Afterlife Alternatives

[Peter1000]

Very true, but the Book of Revelation is so difficult for many to grasp, and arguements can be made that it was refering to an event that has already happened for the most part. It is a interesting read, but also unneccessary to salvation or the Jesus mythology.

Interesting as a Christian you would use the term 'Jesus mythology'.

 

[ShamashUruk]

If Sumer has no association with Adam, then as a Christian you would disagree that civilization started there. Am I right, that Adam was the first man created by God?

"Adam" is not a culture, that is a story in a biblical creation epic. That belief is a Christian based belief, but that belief comes much later with the Israelite's. Resurrection and judgement, you can find this in the book of revelation, but these belief's develop much later. I am not a Christian, but the story of Adam and Eve are written much later, and they have themes from the Sumerian culture.

 

[Peter1000]

"Adam" is not a culture, that is a story in a biblical creation epic. That belief is a Christian based belief, but that belief comes much later with the Israelite's. Resurrection and judgement, you can find this in the book of revelation, but these belief's develop much later. I am not a Christian, but the story of Adam and Eve are written much later, and they have themes from the Sumerian culture.

Adam may not be the name of the 'culture', but he started the human race culture according to the bible. Since I believe the bible to be the word of God given to Moses face to face, I therefore believe that Adam and the culture that he started is older than any of the Sumerian, Egyptian, Chaldean, etc., etc., etc., cultures that you can present to me.

Adams culture believed in the creation as portrayed by the bible and he believed in the same God as did Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Issac, Jacob, Moses. By the time Moses came, God decided to give Moses a look at the beginning and the creation and the birth of Adam and the history of the Adamic culture up to his time. That record is found primarily in Genesis. It is not an epic, it is true history.

The book of Genesis is not an amalgamation of the cultures mentioned above, but a history of the Adam culture only. Hence, when Babylon documents talk about a flood story, it is taking that flood story from the history of Noah and the flood, which existed a thousand years before Babylon.

The book of Enoch for example was written 1500 years before the Sumerians were considered a civilized society. The book of Enoch talkes about Adam and the things that were taking place 650 years after Adam was born, and 300 before he died.

The Israelites were much much later than Adam, Moses recieved his information from God, not from ancient text.

The Sumerian culture had Adam and Eve type themes not because they were earlier than Adam and Eve, but because they were later than Adam and Eve.
The Adam and Eve story got amalgamated by the Sumerian historians into their culture and their stories.

The Israelites got the story directly from God, not from the Sumerians half truth epics.

 

[tampasteve]

If Sumer has no association with Adam, then as a Christian you would disagree that civilization started there. Am I right, that Adam was the first man created by God?

I can differentiate between a civilization, which requires many people and a stratified society to be qualified as such, and the first man. Yes, I do believe in Adam as the first man. Also, I did not say that civilization did start in Sumer, but rather that it could have started elsewhere than wherever the garden of Eden may have been. There is no reason to say that Adam's descendants could not have started the first civilizations, wherever they may have been.

 

[tampasteve]

Interesting as a Christian you would use the term 'Jesus mythology'.

Mythology does not necessarily imply disbelief, it is a word or term used to describe a system or collection of beliefs. When speaking in a comparative religion or belief discussion we can call the Christian faith "Christian mythology" or "mythology of Judaism", "Islamic mythology", etc. In in academic setting or discussion it is not meant to imply that something is false.

 

[ShamashUruk]

Adam may not be the name of the 'culture', but he started the human race culture according to the bible. Since I believe the bible to be the word of God given to Moses face to face, I therefore believe that Adam and the culture that he started is older than any of the Sumerian, Egyptian, Chaldean, etc., etc., etc., cultures that you can present to me.

Adams culture believed in the creation as portrayed by the bible and he believed in the same God as did Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Issac, Jacob, Moses. By the time Moses came, God decided to give Moses a look at the beginning and the creation and the birth of Adam and the history of the Adamic culture up to his time. That record is found primarily in Genesis. It is not an epic, it is true history.

The book of Genesis is not an amalgamation of the cultures mentioned above, but a history of the Adam culture only. Hence, when Babylon documents talk about a flood story, it is taking that flood story from the history of Noah and the flood, which existed a thousand years before Babylon.

