosts, "Ye shall not honor him, and ye shall not praise him with the angels. It is meet that ye should worship me, because I am fire and spirit; and not that I should worship a thing of dust, which hath been fashioned of fine dust." [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Jewish Enoch relates, in the context of this Lucifer’s rebellion : [/FONT][FONT=&quot]“ the devil understood how I wished to create another world, so that everything could be subjected to Adam on the earth, to rule and reign over it. ....And he became aware of his condemnation and of the sin which he sinned previously. 6 And that is why he thought up the scheme against Adam. (2nd Enoch 31:2-8, 32:1) [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Jewish Haggadah (having Talmudic origins) also relates : [/FONT][FONT=&quot]“The extraordinary qualities with which Adam was blessed, physical and spiritual as well, aroused the envy of the angels...After Adam had been endowed with a soul, God invited all the angels to come and pay him reverence and homage. Satan, the greatest of the angels in heaven,....refused to pay heed to the behest of God, saying, “You created us angels from the splendor of the Shekinah, and now you command us to cast ourselves down before the creature which you fashioned out of the dust of the ground!” God answered, “Yet this dust of the ground has more wisdom and understanding than you.”... (The Haggadah -The Fall of Satan) [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]The text then relates the "battle of wits" between Lucifers spirit and Adam's spirit where Lucifer is bested and loses "face".

Christian Bartholomew also confirms the story as Lucifer says : [/FONT][FONT=&quot]“And when I came from the ends of the world, Michael said to me: ‘Honor the image of God which he has made in his own likeness.’ But I said: ‘I am fire of fire. I was the first angel to be formed, and shall I worship clay and matter?” And Michael said to me: ‘Honor [him], lest god be angry with you.’ I answered: ‘God will not be angry with me, but I will set up my throne over against his throne, and shall be as he is [Isa. 14:14f]. ‘ then god was angry with me and cast me down,...” (The Gospel of Bartholomew Ch IV) [/FONT]

 

[Clear]

POST FOUR


[FONT=&quot]This doctrinal controversy is not simply Jewish and Christian in it’s nature, but it’s also ISLAMIC, as confirmed by the Sixth Century Holy Quran text : [/FONT][FONT=&quot]"..And (remember) when your Lord said to the angels: "I am going to create a man (Adam) from sounding clay of altered black smooth mud. So, when I have fashioned him completely and breathed into him (Adam) the soul which I created for him, then fall (you) down prostrating yourselves unto him." So, the angels prostrated themselves, all of them together. Except Iblis (Satan), - he refused to be among the prostrators. (Sura 15:28-31) [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]In Sura 20 : “ And (remember) when We said to the angels: "Prostrate yourselves to Adam." They prostrated (all) except Iblis (Satan), who refused. (Sura 20:116)

In Sura 38 : “ (Remember) when your Lord said to the angels: "Truly, I am going to create man from clay". So when I have fashioned him and breathed into him (his) soul created by Me, then you fall down prostrate to him." So the angels prostrated themselves, all of them: Except Iblis (Satan) he was proud and was one of the disbelievers. (Sura 38:71-74)

In Sura 7 : [/FONT][FONT=&quot]“And surely, We created you (your father Adam) and then gave you shape (the noble shape of a human being), then We told the angels, "Prostrate to Adam", and they prostrated, except Iblis (Satan), he refused to be of those who prostrate. (Allah) said: "What prevented you (O Iblis) that you did not prostrate, when I commanded you?" Iblis said: "I am better than him (Adam), You created me from fire, and him You created from clay." (Sura 7:11-12) [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]In Sura 18 :[/FONT][FONT=&quot]“And (remember) when We said to the angels; "Prostrate to Adam." So they prostrated except Iblis (Satan). He was one of the jinns; he disobeyed the Command of his Lord.... (Sura 18:50) [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]The point in repeating this doctrine from so many different ancient sources and versions is to show that this specific controversy and it’s relation to the doctrine of the “Origin” of Satan, is VERY ancient, the doctrine is VERY widespread among a large group of ancient literature,[/FONT][FONT=&quot] and the doctrine is VERY “orthodox” to the ancient Christians and other religious groups as well.

