@Push - Messiah Query

This thread is certainly fulfilling the function that I had intended, and I do not want anyone to butt out so long as they have the time and patience. For those busy the discussion can continue anytime. As I’ve stated before I haven"t even read the NT with the acceptions of the gospels/Acts, Hebrews, Romans and a half arsed attempt to muddle through revelations.

If this thread still has life left in in, let’s do our best to avoid any antagonism - not that has been but the potential is certainly there.

Right now I’m reading a book enetitled ‘A Treasury of Jewish Folklaw’ by Nathan Ausubel. Much of it is taken or adapted from the Talmud, Midrash and the Mishna. It’s surprising the level of humour, witticisms and irony within. I have barely started the tome and know nothing of the author and his wife (I suspect they were of the conservative creed of Judaism.). I’ll post one later when I’vve had a rest.

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Don’t worry about it, smh. You don’t care, you don’t believe, so what difference does it make to you?

What I expressed is fundamental Christian doctrine. Don’t be playin’ the Hfactor card and arguing for the sake of arguing. It will quickly bore me and I will move on.

If you show genuine interest I will continue but casting pearls before swine is futile.[/quote]

I’m sure you have realized by now that I have much interest in philosophy and theology, including as they pertain to religions in which I don’t believe.

It doesn’t come up often, but one of my primary sources of income has to do with research and writing about Medieval Christian art, architecture, and iconography. Not only do I have more than a passing interest in Christianity, I know as much about its history as any churchgoer and, when it comes to something technical like architecture, more than just about any of them ever will.

I am interested, in other words, in your answer to my last post in this thread. The one about a shift in subject.

^ By shift in subject, I mean the following:

The previous verse is obviously, I think, addressing the serpent and only the serpent. Either that, or Satan has spent the last decamillennium crawling on his belly.

Since there is no shift in addressee signaled between 14 and 15, what positive, direct clue could anyone point to in order to contend that the addressee is different?

Of course I understand, by the way, that you don’t need to offer such a thing in order to believe what you believe. However, in the telling of many, the Christian doctrine here is what I call the way things are.

^ This is especially important criticism in light of 3:16 and 3:17, between which verses God transitions from addressing Eve to addressing Adam with an explicit shift. “Then to Adam He said…”

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
This thread is certainly fulfilling the function that I had intended, and I do not want anyone to butt out so long as they have the time and patience. For those busy the discussion can continue anytime. As I’ve stated before I haven"t even read the NT with the acceptions of the gospels/Acts, Hebrews, Romans and a half arsed attempt to muddle through revelations.

If this thread still has life left in in, let’s do our best to avoid any antagonism - not that has been but the potential is certainly there.

Right now I’m reading a book enetitled ‘A Treasury of Jewish Folklaw’ by Nathan Ausubel. Much of it is taken or adapted from the Talmud, Midrash and the Mishna. It’s surprising the level of humour, witticisms and irony within. I have barely started the tome and know nothing of the author and his wife (I suspect they were of the conservative creed of Judaism.). I’ll post one later when I’vve had a rest.[/quote]

I’m thoroughly enjoying this conversation and hope it continues too. Good stuff guys/(gals?)

[quote]ZJStrope wrote:

I’m thoroughly enjoying this conversation and hope it continues too. Good stuff guys/(gals?)[/quote]

X2

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Don’t worry about it, smh. You don’t care, you don’t believe, so what difference does it make to you?

What I expressed is fundamental Christian doctrine. Don’t be playin’ the Hfactor card and arguing for the sake of arguing. It will quickly bore me and I will move on.

If you show genuine interest I will continue but casting pearls before swine is futile.[/quote]

I’m sure you have realized by now that I have much interest in philosophy and theology, including as they pertain to religions in which I don’t believe.

It doesn’t come up often, but one of my primary sources of income has to do with research and writing about Medieval Christian art, architecture, and iconography. Not only do I have more than a passing interest in Christianity, I know as much about its history as any churchgoer and, when it comes to something technical like architecture, more than just about any of them ever will.

…[/quote]

To the local village populations of, say, Chartres, or in this case, Paris, a visit to church was like Saturday morning cartoons. Played out in stone or stained glass, the morality plays were quickly learned by the illiterate populace.

What are we to make of this example?
Quite obviously, the snake depicted here is a female chimera. In French, snake is le serpent, a masculine noun, of course. (“La vipere” is a less likely translation in Medieval french, although it does carry that human quality of cunning–more on that later.)

Why was the snake female to the French Gothic mind? To serve as a counterpoint to Eve, or as her truer self; the image of female self-delusion? (The French of the time would have known nothing of the Lilith myth.) Or does this snake have breasts only because it was a more beguiling sculptural element?

