Joined: 13-Jun-2007
Location: Australia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1457
QuoteReplyTopic: The Abrahamic Prometheus Posted: 29-Jul-2007 at 02:35
He was a big maybe! It did marry a lot of factors that had
been separate beforehand and world religion as a whole became more organized. It was
interesting in that it took in Indian beliefs as well. We could suspect
Alexander as being responsible, for he conquered Persia
and marched on India.
As a synchronistic religion this worship was about as realistic as a loaf of
sliced bread wrapped in plastic, it was just too clever by half to be an organically
grown religion and used lavish dollops of Greek logic.
Mithra was not so much referred to as a god, but a friend on
earth from above. He also was looked upon as a sort of Prometheus, as a sun god
he gave the world the gift of fire. His worship purified and freed the devotee
from sin and disease.
With this forerunner and rival of early Christianity we
deserve to know more, but the gospels of Mithra became destroyed or absorbed
into the church triumphant. The obvious references this light of the world
come to earth to live among us are the three wise men from the east who said
they were following his (Jesuss) star. Christ directly refers to this way when
he told of killing the prophets between temple and alter, the way Zoroaster (the
prophet of the East) died, nobody else had the same story.
The biggest failure of the Mithra religion was to not allow
a major place for women and so Christianity became their choice of worship. This
is despite the largest temple with a Mithra connection dates from 200 BC in
western Iran
and is dedicated to "Anahita, the Immaculate Virgin Mother of the Lord
Mithras".
From mans propective, Prometheus's actions had a positive effect, while Satan's had a negetive effect. The basis of the story is also different, in the former you have a situation of, "its a hard world, but Prometheus made it easier", in the second "its a hard world, we are here thanks to Satan, who incidentally is trying his damnest to make it harder". One is seen as an agent of good, one as a cause of disaster.
The birth of the giants, ok bad, but also unintentional. Teaching us what seems to have delivered us out of caves, like metallurgy and agriculture would be good. More comprehensive than fire alone.
The story i quoted is one of the earliest about the fallen angels in jewish mythology that I have come across. The story changes in later books for example, putting blame on the females for seducing the angels with their make up. While here it was the angels that taught them how to. This points to a shift in attitude within the religion over time, in this example, the lowering of women into the position of blame.
Oh no, my friend, I will cheerfully invalidate you there! Mithra was a constellation god based on the stars.
yet in Armenia we reborn every year. This god is quite wide spread and diverse. He would of taken many different attributes in the countries he spread to, the constellations being one very important one. Anyway hence my 'maybe' passing mention.
Leonidas wrote; "Tammuz seems more like Adonis, Osiris and maybe Mithra, a 'vegetational' god that dies and is born again."
Oh no, my friend, I will cheerfully invalidate you there! Mithra was a constellation god based on the stars. As the son of God, he came to earth born of a rock or born of a virgin, to slay the proud bull so the earth may be saved. He then returned to (the) heaven(s). The twelve animal signs associated with him refer to the zodiac. in fact the word zodiac means circle of animals. The association you refer to means how they associated the stars with yearly agricultural cycles. The reference to him in Wiki is only tiny bits and pieces of the story.
From mans propective, Prometheus's actions had a positive effect, while Satan's had a negetive effect. The basis of the story is also different, in the former you have a situation of, "its a hard world, but Prometheus made it easier", in the second "its a hard world, we are here thanks to Satan, who incidentally is trying his damnest to make it harder". One is seen as an agent of good, one as a cause of disaster.
The propsective in both cases is man, not the deitys.
Again, so what? That doesn't disprove the connection at all - in fact, it strengthens it. We know for a fact that elements of Satan were adapted from other European deities like Pan and Cerumnos, who were viewed favourably - but transformed into enemies of mankind in the figure of Satan.
The whole point of allowing syncretism to influence views on Satan was to demonize foreign gods.