[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]

F) THE HONOR DUE ADAM WAS PERFECTLY LOGICAL IN VIEW OF ADAM'S IMPORTANT ROLE IN GOD THE FATHER'S PLAN

It ought to be perfectly clear that as milestones were reached in the moving forward of God’s Plan for the spirits of mankind, the inauguration of mortality was an incredibly important phase that all spirits had long been anticipating. Thus, the “honoring of Adam” was not simply an arbitrary and spontaneous “office party” thrown at a whim, but it was a recognition of the culmination of organization and creation over a great deal of time and the inauguration of the opening phase of mortality of all mankind..




G) THE NATURE OF LUCIFER’S REFELLION IN THE CONTEXT OF GOD THE FATHER’S PLAN.

The nature of Lucifer’s punishment indicates the seriousness of what he did : When Enoch tells the fallen angel Azaz’el that “There will not be peace unto you; a grave judgment has come upon you. They will put you in bonds because you have taught injustice (1st Enoch 13:1-3), Enoch is not speaking of mere “naughtiness” or mere “disagreement” with God’s plan. Such fallen angels were told “judgment is passed upon you. 5 From now on you will not be able to ascend into heaven unto all eternity, (1st Enoch 14:3-5) because their rebellion had much greater ramifications than simple disagreement with God.

The jewish Haggadah describes the “wary reluctance” some souls experienced to leave a pre-mortal “heaven” to be born into mortality. Speaking this sort of “reluctance” the Zohar describes how God, tells a spirit to “Go now, descend into this and that place, into this and this body.” Yet often enough the soul would reply: “Lord of the world, I am content to remain in this realm, , and have no wish to depart to some other, where I shall be in thralldom, and become stained.” Whereupon the Holy One, be blessed, would reply: “Your destiny is, and has been from the day of thy forming, to go into that world.” (The Zohar - The Destiny of the Soul)

Such “unconfidence” is not “rebellion” and such souls are given encouragement and still sent into mortality through birth according to God’s plan. However, just as “reluctance” is not “rebellion”, Lucifer’s “rebellion” was not merely “reluctance”. Lucifer’s rebellion was described as a willful and confident full fledged disagreement which evolved into a plan for an asaultive counter “coup” having a DIFFERENT administration under a DIFFERENT King and DIFFERENT goals to the ultimate effect of nullifying God’s initial plan. In the context of controversies such as Lucifer’s “last straw” over Adam, one can better understand the sparks that made up the fires of the Rebellion or “war in heaven” itself.

In reference to a different, earlier controversy regarding the knowledge, that IF man, having free will, was sent to earth, then mankind would certainly commit moral atrocities. This was known long before the fall of Adam, and in fact, long before Adam was placed into the Garden. 3rd Enoch relates one of the fallen angels complaints against God the Father and his plan : [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]"Then three of the ministering angels, Uzzah, Azzah, and Aza’el, came and laid charges against me in the heavenly height. They said before the Holy One, blessed be he, ‘Lord of the Universe, did not the primeval ones give you good advice when they said, Do not create man!’ The Holy One, blessed be he, replied, ‘I have made and will sustain him; I will carry and deliver him.’ (3rd Enoch 4:6) [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Such references hint of the other controversies and together, they offer a coherent history regarding such related controversies and their relationship to Lucifers Fall.