The book of Enoch for example was written 1500 years before the Sumerians were considered a civilized society. The book of Enoch talkes about Adam and the things that were taking place 650 years after Adam was born, and 300 before he died.

The Israelites were much much later than Adam, Moses recieved his information from God, not from ancient text.

The Sumerian culture had Adam and Eve type themes not because they were earlier than Adam and Eve, but because they were later than Adam and Eve.
The Adam and Eve story got amalgamated by the Sumerian historians into their culture and their stories.

The Israelites got the story directly from God, not from the Sumerians half truth epics.

No, Adam is a singular person in a creation epic. Also that myth is penned much later by St Moses about 1700 bc or so, that being said what you believe may not reflect what happened historically, but you are free to choose to believe whatever you may. Problem is also the bible in the old testament is transliterated from Semitic, so even the book of Genesis reflects a Semitic based writing, the Sumerian's spoke a Pre Semitic aggulagnative language. Looking at this from a non Jewish perspective does little justice, as that is where the Old Testament derives from.

I am unaware of where Moses gets a look at the beginning and creation and Adam and so on, Moses is long after Abraham and so we see the epics in Genesis from earlier culture's such as the Babylonian, Egyptian, and other creation epics. Originally would have been called Eridu Genesis, and later adopted as Genesis. Whether "Adam" is a first man or not is somewhat skewed, as the name "Adam" is not a common stock West Semitic name necessarily. In the Bible itself there are no traces of traditions that Adam was ever regarded as a divine or angelic being. For non-biblical ANE material possibly relevant to Adam veneration the reader is referred to the lemma, Soil. Here only post-biblical material pertinent to the motif of Adam's divine or angelic status is dealt with.

Some passages in early rabbinic literature testify to the existence of 'heretics' (mi"im) that held that Adam had acted as God's associate in creation or as his plenipotentiary (e.g., b.Sanlr. 38a: "Our rabbis taught: Adam was created [last of all beings] on the eve of Sabbath. Why so? Lest the
minim should say: The Holy One, blessed be He, had a partner [sc. Adam] in His work of creation").

Gnostic sources seem to confirm this when they speak of Adamas through whom everything came into being (FOSSUM 1985:267).

In other early Christian sources the idea of Adam having been God's viceregent crops up occasionally, especially in the so-called Adam Iiternture (sec, e.g., the Cave of the Treasure; further STONE 1992).

The flood epic of Noah being an earlier Ziusudra epic, but you'd have to exclude every single flood traditional epic in existence to establish your claim. The Book of Genesis was adopted through story in the Israelite' culture, I wouldn't call it an amalgamation necessarily.

Book of Enoch is also a Semitic based writing, unless Enoch is Sumerian, but he'd have to be equated on the Sumer kings list. So I would doubt that Enoch is written 1500 years before the Sumerian's, especially the context of the writing in Enoch itself. It alludes to ideas that are post Sumerian, hence there is no indication of it being written earlier.

Israelite's are from Canaan, even the language today is a defunct Canaanite language. I was not inferring that the Israelite's are older than the epic of "Adam", I am inferring the Israelite's would have in oral tradition discussed stories of creation, as Abraham comes much earlier than Moses.

There is not indication that Adam and Eve "type theme" are earlier than Sumer, the language is a huge factor (see above).

Israelite's are considered ANE, hence they fall into the polytheistic category and not monotheistic, they aren't monotheists until after Babylon captivity.

 

[Peter1000]

I can differentiate between a civilization, which requires many people and a stratified society to be qualified as such, and the first man. Yes, I do believe in Adam as the first man. Also, I did not say that civilization did start in Sumer, but rather that it could have started elsewhere than wherever the garden of Eden may have been. There is no reason to say that Adam's descendants could not have started the first civilizations, wherever they may have been.

Good to know that.

 

[ShamashUruk]

Good to know that.

Unfortunately we don't see any civilizations before Sumer, scattered groups of people and that doesn't qualify as a civilization. Now pre Sumer scattered groups of people is a possibility, that is a good argument.

 

[ShamashUruk]

Good to know that.

I guess the site Göbekli Tepe could be included in that argument.