From mans propective, Prometheus's actions had a positive effect, while Satan's had a negetive effect. The basis of the story is also different, in the former you have a situation of, "its a hard world, but Prometheus made it easier", in the second "its a hard world, we are here thanks to Satan, who incidentally is trying his damnest to make it harder". One is seen as an agent of good, one as a cause of disaster.
The propsective in both cases is man, not the deitys.
Very well put Leonidas! Over the ages a confusion of names has taken place.
thanks elenos.
I was a bit ahead of myself in the last post. Lucifer of Babylon was called another name "Tammuz" and my connection to him was automatically done under theosophist influence. That may be wrong as Ishtar (Morning star ) the female version of Lucifer was connected to him in a certain legend. Tammuz seems more like Adonis, Osiris and maybe Mithra, a 'vegetational' god that dies and is born again. The legend of the descent of Ishtar to find Tammuz is similar to Demeter more so with Isis-Osisris. These myth explain, amongst other things, the season and life-death cycle.
Lucifer's transformation from the Morning star to the fallen angel is what i should be commenting on. The fallen angels of Jewish myth, what Satan is based on in the Christian myth is very much a Prometheus like story.
I might of quoted this elsewhere here long time ago, but i think it very relevant to the thread and therefore I will take time in typing out large sections. This is the description of why and how the fallen angels did what they did according to the Book of Enoch (or 1 Enoch). Translated from the Ethiopic text by R.H Charles D.Litt
1. And it came to pass when the children of men had multiplied that in those days were born unto them beautiful and comely daughters. 2. And the angels, the children of the heaven, saw and lusted after them, and said to one another: 'come, let us choose us wives from among the children of men and beget us children' . 3. And Semjaza, who was their leader, said unto them: 'I fear ye will not indeed agree to do this deed, and i alone shall pay the penalty of great sin'. 4. And the all answered him and said: 'let us all swear and oath, and blind ourselves by mutual imprecations not to abandon this plan but do thing thing.' 5. Then they swear they all together and bound themselves by mutual imprecations upon it. 6. And they were in all two hundred; who descended [in the days] of Jared on the summit of Mount Hermon, and they call it Mount Hermon, because they swore and bound themselves by mutual imprecations upon it.
chapter 6 (it goes on to list the leading angels)
Chapter 7
1. And all the others together with them took unto them wives, and each chose for himself one, and the began to go in unto them and to defile themselves with them, and they taught them charms and enchantments, and the cutting of roots, and made them acquainted with plants. 2. And they became pregnant, and they bare great Giants whose height was three thousand ells: 3.Who consumed all acquisitions of men. And men could no longer sustain them, 4. The Giants turn against them and devoured mankind.
Chapter 8
1. And Azazel taught men to make swords, and knives, and shields, and breastplates, and made known to them the metal <of the earth> and the art of working them, and bracelets, and ornaments, and the use of antinomy, and the beautifying of the eyelids, and all kinds of costly stones, and all coloring tinctures. 2. And there rose much godlessness, and they committed fornification, and they were lead astray, and became corrupt in all their ways. 3.Semjaza taught enchantments, and root cuttings, Armaros the resolving of enchantments, Baraqijil (taught) astrology, Kokabel the constellations, Ezeqeel the knowledge of the clouds, <Araquiel the signs of the earth, Shamsiel the signs of the sun>, and Sariel the course of the moon. 4. And the men perished, they cried and their cry went to heaven..
Chapter 9
6. Thou seest what Azazel has done, who hath taught all unrighteousness on earth and revealed the eternal secrets which were (preserved) in heaven, which men were striving to learn: 7. And Semjaza , to whom Thou hast given authority to rule over his associates.
This is all fragmentary and suggests that two myths are combined in this myth within this
book. Semjaza sometimes is
replaced by Azazel. Both seem to be leaders in their own cycle of myths
and there are two things going on, the birth of theses terrible giants
(another thread- nephalim) but more importantly for this thread, the
teaching of men and women of sciences and agriculture (civilization it seems?). Raphael goes onto defeat Azazel as Michael defeats Semjaza.