Regarding the current Controversy with Adam :

Jewish Haggadah relates that [/FONT][FONT=&quot]“The extraordinary qualities with which Adam was blessed, physical and spiritual as well, aroused the envy of the angels......You created us angels from the splendor of the Shekinah, and now you command us to cast ourselves down before the creature which you fashioned out of the dust of the ground!” God answered, “Yet this dust of the ground has more wisdom and understanding than you.”... (The Haggadah -The Fall of Satan) [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]This Haggadic summary illuminates the growing anger in an envious Lucifer. This haggadic text goes on to relate a subsequent battle of wits between the spirits of Lucifer and Adam which leaves Lucifer publicly upstaged and discontented and frustrated. Much like the one-sided debates we sometimes see on this public forum when a poster loses face. How would an envious, upstaged and angry Lucifer be expected to react? Especially given that “the devil understood how I wished to create another world, so that everything could be subjected to Adam on the earth, to rule and reign over it.” 2nd Enoch 31:2-8, 32:1;

As the earth was created and it’s preparations finished and the time arrived for God’s plan to be inaugurated, the mood among the hosts of heaven becomes one of anticipation and excitement. It is under these circumstance that the body for Adam is created and joined to his spirit and God commanded that Adam was to be honored for his role in inaugurating God’s plan upon the earth. Michael calls all the angels to honor Adam for what he is about to do. A seemingly “fed up” Lucifer arrives to the occasion with a bad attitude.[/FONT]

 

[Clear]

POST FIVE

[FONT=&quot]As I’ve pointed out, there are many, many confirming versions of this same story. In these early christian texts, the anger and frustration of Lucifer does not remain a private gripe, but becomes an open rebellion. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
”... one from the order of the archangels deviated, together with the division that was under his authority. He thought up the impossible idea, that he might place his throne higher than the clouds which are above the earth, and that he might become equal to my power. 5 And I hurled him out from the height, together with his angels.” (2nd Enoch 29:3-5) [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]The Book of John the evangelist confirms Satan’s presumption in similar language “He set his seat above the clouds of heaven”. Bartholemew records this occurrence in almost the same words as the other versions : “I will set my throne over against his throne” (bar 4:55) ;

It is for carrying out the actual plan and organized attempt to “set up [his] throne above the stars of heaven and ..be like the Most High” that Lucifer was punished. (“Stars” was a euphamism for the greatest angels). Speaking of Lucifer and the angels who allied with him the ancient psalm read : [/FONT][FONT=&quot]“Now as they were warring with each other, they made bold to attack the land of Light, considering themselves capable of conquering it. Yet they know not that what they thought will recoil upon their own heads. But there was a host of angels in the Land of Light which possessed the power to issue forth and overcome the enemy of the Father, whom it pleased that through the Word that he would send, he should subdue the rebels who desired to raise themselves above what was more exalted than they.... (The Coptic Psalm-book - Let us worship the spirit of the paraclete) Psalm 223 (allberry 9-11) p 328; ) [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]This attempted “coup” would have divided heaven and created a rival Kingship over a rival group in heaven. It was an attempt to set up a rival administration with it’s own rival plan for man.[/FONT][FONT=&quot] This was no mere show of minor “disloyalty”. Also, one should note the doctrine that the father delegated the successful battle which overcame Lucifer “through the Word” (who was his son). The earthly Devil had undergone multiple prior perceived offenses as the pre-mortal Lucifer. AND, his memories of pre-mortal happenings were not “veiled” from him, as Adams were. Certain battle lines were drawn long, long ago.


It is in this larger set of contexts that it was said : [/FONT][FONT=&quot]And the Rebel meditating these things Fol. 5b, col. 2 would not render obedience to God, and [/FONT][FONT=&quot]of his own free will he asserted his independence[/FONT][FONT=&quot] and separated himself from God. But he was - swept away out of heaven and fell, and the fall of himself and of all his company from heaven took place ...because he turned aside from the right way, ... he lost the apparel of his glory. And behold, from that time until the present day, he and all his hosts have been stripped of their apparel,[/FONT][FONT=&quot] (Cave of Treasures, chapt on “The Revolt of Satan&#8221 [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]It’s unnecessary to the purpose of this exposition to discussed the symbolism of Lucifer’s apparel, his armor, and the “names” which were written in his hand (as the christian Abbaton also describes in greater detail), but it’s apparent that Lucifer unwillingly undergoes a ritual removal of his powers and authorities and authority for leadership and, with those angels who took part in his planned rebellion, he is cast down into the earth. However, such histories lend sense and context and confirmation to other histories such as Apocalypse of abraham when Azaz’el is told regarding Abraham “...shame on you Azazel! For Abraham’s portion is in heaven, and yours is on earth, for you have selected here, (and) become enamored of the dwelling place of your blemish. .... For behold, the garment which in heaven was formerly yours has been set aside for him, and the corruption which was on him has gone over to you.” (The Apocalypse of Abraham 13: 4,5,7-14)