Certainly these French Christians did not see the snake of Gen 3 as Satan (always a male noun.)

[quote]smh_23 wrote:
^ This is especially important criticism in light of 3:16 and 3:17, between which verses God transitions from addressing Eve to addressing Adam with an explicit shift. “Then to Adam He said…”[/quote]

Also there is no evidence that Eve ever heard the commandment or had it conveyed to her. But when the serpent asks her about the trees of the garden she virtually paraphrases what G-d had said to Adam.

A group of Nazis see an old Jew and approach him. ‘Who started the war Jew?’ one asks. Being a canny old man he replied ‘the Jews…and the bicycle riders.’ The Nazis looked confused. ‘Why the bicycle riders?’ They asked. ‘Why the Jews?’ replied the old man

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
(The French of the time would have known nothing of the Lilith myth.) [/quote]

I am interested to hear more about this, because I distinctly remember Lilith’s name having come up in connection with the temptation scene of the trumeau of the west facade of Notre Dame de Paris.

Of course the Jews did not enjoy the favor of the French authorities at the time of the construction of the cathedral, but Rashi, for example, had lived and written not far from Paris, and had had influence in gentile circles. (I’m not saying that Rashi dealt explicitly with Lilith, which I don’t know; only that Jewish thought was not necessarily met by deaf ears in Medieval Christian France.) Christian art has been known to take on some surprising flavors–there is a Muslim-looking Jesus on the wall of a painted monastery in Moldavia, despite the fact that the patrons of the monastery were Christian Moldavians who had hated and warred with Muslims over the course of multiple centuries.

I’m not doubting you, by the way. I’m simply interested.

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
(The French of the time would have known nothing of the Lilith myth.) [/quote]

I am interested to hear more about this, because I distinctly remember Lilith’s name having come up in connection with the temptation scene of the trumeau of the west facade of Notre Dame de Paris.

Of course the Jews did not enjoy the favor of the French authorities at the time of the construction of the cathedral, but Rashi, for example, had lived and written not far from Paris, and had had influence in gentile circles. (I’m not saying that Rashi dealt explicitly with Lilith, which I don’t know; only that Jewish thought was not necessarily met by deaf ears in Medieval Christian France.) Christian art has been known to take on some surprising flavors–there is a Muslim-looking Jesus on the wall of a painted monastery in Moldavia, despite the fact that the patrons of the monastery were Christian Moldavians who had hated and warred with Muslims over the course of multiple centuries.

I’m not doubting you, by the way. I’m simply interested.[/quote]

First, “lilit” is a word used only once in the OT, Isa 34:14, in the context of a list of known nocturnal and unclean animals which inhabit a ruin. It would seem likely that a “lilit” is one such animal. But Rashi himself transmitted the tradition that a “lilit” was a demon, without further explanation.

Talmud mentions Lilith not in Mishnah (the real oral law of the Second Temple) but only in Gemara (the commentary) on 3 occasions, suggesting either a demon or succubus or a fallen woman of some type. (If Rashi commented, I do not have access right now to show it.)

In any case, it is doubtful that 12th C Parisian monks and masons would have access to Rashi’s commentaries, even by second-hand transmissions, and this was also an age of Talmud burnings, not learning, in Paris.

The Lilith myth was expounded in apocryphal stuff, Kabbalah and the like, especially after the 13th C in Spain, very possibly under the influence of Moorish and Arab culture. Doubtful that this would have been transmitted to Notre Dame as its foundations and first stories arose.

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Don’t worry about it, smh. You don’t care, you don’t believe, so what difference does it make to you?

What I expressed is fundamental Christian doctrine. Don’t be playin’ the Hfactor card and arguing for the sake of arguing. It will quickly bore me and I will move on.

If you show genuine interest I will continue but casting pearls before swine is futile.[/quote]

I’m sure you have realized by now that I have much interest in philosophy and theology, including as they pertain to religions in which I don’t believe.

It doesn’t come up often, but one of my primary sources of income has to do with research and writing about Medieval Christian art, architecture, and iconography. Not only do I have more than a passing interest in Christianity, I know as much about its history as any churchgoer and, when it comes to something technical like architecture, more than just about any of them ever will.

…[/quote]

To the local village populations of, say, Chartres, or in this case, Paris, a visit to church was like Saturday morning cartoons. Played out in stone or stained glass, the morality plays were quickly learned by the illiterate populace.

What are we to make of this example?
Quite obviously, the snake depicted here is a female chimera. In French, snake is le serpent, a masculine noun, of course. (“La vipere” is a less likely translation in Medieval french, although it does carry that human quality of cunning–more on that later.)

Why was the snake female to the French Gothic mind? To serve as a counterpoint to Eve, or as her truer self; the image of female self-delusion? (The French of the time would have known nothing of the Lilith myth.) Or does this snake have breasts only because it was a more beguiling sculptural element?