It all goes a lot deeper of course. The god of an enemy nation could be named as the god of things evil and so the string of names for the evil one grew. Modern versions of the Bible have now given up on the ancient game of name calling and just say evil one.
Prometheus helped humanity, while Satan led man astray.
Well, if Satan were transformed into a syncretic allegory of Prometheus (from his previous role as God's prosecutor) then of course he would be painted as an enemy of man - all part of the anti-Hellenism of the era. Seems he also embodies a few other Greek figures, like Pan.
But what do you think of the idea that Prometheus did not die with the
end of Olympian worship. That instead, he was transformed into yet
another figure with which the Abrahamic religions are very familiar. I
am speaking, of course, about Lucifer. Yes, Beelzebub, Satan and all
the rest of his glitsy titles represent a figure with a great deal in
common with our unfortunate fire giving hero.
There is a connection, the Gnostic take on genesis is a very interesting version of the story. It turns it upside down and sees the serpent as the good guy, like a prophet, and God is really just a jealous lower god (not the Godhead) that wants to deny humans true knowledge and wisdom.
IIRC Lucifer is originally Babylonian and not evil at all, and is very close to Prometheus while the others are different. Satan would come from Seth which originally wasn't a evil fellow but a lying trickster type that gets up to no good, quite similar with other pagan gods that are bad (not evil). The black and white - good and evil dichotomy seems to be a Iranian development, ahriman vs ahura. It is quite probably that this influence came to the Semites via Babylonia > Abraham, with the Babylonian influence reinforced by the Jewish captivity there later on.
All of those names mentioned became mixed up into a composite form, the christian devil.
Ah Prometheus, promises! What promise did Prometheus bring
only to be forever punished by his mortal parts, by the birds of vengeance that
picked at his liver? He brought fire and with fire people could cook and get better
food and have bigger families and then proceed to overpopulate the planet. He brought
fire by which man could work metals, plunder the earth for more. With fire man could
make swords and with swords man could kill and make war and make even bigger
machines of war. With fire man could smelt gold and create objects that people
still kill everyday for!
For your first answer to me, it's good to know you don't jump around,
but does that mean you take it literally like many Evangelicals?
Of course not to understand the Bible you can't isolate separate parts, you have to grasp the whole thing to understand it.
Does it say that in the bible, or are you assuming thats what God had
written for us? Because there are alot more arguements for it by other
christians.
It does not say that in the Bible but evidence suggests that the early Biblical patriarchs are merely extensions of Mesopotamian legends that were popularized in other religious traditions.
It is foolish to overlook traditional folklore and to say that the Bible's events actually happened whereas the other myths didn't, it is much simpler to conclude that all of those stories were morality lessons much like fairy tales in our modern mythos. The Bible only begins to get into actually history with Abraham, as it correctly describes peoples and events that are known to exist in the historical record.
It's not really a lesson on not what to do, he could have just
kept us inncent. He could have just given us the apple, told us we'd
live out side his beautiful garden and said we were mortal. If he did
it from the beginning then we'd just have the human nature we have now.
Would we have the human nature we have now? God could cleanse the world of suffering, could make it so that all of our wishes came true, he could rule over us in a palace made of solid gold and no one would rebel. That is the world we would live in if God just gave Adam and Eve the apple. And I doubt that we would have the same human nature.
God has chosen to let us be held responsible for our own actions. It's like a parent who lets their kid drive his car to the party, of course the dad could drive the kid to the party himself, but in order to teach a lesson and show faith in his child he gives the kid the keys. Now the kid can go to the party have a good time and come home, he could also get drunk and crash into a ditch. God lets us find our own way because he has faith in humanity, that we will supersede our animal impulses and become truly human.
You can't be given humanity, it's something that you have to earn on your own.
If so, why not make us back to what we orginally were?
Because innocence does not make us more human, only the discovery of God's mysteries can do that. God wants us to know the true nature of things, so that we can not choose wrong answers.
And why does the power of "Sinning" effect him so much that he HAS to have his son die for us?