Once Lucifer finds himself and his fallen angels on the earth, his own recognition and understanding and sense of what he had done increased, but this recognition was not associated with remorse nor repentance, but rather with an obstinate resolve and desire and plan for revenge (and other motives) and for continuing his rebellion. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]“..he fled from heaven; Sotona, because his name was satanail. 5 In this way he became different from the angels. His nature did not change, (but) his thought did, since his consciousness of righteous and sinful things changed. And he became aware of his condemnation and of the sin which he sinned previously. 6 And that is why he thought up the scheme against Adam." (2nd Enoch 31:2-8, 32:1) [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]
It is in such a context that later, the fallen Lucifer later explained to the fallen Adam the source of Lucifers' enmity towards Adam (who could not remember events prior to mortality) : [/FONT][FONT=&quot]..Michael brought you and made (us) worship you in the sight of God, and the Lord God said, ‘Behold Adam! I have made you in our image and likeness.’ And I answered, ‘I do not worship Adam.’ ...’Why do you compel me? I will not worship one inferior and subsequent to me. I am prior to him in creation; before he was made, I was already made. He ought to worship me.’ .... When they heard this, other angels who were under me refused to worship him. And Michael asserted, ‘Worship the image of God. But if now you will not worship, the Lord God will be wrathful with you.’ And I said, ‘[/FONT][FONT=&quot]If he be wrathful with me, I will set my throne above the stars of heaven and will be like the Most High[/FONT][FONT=&quot].[/FONT][FONT=&quot]” (Life of Adam and Eve (Vita) 12: 1-2, 13:13, 14:2-3; 15:1-3) [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]I hope that it is clear that the early Christian doctrine and tradition that Adam was created in the image of God not only existed but the doctrine finds itself in the midst of multiple other profound doctrines and traditions which are inextricably tied to it. One cannot simply explain away this single doctrine by claiming a single word was a metaphor. MANY other doctrines and traditions are tied to this doctrine.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]I hope it is also clear that the early Christians and texts DID have a sensible concept of the origin of the Devil and for some of the underlying motives as to why Lucifer battles against God and God's plan for the moral education of those among mankind who are willing and wanting to live by the moral laws which will ultimately prepare them to live in happiness and harmony in a social heaven for eternity.[/FONT][FONT=&quot]

Compared to modern theories (or lack of theories), the ancient Christian doctrines were, I think, more coherent and more logical and represented a more accurate view of the Devils origin. This is partly why I was so astounded to find a modern Christianity that was tied into these base historical issues so closely and converted to restorational theology. I hope the LDS readers will start to understand the tremendous historical strength of their position on these base doctrines.

Such doctrines were "great crossroads of agreement" for early Judeo-Christian-Islamic traditions AND Importantly, they explain and make rational, many of the most difficult moral and theological questions that plague modern christian theory.

[/FONT] THESE ARE PROFOUNDLY IMPORTANT ISSUES THAT CANNOT BE DISCUSSED IF WE BECOME SIDE-TRACKED AND SPEND OUR TIME ON PETTY, INCONSEQUENTIAL AND IRRELEVANT ISSUES. We need to try to learn to search for and deal with issues that are important and stay away from pettiness and small minded issues that will give us no great insight.

Clear
τωφιακσεω

 

[Ingledsva]

What you're doing is exemplary, I had no idea most of these references you provide were even extant, it's fascinating.

Just one problem with it - Christian tradition - is not necessarily Biblical.


For instance he has a bunch of Lucifer info there.


There is no Lucifer in the Bible.