Certainly these French Christians did not see the snake of Gen 3 as Satan (always a male noun.)[/quote]

Great image!

Perhaps then this is the origin of women tempting men away from their path?

“Hey Adam, I’m hot stuff. You should listen to me rather than your God.”???

I’ve never thought of it like this until this picture and your thoughts.

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
(The French of the time would have known nothing of the Lilith myth.) [/quote]

I am interested to hear more about this, because I distinctly remember Lilith’s name having come up in connection with the temptation scene of the trumeau of the west facade of Notre Dame de Paris.

Of course the Jews did not enjoy the favor of the French authorities at the time of the construction of the cathedral, but Rashi, for example, had lived and written not far from Paris, and had had influence in gentile circles. (I’m not saying that Rashi dealt explicitly with Lilith, which I don’t know; only that Jewish thought was not necessarily met by deaf ears in Medieval Christian France.) Christian art has been known to take on some surprising flavors–there is a Muslim-looking Jesus on the wall of a painted monastery in Moldavia, despite the fact that the patrons of the monastery were Christian Moldavians who had hated and warred with Muslims over the course of multiple centuries.

I’m not doubting you, by the way. I’m simply interested.[/quote]

First, “lilit” is a word used only once in the OT, Isa 34:14, in the context of a list of known nocturnal and unclean animals which inhabit a ruin. It would seem likely that a “lilit” is one such animal. But Rashi himself transmitted the tradition that a “lilit” was a demon, without further explanation.

Talmud mentions Lilith not in Mishnah (the real oral law of the Second Temple) but only in Gemara (the commentary) on 3 occasions, suggesting either a demon or incubus or a fallen woman of some type. (If Rashi commented, I do not have access right now to show it.)

In any case, it is doubtful that 12th C Parisian monks and masons would have access to Rashi’s commentaries, even by second-hand transmissions, and this was also an age of Talmud burnings, not learning, in Paris.

The Lilith myth was expounded in apocryphal stuff, Kabbalah and the like, especially after the 13th C in Spain, very possibly under the influence of Moorish and Arab culture. Doubtful that this would have been transmitted to Notre Dame as its foundations and first stories arose.
[/quote]

I will note that (if I recall correctly) the Western Facade is a product of the the 13th century, and also that the stone-workers and painters who decorated cathedrals/churches were often the most cosmopolitan members of a given city, because many of them lived itinerant lives (cathedrals often being built in lurching bursts and thus not providing steady work over a lifetime). Still, I don’t doubt that you’re correct, and thanks for the explanation. The paucity of my knowledge of medieval Judaism is abhorrent.

Actually, I did some digging around after I finished the previous paragraph and discovered that, in fact, the sudden frequency of the feminine serpent is probably the result of Comestor’s description, in Historia Scholastica, of it as having a “snake-woman face.”

In other words, Petrus Comestor was probably a latent homosexual.

[quote]pushharder wrote:

Note that the text never says the woman tempted the man.

The woman claims she was deceived. The man did not.
[/quote]

Ok, good to know. Piqued my interest some more.

For what it’s worth, Comestor was born and raised (and came to prominence) in Troyes, which is where Rashi had lived and died a few decades prior.

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:
^ By shift in subject, I mean the following:

The previous verse is obviously, I think, addressing the serpent and only the serpent. Either that, or Satan has spent the last decamillennium crawling on his belly.

Since there is no shift in addressee signaled between 14 and 15, what positive, direct clue could anyone point to in order to contend that the addressee is different?

Of course I understand, by the way, that you don’t need to offer such a thing in order to believe what you believe. However, in the telling of many, the Christian doctrine here is what I call the way things are.[/quote]

Not sure why a shift in addressee or not is significant.

In vs 14-15 He is addressing the serpent.

In vs 16 He is addressing the woman.

In vs 17-19 He is addressing the man.

So the Messiah prophecy is directly given to Satan. We could speculate whether Adam and Eve were present together with the serpent when the curse was delivered to the serpent; maybe they were, maybe they received their judgments a bit later.

Vs 20 does tell us that Adam then recognized that he would fertilize the initial ovum for the entire human race.
[/quote]

Why?

Think of the continuity issue. The snake is cursed to crawl on its belly forever.

Now look up the OT references-there are few of them–to Satan. Does he “stand” before, or at the side of, the principle actors? Or is he crawling in the dust?

Its a snake.

[quote]pushharder wrote:

Not sure why a shift in addressee or not is significant.

In vs 14-15 He is addressing the serpent.

So the Messiah prophecy is directly given to Satan.
[/quote]

You are telling me that he is addressing Satan here:

“And the Lord God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life.”

Does Satan crawl on his belly?