Reincarnation

[seattlegal]

Originally Posted by Dream

About Eve: Her remedy is referred to here, although I don't know if this is one of those passages people say were added to dampen women's influence in the church:

Its actually pretty difficult to understand what it means, but I suppose if it were an addition (although I'm really hesitant to admit that possibility) then it might be a misquote from some previous truism, because it would have been easier to add a previously heard sound-byte than to formulate a completely new phrase. It refers to the prophecy given to Eve, that her 'Seed' would squash the serpent's head, which is another way of saying that the believers would all participate in that action. It does go along with the other verse you mentioned about 'Be excellent in what is good....and the G!d of peace will soon crush Satan underneath your feet'.

Misquote from a previous truism? The passage from Genesis 3 continues:

16 To the woman He said:
“I will greatly multiply your sorrow and your conception;
In pain you shall bring forth children;
Your desire shall be for your husband,
And he shall rule over you.”

One thing I can tell you: a woman faces the indescribable torture of childbirth and the possibility of death for each new life she births into the world.

[Dream]

I'm aware of the seed prophecy, but here's the rub:

Paul always argues his case using scripture, and never just declares things out of the blue. He wouldn't just throw something out there, and I'm not catching where he's coming from with this argument. I have read in Hans Kǚng's new book (which I now own) that the name of the female apostle Junia was edited to read 'Junias', a man's name. I read elsewhere that this likely had to do with consolidation of power against gnostic influences (although gnostic influences got involved anyway). I also read this was probably not the only edit against women teachers. Even so, I can imagine that Eve's beguilement was a commonly taught item. The clear connections between it, the Balaam story, and Korah's rebellion are too important not to have been. Perhaps the use of the story faded, its symbolism abandoned? Perhaps a presbyter made use of this to constrain the sisters from teaching? What about I Peter 3:7 "weaker vessel" ?

The woman was given pain in childbirth, and the man was given thorns, thistles, sweat and lots of work for his daily sustenance. In I Timothy 2 we are told the reason Paul doesn't allow women to teach men is that 1. The man was made first. (So?) 2. The woman was beguiled -- not the man. (Ok? ) How does not allowing women to teach follow from points 1 & 2, unless they are being regarded as more evil than men? That doesn't make sense either, because you could easily argue that they are less evil and less likely to alter doctrines than men. Maybe it means they just don't get it? Anyway, the man wasn't beguiled but he still sinned. How come he is a better teacher?

This beguiling that is mentioned is the same thing that happened in the wilds of Canaan between Moab (country that hired Balaam in the 1st place) and Israel. It has absolutely nothing to do with intelligence or cunning. Moab beguiled (tempted) Israel to sin using Balaam's advice in order to cause the L!RD to act against Israel. The symbols are equivalent to Eve and the serpent, Cain and Abel. Eve was beguiled in the garden, and Israel was beguiled in the wild, but the outcome was the same - a punishment, a plague, and nearly a curse upon the heirs. Israel was beguiled, but Moses and Phineas were not. Korah (also from Jude 1:11) accused Moses before the L!RD for personal gain and was destroyed, but not before he had led a rebellion. What does it have to do with women not teaching? It is presented as some sort of pageantry or symbolism, but I don't see it. Maybe its because I'm not married?

[seattlegal]

We are talking about Hellenistic Greece here, are we not? I would venture to guess that not having women teach and having them cover their heads in submission would be a survival tactic for the Christian church within such a misogynistic culture. (Christian women converts were especially in danger from their unbelieving husbands, and were warned to be submissive and fearful towards them.)

Jude speaks about apostates that have corrupted the church. Perhaps not having women teach would be a mechanism so that these men cannot blame women for leading them astray, like Adam blamed Eve.

[Thomas]

Originally Posted by wil

There have been fights, wars, disagreements over almost all tenents of the Christian faith ...

But that does not disprove them, nor render the doctrine invalid ... it just demonstrates there are those who want it 'their way'.

Originally Posted by wil

The whole universal thing was a control issue (still is)

The Apostles and their successors were given a Divine Fiat, and the right of authority in those matters. If they did not exercise that right and duty in the face of error, it would have been a betrayal of Christ along with Judas.

The error is in assuming that because you are not sure, no-one can be sure. You cannot prove that the content of the Gospel is doubtful, nor Apostolic Tradition is dubious ... but you can choose to ignore it.

You exercise your right to interpret Scripture as you so choose, which is your decision, but you cannot thereby insist that such is the only viable means or method, or that any other means is invalid.

Thomas

[lunamoth]

Originally Posted by Thomas

You exercise your right to interpret Scripture as you so choose, which is your decision, but you cannot thereby insist that such is the only viable means or method, or that any other means is invalid.

Thomas

Exactly. It's just as much a matter of trying to control to say that a traditional understanding is wrong.

[Dream]

Thanks for your thoughts on that, Seattlegal.

[China Cat Sunflower]

possibly there were many incarnations of Jesus such as Adam, Enoch, Melchizedek, Joseph (the prince of Egypt), Joshua, Jeshua and finally Jesus and many other characters from the Old Testament to the extent that the entire Christian Bible becomes part of the story of his long struggle to attain Christhood.

I think you're mistaking a literary technique of character typing for evidence of successive reincarnation. Jesus is a type of Adam. His father is a type of Joseph who is himself a type of Adam. He is a priest of the same type as Melchizidek, etc. This is how the characters in the Bible narrative are constructed: as embodiments of patriarchal archetypes. You have to overlay eastern and quasi eastern predilections toward reincarnation over the text to get this sort of theosophical Christ working his way up through successive lives. That is not self evident in the text by any objective standard.

I think, as Wil said, there's no harm in mixing it up east-west wise, but I also think that it should always be clear what comes from inside the box and what comes from outside the box.

Chris