"Most" Christians believe in the Trinity, however, no such is said in the Bible, etc.



*

 

[Clear]

Hi Ingledsva :

Now that you have re-engaged in the thread and since you requested several times that we discuss hebrew, you have an item pending.

3) Ingledsva : Eybers would say the hebrew word you presented to the forum was NOT an equivalent of εικονα as you claimed in your example to us. If you, as a "translator of hebrew" are correct and Eybers is wrong, tell us why.

Clear
τωφυτωσιω

 

[Ingledsva]

Hi Ingledsva :

Now that you have re-engaged in the thread and since you requested several times that we discuss hebrew, you have an item pending.


Originally Posted by clear in post #205 3) Ingledsva : Eybers would say the hebrew word you presented to the forum was NOT an equivalent of εικονα as you claimed in your example to us. If you, as a "translator of hebrew" are correct and Eybers is wrong, tell us why.


Clear
τωφυτωσιω

LOL! Dude, I never left the conversation, and I answered this already.


You keep trying to twist this. I never said anything about "eikova."



I pointed out that it was a Hebrew text - and you should have used Hebrew - NOT GREEK.


Over and Over - you just ignore what I said - and keep trying to take it back to Greek. LOL!



*

 

[Clear]

Ingledsva,

Forum members will all remember that you kept suggesting that we discuss the principles of these verses in Hebrew. I'd like to discuss a bit of Hebrew.

In post # 181 you gave the forum members an example :

:Psa 39:6 Surely every man walketh in illusion: surely they are disquieted in vain: he heapeth up riches, and knoweth not who shall gather them. As some old texts put it - a vain show (image) = illusion.

Although your example actually, did not contain a single character in Hebrew, you then told forum members :

“I took it back to the HEBREW and showed another HEBREW verse showing that it CAN be used as metaphor!”

You’ve repeatedly have intimated that you wanted to discuss “the Hebrew” and since you are a "translator" of Hebrew, you will certainly have a wonderful advantage since I have not claimed to be a "translator" of Hebrew. Let’s discuss the Hebrew in this case since I think the forum members were left with an entirely incorrect impression.

You offered forum members some English words which you then say you took from “the Hebrew”. I think the example you gave to forum members is incorrect and wish to discuss your “translation” and it’s “example” Surely you, as an accomplished “translator of Hebrew” realize the importance of giving forum members the correct data in your “translations”?

For example, though there are other problems with your translation, I've already pointed out that you used צלם incorrectly in your example (which was, by coincidence, the very word involved in the point you made to forum members).

If I am correct, this left any forum member who might have believed your statement with an incorrect translation; an incorrect understanding; and a faulty example. I'm sure you would not like to leave them with an inaccurate impression.

I told you a great linguist (Eybers) disagreed with your “translation” of this word and the associated use of Hebrew. Is Eybers correct that your translations example was faulty, or are you correct and he is wrong in his point? Will you discuss this with me?

Will you discuss your Hebrew translation with me in this public forum and we can let the readers see what this sort of discussion can reveal about translations? Surely you wish to make sure your example is correct?. If you have, as you say, "already answered this" specific request of mine, can you point to the post where we had this specific discussion? Can anyone else point to the post where she and I discussed the actual hebrew in her "translation"? Anyone?

Clear
τωφυφυδρω

 

[s2a]

Hi S2a : "I note the word "believed" as your supportive context in your claim. That's cool. I don't "believe" you have "factual" evidence of Adam's appearance. Fair enough?"

Yes, it is certainly fair enough, and you are certainly correct. I do NOT have factual evidence of adams appearance nor even that he existed. Also, I am NOT trying to prove that God exists nor that he has an image if he does exist. I am not trying to prove that that early Christian doctrine and traditions are true in this thread, but merely describe what they were regarding this specific point from early texts.

I am a historian who is simply describing the early Christian tradition from their texts to show that THEY, themselves, believed Adam was created in a visual image of God.

Whether they were correct or whether they were diluded, still, early christian texts described in detail their tradition regarding their belief that Adam was created in the visual image of God.