 

[Peter1000]

Mythology does not necessarily imply disbelief, it is a word or term used to describe a system or collection of beliefs. When speaking in a comparative religion or belief discussion we can call the Christian faith "Christian mythology" or "mythology of Judaism", "Islamic mythology", etc. In in academic setting or discussion it is not meant to imply that something is false.

Sorry, but 'mythology' to 100% of the people I know, think it means, a good story, but not a true story, in or outside of academic setting.

This also is not an academic setting, but maybe since you are talking to a scientific type, you decided to use it. Hope it is not a Freudian slip?

 

[tampasteve]

Sorry, but 'mythology' to 100% of the people I know, think it means, a good story, but not a true story, in or outside of academic setting.

This also is not an academic setting, but maybe since you are talking to a scientific type, you decided to use it. Hope it is not a Freudian slip?

In the context of this thread, I would say it is quite appropriate to apply the general use of comparative religion and beliefs definitions; whether people you know use it as such or not does not really matter since it is in fact the correct use of the word in this setting. I would very much appreciate NOT to have my faith judged by the standard of a statement that was misunderstood based on a word that I have clarified, and used appropriately in the first place. I would not use that statement in the other specific Christian sections of this forum as it would not be appropriate.

 

[Peter1000]

In the context of this thread, I would say it is quite appropriate to apply the general use of comparative religion and beliefs definitions; whether people you know use it as such or not does not really matter since it is in fact the correct use of the word in this setting. I would very much appreciate NOT to have my faith judged by the standard of a statement that was misunderstood based on a word that I have clarified, and used appropriately in the first place. I would not use that statement in the other specific Christian sections of this forum as it would not be appropriate.

You have made a good point and I think I know you have faith in Jesus, but is there really any context, especially for comparative religion and belief definitions, that it is appropriate to relegate Jesus to a mythological person?

 

[ShamashUruk]

Mythology doesn't automatically equal false, I can look into Sumerian mythology, Christian mythology, Islamic mythology, Buddhist mythology, and so on, what I'd agree on is that "it is a word or term used to describe a system or collection of beliefs".

Now if I used the word folklore then it might be a bit inflammatory.

I don't understand how Christians (even in a church setting) can talk about the Old Testament and not conclude it is similar to an academic setting. Essentially when you are studying the Old Testament or even the New Testament you are looking into history, the Bible is not only a spiritual book but a historical book.

Hence the use of comparative religions I think is fundamental, but some would like to state something that was earlier stated and claim it their own, so comparing religions I think is essential.

 

[ShamashUruk]

You have made a good point and I think I know you have faith in Jesus, but is there really any context, especially for comparative religion and belief definitions, that it is appropriate to relegate Jesus to a mythological person?

The discussion isn't jesus as of this moment that I know of, why would you couple all of the biblical texts together. I think right now the discussion is the Israelite's, epic of Adam and Eve and so on.

 

[tampasteve]

You have made a good point and I think I know you have faith in Jesus, but is there really any context, especially for comparative religion and belief definitions, that it is appropriate to relegate Jesus to a mythological person?

I understand your reluctance to use the term "mythology" when talking about something you hold dear and as fact. However, when discussing matters of faith one can get defensive and discussions can become inflammatory very fast. So, that people of differing religions and differing beliefs may speak in a level headed and honest way we put the beliefs on the same level and use terms such as "mythology" to speak of the collection of beliefs of a particular religion or people. While the general lexicon has used the term as a way to speak of "dead" religions or "old" religions, it really has a much more broad and non derogatory use than many people use it now.

This thread is definitely comparative and was really meant as a comparison of after life alternatives, not really a debate thread.

 

[Peter1000]

I understand your reluctance to use the term "mythology" when talking about something you hold dear and as fact. However, when discussing matters of faith one can get defensive and discussions can become inflammatory very fast. So, that people of differing religions and differing beliefs may speak in a level headed and honest way we put the beliefs on the same level and use terms such as "mythology" to speak of the collection of beliefs of a particular religion or people. While the general lexicon has used the term as a way to speak of "dead" religions or "old" religions, it really has a much more broad and non derogatory use than many people use it now.

This thread is definitely comparative and was really meant as a comparison of after life alternatives, not really a debate thread.

Well said.