Sinning effects God because it is a separation of man from God. God tells us what is expected from us, so that we may become perfect with God. To stray from that path means that we have gone farther from God and thus farther from realizing our full potential. God had to send his son to die for us because our sin carried us so far away from God's kingdom that only God himself could bring us back on the right path by an act of pure love where our God is willing to humiliate himself for his chosen creatures and show that he alone suffers our burden and punishment for our sins.
He could build the world in 7 days, but it takes thousands of years(assuming your not a 6000yrs earth believer) to cure Humanities' sin?
It took an instant to cure Humanities sin, God is beyond all time it is merely our perception that is flawed. When you consider infinity time is inconsequential.
And seven days isn't literal it's symbolic.
Economic Communist, Political Progressive, Social Conservative.
For your first answer to me, it's good to know you don't jump around, but does that mean you take it literally like many Evangelicals?
Firstly, all the stories in genesis before Abraham are lessons in morality. No actual human beings were harmed in the actual story.
Does it say that in the bible, or are you assuming thats what God had written for us? Because there are alot more arguements for it by other christians.
Most people would call that entrapment, but God's actions weren't really a "punishment". All that happened was they were banished from the garden and told they would die. What this means is that now they had the ability to work on their own, without having to rely on God to provide everything, and no longer being innocent they would now be able to have children, which I think is the main reason for banning from the garden since the garden contained the tree of life, and Billions of immortal people in the world does not sound like a good idea.
So he was a indian giver? He allowed them to be immortal and innocent without thinking of evil and cruelty, and took it away from them for doing something he knew was bound to happen.
It's not really a lesson on not what to do, he could have just kept us inncent. He could have just given us the apple, told us we'd live out side his beautiful garden and said we were mortal. If he did it from the beginning then we'd just have the human nature we have now.
And about Billions of people. We're talking about a almighty god who set the laws of the Universe. If he was taking care of us like you said, then I'm sure he could have easily found away to fit everyone in.
Also, God from the moment of creation knew that their disobedience would finally be paid for by himself, by Jesus dying on the cross, so it's a no harm no foul situation.
If so, why not make us back to what we orginally were? And why does the power of "Sinning" effect him so much that he HAS to have his son die for us?He could build the world in 7 days, but it takes thousands of years(assuming your not a 6000yrs earth believer) to cure Humanities' sin?
"A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government." E.Abbey
But when the bible makes some sort o mistake, I always hear the
arguement that it was "Written by men who interpretted God's words",
always. And then when they need it to prove a point, it's their god's
word thats in this book.
Those people are hypocrites then, the Bible doesn't make mistakes, and by that I don't mean it doesn't have contradictions and stories that don't synch up. The Bible is the revealed word of God in written form, everything in it is all God wants to be in it, could he be using it as a test or something to root out the truth behind the words, it's possible, but I don't know.
So he knew it was going to happen and instead of being a loving
parent, he punishes them for something he set in place? Why did he even
bother, he could have just gave them this knowledge from the get go.
Or maybe, the writers of the bible just wanted to create a interesting story?
Firstly, all the stories in genesis before Abraham are lessons in morality. No actual human beings were harmed in the actual story. That being said, yes God did punish Adam and Eve for something he set into play. Most people would call that entrapment, but God's actions weren't really a "punishment". All that happened was they were banished from the garden and told they would die. What this means is that now they had the ability to work on their own, without having to rely on God to provide everything, and no longer being innocent they would now be able to have children, which I think is the main reason for banning from the garden since the garden contained the tree of life, and Billions of immortal people in the world does not sound like a good idea.
Also, God from the moment of creation knew that their disobedience would finally be paid for by himself, by Jesus dying on the cross, so it's a no harm no foul situation.
Economic Communist, Political Progressive, Social Conservative.
There was no temptation until the serpent suggested it, it would be like leaving matches in front of a kid and telling them not to play with fire, except they don't know what matches are for. Then an older kid tells them what the matches do and they are tempted.