I am actually very happy to have an athiest or agnostic look at my raw data and logic from their perspective.

I think that Theists mistake a claim that a certain doctrine or tradition existed for a claim that a certain doctrine or tradition is true. There is a difference between a historical claim and a claim to religious truth and I think often, the apathetical athiest and apathetical agnostic are in a better position to think logically about these issues than theists who are over-eager to prove their personal belief is correct. (I am a christian theist so I am not trying to dishonor theists, but I recognize we often have logical faults.)


I actually quite appreciate and respect your opinion as an athiest on this point. Thank you.

Clear

I hope that clears it up. My other comments were simply sarcastic mirroring irrelevant claims made earlier such as the demand that we discuss these things in hebrew when they (mostly), do not originate in hebrew, etc. I had assumed you understood the context. I'm Sorry to have confused you by doing this.

No, it does not.

Your stance mirrors a reflexive one not unlike one derived principally
of science.

"I don't know"

I know you do not.

You are invited to testify as much. Sell all the snake oil you wish.
ignorance is not a crime. Lying to those that choose to believe...is.

Think upon how easy it should be to persuade/convince "unbelievers" that your snake oil is the panacea ALL should seek. One shot...a "cure"!

I applaud your candor within a revealed vacuum of fact or challenge. Hats off, really.

However, witch doctors and faith "healers" are readily exposed here.

Go sell your potions to more willing rubes if you please.

 

[Ingledsva]

Ingledsva,

-- (1) --Forum members will all remember that you kept suggesting that we discuss the principles of these verses in Hebrew. I'd like to discuss a bit of Hebrew.

I also translate the Hebrew and the Greek. My interest is the ancient spread of language, philosophy, and religion. (Ingledsva, #1360)

Such claims cause irreparable damage to your credibility when forum members see the obvious fact that you neither read nor translate greek nor Hebrew with anything approaching fluency.

Readers can see with their own eyes that your posts actually represent the same type of cutting and pasting from hebrew and greek dictionaries like most other posters do. Such Facades and inaccurate claims are DANGEROUS and often do MORE DAMAGE than the undeserved benefit they seem to bestow.

When you make the most basic of errors in linguistic logic, it then is painfully obvious to almost all of the readers on the forum that your claims in this regard are a façade and an overstatement meant to impress others and bestow undeserved credibility upon yourself.

To simply presume that because, a word in Hebrew (צל&#1501, can be a metaphor for “illusion”, that another word from an entirely different language; from an entirely different culture, from an entirely different time period; and in an entirely different religious context; has an identical metaphorical meaning, is simply stupidity, even inside “cut and paste
thinking”. You are not doing “translation of the Greek”. It is a pretender; a “wannabe translator” who does these things.

ING - LOL! It amazes me how much you twist what is said to you.

You took a Hebrew verse, - and then used a GREEK translation of it - to tell us what the HEBREW word meant.

I pointed out that that IS WRONG - you should have used HEBREW - as you would have then known that it had other meanings.

And with this fragment you proved me right - "To simply presume that because, a word in Hebrew (צל&#1501, can be a metaphor for “illusion”, - LOL!


You then finish your sentence with a full twisting of what I said "that another word from an entirely different language; from an entirely different culture, from an entirely different time period; and in an entirely different religious context; has an identical metaphorical meaning, is simply stupidity, even inside “cut and paste
thinking”.

Are you going nuts here? I did not compare any word to your GREEK info.

What I did do was tell you - AGAIN - that if you had used the correct HEBREW you would have known that the word had multiple meanings - including metaphor - illusion.

And there it is in the first half of your sentence PROVING ME CORRECT - and YOUR ERROR in trying to use a GREEK translation of a HEBREW text - to make your point. LOL!



*

-- (2) -- (In post # 181 you gave the forum members an example :
Although your example actually, did not contain a single character in Hebrew, you then told forum members :

in post # 186
“I took it back to the HEBREW and showed another HEBREW verse showing that it CAN be used as metaphor!”

*

You’ve repeatedly have intimated that you wanted to discuss “the Hebrew” and since you are a "translator" of Hebrew, you will certainly have a wonderful advantage since I have not claimed to be a "translator" of Hebrew. Let’s discuss the Hebrew in this case since I think the forum members were left with an entirely incorrect impression.

--(3)-- You offered forum members some English words which you then say you took from “the Hebrew”. I think the example you gave to forum members is incorrect and wish to discuss your “translation” and it’s “example” Surely you, as an accomplished “translator of Hebrew” realize the importance of giving forum members the correct data in your “translations”?

For example, though there are other problems with your translation, I've already pointed out that you used צלם incorrectly in your example (which was, by coincidence, the very word involved in the point you made to forum members).

If I am correct, this left any forum member who might have believed your statement with an incorrect translation; an incorrect understanding; and a faulty example. I'm sure you would not like to leave them with an inaccurate impression.


*

--(4)-- I told you a great linguist (Eybers) disagreed with your “translation” of this word and the associated use of Hebrew. Is Eybers correct that your translations example was faulty, or are you correct and he is wrong in his point? Will you discuss this with me?

Will you discuss your Hebrew translation with me in this public forum and we can let the readers see what this sort of discussion can reveal about translations? Surely you wish to make sure your example is correct?. If you have, as you say, "already answered this" specific request of mine, can you point to the post where we had this specific discussion? Can anyone else point to the post where she and I discussed the actual hebrew in her "translation"? Anyone?

Clear
τωφυφυδρω

LOL! Dude you just keep digging yourself in deeper and deeper.


1. I never suggested we discuss anything. I straight out told you that you should have used Hebrew translation for a Hebrew text. PERIOD! And that is CORRECT!

2. And why would I post it in Hebrew - when most here cannot read it? I pointed out that this second text ,in Hebrew, proves you wrong! WRONG because you used Greek - instead of Hebrew. If you had looked it up in the Hebrew you would have known that the word for "image" in HEBREW - has more then one meaning - including obviously - from the second Hebrew text - the use of metaphor!

And by the way - obviously I took it back to the Hebrew. I looked up the verse, and uses of the word, in Hebrew. That is how I know you are wrong. And how I located the second verse - proving you wrong.


3. LOL! I got the translation wrong? Nice try - however, I looked it up and translated - but - I chose to post a traditional Bible translation. Not mine. LOL! Because I knew if I used mine you would attack no matter what I said.


4. LOL! And I told you it is a Bible translation - not mine. But nice try. It is NOT an incorrect translation of the word.


Here are a couple more traditional translations.

(Bishops) Truely man walketh in a vayne shadowe, truely he [and all his] do disquiet them selues in vayne: he heapeth vp riches, & can not tel who shal vse them.

(Brenton) Surely man walks in a shadow; nay, he is disquieted in vain: he lays up treasures, and knows not for whom he shall gather them.

(Darby) Verily, man walketh in a vain show; verily they are disquieted in vain; he heapeth up riches , and knoweth not who shall gather them.


All of these allude to walking in an illusion - therefore in vain we store treasure.


The Treasury of Scriptural Knowledge says about Psalms 39:6 - "There is but the semblance of being."

Wesley says of Psalms 39:6 - " in an imaginary rather than a real life: in the pursuit of vain imaginations, in which there is nothing solid or satisfactory: man in and his life, and all his happiness in this world, are rather appearances and dreams, than truths and realities."

Lange, Psalms 39:6 - "If, namely, all mortal movements are a noise about nothing"

Meyer, Psalms 39:6 - "Only God abides. Man is vanity; his pride and beauty are like a bursting soap-bubble; he is a stranger and pilgrim along this bank and shoal of time."


In other words man walks in vain illusion!


This proves the Hebrew word for "image" is also used as metaphor, as that is the word used in 39:6.


It can also be used as "a shade" or "shadow." So, unlike you told us - it actually has multiple meanings, obviously including ILLUSION.





*