 

[ShamashUruk]

I understand your reluctance to use the term "mythology" when talking about something you hold dear and as fact. However, when discussing matters of faith one can get defensive and discussions can become inflammatory very fast. So, that people of differing religions and differing beliefs may speak in a level headed and honest way we put the beliefs on the same level and use terms such as "mythology" to speak of the collection of beliefs of a particular religion or people. While the general lexicon has used the term as a way to speak of "dead" religions or "old" religions, it really has a much more broad and non derogatory use than many people use it now.

This thread is definitely comparative and was really meant as a comparison of after life alternatives, not really a debate thread.

Using the term mythos or mythology to describe a religion or set of religion's doesn't necessarily preclude any other terms. Such as using mythology to describe a savior such as Dumuzid, doesn't necessarily mean that I would use the term folklore, same as Mohammed or Jesus. But it also doesn't mean that I would preclude the word legend either. Dumuzid, Mohammed, Jesus as a description of their legends can alternatively be used in the view of mythology.

 

[Peter1000]

The discussion isn't jesus as of this moment that I know of, why would you couple all of the biblical texts together. I think right now the discussion is the Israelite's, epic of Adam and Eve and so on.

As soon as I saw 'Jesus mythology' it moved directly to Jesus. It was addressed and now we can get back to the OP.

So what does happen between our earthly death and our resurrection?

 

[ShamashUruk]

As soon as I saw 'Jesus mythology' it moved directly to Jesus. It was addressed and now we can get back to the OP.

So what does happen between our earthly death and our resurrection?

It depends on your belief system, everyone has their own opinion, as does religion in general.

 

[ShamashUruk]

There is a very monotheistic conventional view of death and after life associated with modern monotheism, versus Old Testamentary views.

A close resemblance of after life concerning Etana who is equated with Nimrod in 3 of the monotheistic themed religions.

In the Sumer Kings list Etana is known as "the shepherd, who ascended to heaven and consolidated all the foreign countries".

In Biblical literature we see a consolidation of countrie as Nimrod becomes proverbial as a mighty hunter. His "kingdom" is comprised of Babel, Erech, Accad, and Calneh, in the land of Sinar, otherwise known as the land of Nimrod (Gen. x. 8-10; I Chron. i. 10; Micah v. 5 [A. V. 6]).

We also see him in Rabbinic literature as a prototype of a rebellious people, his name being interpreted as "he who made all the people rebellious against God" (Pes. 94b; comp. Targ. of pseudo-Jonathan and Targ. Yer. to Gen. x. 9).

In Islamic literature see the Koran (xxi. 68-69). When Nimrod saw Abraham come unharmed from the furnace, he said to him: "Thou hast a powerful God; I wish to offer Him hospitality." Abraham told him that his God needed nobody's hospitality. Nevertheless Nimrod ordered thousands of horned and small cattle brought, and fowl and fish, and sacrificed them all to God; but God did not accept them. Humiliated, Nimrod shut himself in his palace and allowed no one to approach him.

While in another legene Nimrod assembled his ministers and informed them of his intention to ascend into the heavens and strike down Abraham's God. His ministers having told him that it would be difficult to accomplish such a journey, the heavens being very high, Nimrod conceived the idea of building a high tower, by means of which he might accomplish his purpose (comp. Sanh. 109a).

So we have differing views of Etana in later myths whether it reflect Judaic, Christian, Islamic or other views we see an adoption of the Etana character as Nimrod into differing cultures.

The concept of death for Nimrod is that he will ascend into the Heavens and strike down Abraham's God, yet we only see in Sumer Etana as the good shepherd (one of them as there are varying saviors) yet he does ascend into Heaven, we see a much later adaptation of hell in the New Testament, no longer is anyone allowed to ascend into heaven, there is requirement for entering heaven, some requirements are faith based, while other faith and works based. I think throughout the ages, the concept of "Heaven" changes, but I understand heaven as a firmament.

Even the etymology of the firmament is from Old French firmament or directly from Latin firmamentum "firmament," literally "a support, a strengthening," from firmus "strong, steadfast, enduring". Used in Late Latin in the Vulgate to translate Greek stereoma "firm or solid structure," which translated Hebrew raqia, a word used of both the vault of the sky and the floor of the earth in the Old Testament, probably literally "expanse," from raqa "to spread out," but in Syriac meaning "to make firm or solid," hence the erroneous translation. Related: Firmamental.