But if he's the almighty, he would know that there is a risk of doing it, and thus going back to my example. He created the rules and everything in it right? Then he should understand that his creation that took the form of a serpant could and probably would instill temtation into his other creations.
Or is this god not as mighty and all knowledgable as the bible wants us to believe?
God IS fate, God knew that Adam and Eve would disobey him even before they were created, why did he allow them to do this, perhaps it was necessary for the salvation of mankind. It is one of those mysteries of the faith.
So he knew it was going to happen and instead of being a loving parent, he punishes them for something he set in place? Why did he even bother, he could have just gave them this knowledge from the get go.
Or maybe, the writers of the bible just wanted to create a interesting story?
Well...it is the equivalent to his journal...
But when the bible makes some sort o mistake, I always hear the arguement that it was "Written by men who interpretted God's words", always. And then when they need it to prove a point, it's their god's word thats in this book.
Only a quarter of it.
lol Good one.
Edited by SearchAndDestroy - 22-Jun-2007 at 08:05
"A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government." E.Abbey
I don't understand why a god would even put a temptation infront of people and tell them not to touch it
There was no temptation until the serpent suggested it, it would be like leaving matches in front of a kid and telling them not to play with fire, except they don't know what matches are for. Then an older kid tells them what the matches do and they are tempted.
On top of that, I was taught that the Abrahamic god can see in the
future(everything about him seems limitless...), so why tell them one
thing and allow it to happen anyways? If he knew it was going to
happen, then why even bother telling them? Does it mean he can't change
fate himself?
God IS fate, God knew that Adam and Eve would disobey him even before they were created, why did he allow them to do this, perhaps it was necessary for the salvation of mankind. It is one of those mysteries of the faith.
I never understood how the bible knows this god so well on the personal level as it seems.
Well...it is the equivalent to his journal...
Christians seem to have every answer to the point it sounds like they make half of it up.
Only a quarter of it.
Economic Communist, Political Progressive, Social Conservative.
I don't understand why a god would even put a temptation infront of people and tell them not to touch it, it's like telling a kid not to play with fire and leaving matches in his reach. Not a very good idea, and pretty childish on the supieor beings part if you ask me.
On top of that, I was taught that the Abrahamic god can see in the future(everything about him seems limitless...), so why tell them one thing and allow it to happen anyways? If he knew it was going to happen, then why even bother telling them? Does it mean he can't change fate himself?
I never understood how the bible knows this god so well on the personal level as it seems. Christians seem to have every answer to the point it sounds like they make half of it up. Amazing what one book can say and how many can follow it.
"A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government." E.Abbey
Disobeying God is evil, according to
Abrahamic teachings, and they were capable of this before eating from
the tree of knowledge.
No they were not capable of disobeying God if left to their own devices, it took the temptation of the serpent to bring this about. It's as if you were told not to open a locked door in your house, however if someone gave you a key to the lock then you could quite easily have the choice whether to open it or not.
Also disobeying God is THE ONLY EVIL ACT one can ever commit. And no where does it say pursuit of knowledge is evil in the christian religion, it says that the pursuit of anything against God is forbidden.
Exactly, we only believe Satan led us astray because the Holy texts say
so.
Maybe some people do, others look further into it and look at the metaphors and logic behind the actions taken by the figures in the Bible.
Lucifer egged us on to consuming the fruit which would
bring us knowledge.
....of Good and Evil, Adam and Eve had plenty of knowledge about a myriad of other subjects, they just were unable to comprehend the concepts of Good and Evil. They were innocent not ignorant.
Economic Communist, Political Progressive, Social Conservative.
Prometheus got eaten up by birds. satan is very much around. And the point is that the Olympians beleived that Prometheus did mankind a favour, while in the Abrahamic religions (except Islam to a lesser extent) Satan's advice had a disasterous result. I don't belive the splendid isolation theory of 19th century Hellenists. But I don't think we should see connections which are only peripheral, espcially when you have connections which which are very tangible.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum