Children of Light vs Children of Darkness

[Ben Masada]

CHILDREN OF LIGHT VS CHILDREN OF DARKNESS

According to Essene Theology, the controversy between good and evil is represented by the struggle between the children of light and the children of darkness since the beginning of the world. Therefore, in the "beginning," God created the heavens and the earth. (Gen. 1:1)

Thousands of years later, since this message has been promoted by the Jewish Scriptures, Aristotle contested that truth by asserting that the universe was eternal; that is, it had never had a beginning. Scientists went along with the genious Philosopher and adopted his idea that the universe, indeed, had no beginning and that it was terefore eternal. That it had always been there.

Then, in the late 1920's the big theory was developed by Henri Lemaitre, a Belgian Catholic priest and astromer during his research on the expansion of the universe. The discovery was that the big ban was the reason for the origin of the universe. From then on, scientists in general, and cosmologists in particular had no choice but to accommodate the Biblical text, since the universe had indeed begun with the big bang. Regardless of how or who, the Biblical text had been correct for thousands of years, that the universe did have a beginning, that is.

"The heavens and the earth." The heavens in general, in Biblical terms, is known as the universe; while the earth in particular, is to be focused on the creation of man, which is, in fact, the theme for the Genesis account of creation.

"The earth was a formless wasteland, and darkness covered the abyss, while a mighty wind swept over the waters." (Gen. 1:2) The earth was in a state of complete disorder and confusion, which in the original in Hebrew is translated as Tohu vavohu. Therefore, in darkness covered the abyss, we can see the children of darkness on earth, according to Essene Theology. And in "myghty wind sweeping over the waters" we can think of the Intelligent Design on the move for a solution to the chaos.

Then, "God" said, "Let there be light, and there was light." (Gen. 1:3) And He saw how good was light. (Gen. 1:4) Behold, a solution had been provided to bring light to the world with the creation of the People of Israel. Isaiah thought it so, as he prophesied that Israel had been assigned as light to the Gentiles. (Isa. 42:6) And so did Jesus himself when he addressed to a crowd of Jews in the following words: "You are the light of the world." (Mat. 5:14)

But then, light had to be separated from darkness, as they could not coexist together. And again, according to the Essenes, the endless struggle between the children of light and the children of darkness started, to last until the Gentiles understood Jesus' words in John 4:22 that salvation comes from the Jews. "From the Jews," he said, and not from one among the Jews. Then, it was evening with the children of darkness and it was morning with the children of light. At least, salvation was guaranteed that night would return every after each day. And that was only the first day.

Ben

[The Gremlin]

Im not sure that is an entirely faithful rendition of Aristotle's theory.......wasnt the Immovable Mover the source of all motion in the universe....ie. GOD???

So he was right too?

[Ben Masada]

Im not sure that is an entirely faithful rendition of Aristotle's theory.......wasnt the Immovable Mover the source of all motion in the universe....ie. GOD???

So he was right too?

I am sorry Gremilin, but I am not sure I understand what the Immovable Mover has anything to do with Aristotle's theory of the eternity of the universe. The Immovable Mover implies creation. Aristotle's theory rather rules out creation.

Ben

Edited September 6, 2012 by Ben Masada

[The Gremlin]

I am sorry Gremilin, but I am not sure I understand what the Immovable Mover has anything to do with Aristotle's theory of the eternity of the universe. The Immovable Mover implies creation. Aristotle's theory rather rules out creation.

Ben

perhaps you should check out his work on Metaphysics.

http://www.perseus.t...xt:1999.01.0052

Edited September 6, 2012 by The Gremlin

[Ben Masada]

perhaps you should check out his work on Metaphysics.

http://www.perseus.t...xt:1999.01.0052

I do it once a week as I reread all my threads.

Ben

[The Gremlin]

you read Aristotle's Metaphysics about once a week?

's been a while for me.....I just read a bit now, and realise that it is the Unmoved Mover (generally called)....sorry for the misnomer.....been a long while.

I think one of us is mistaken about the nature of this Unmoved Mover....perhaps you can explain what you understand by this concept....should be easy for someone so familiar with it.

I may need my memory refreshing.

[Ben Masada]

you read Aristotle's Metaphysics about once a week?

's been a while for me.....I just read a bit now, and realise that it is the Unmoved Mover (generally called)....sorry for the misnomer.....been a long while.

I think one of us is mistaken about the nature of this Unmoved Mover....perhaps you can explain what you understand by this concept....should be easy for someone so familiar with it.

I may need my memory refreshing.

Aristotle was not the only one to write Metaphysics. BTW, most my threads are written on the basis of Metaphysical concepts. Have you ever read Heguel and Maimonides? The Metaphysical theme is quite heavy in their writings, especially in "The Guide for the Perplexed" of Maimonides. Most writings in the Hebrew Scriptures are Metaphysical.

Ben

[The Gremlin]

Aristotle was not the only one to write Metaphysics. BTW, most my threads are written on the basis of Metaphysical concepts. Have you ever read Heguel and Maimonides? The Metaphysical theme is quite heavy in their writings, especially in "The Guide for the Perplexed" of Maimonides. Most writings in the Hebrew Scriptures are Metaphysical.

Ben

Indeed.

So Aristotle's Unmoved Mover?

[Ben Masada]

Indeed.

So Aristotle's Unmoved Mover?

IMHO, Aristotle was caught here in a contradiction. I am indeed aware of his concept of the Primal Mover, which contradicts his view of an eternal universe which never had a beginning. Primal Mover implies creation, as I have stated before; and an eternal universe denies creation.

Ben

[The Gremlin]

could you go into more detail please, I know that many folk reading this will not be as familiar with the subject as you.

As our perception of our universe changes, does it also change our perception of his theory?

[Ben Masada]

could you go into more detail please, I know that many folk reading this will not be as familiar with the subject as you.

As our perception of our universe changes, does it also change our perception of his theory?

Most definitely, Gremilin. My answer to your question is a sound yes. We can almost say that theories are made to change as new researches bring new discoveries. IOW, our perception changes as new theories are created. The cosmologist Mitchio Kacko said only recently on a Nova TV show, that the theory of the the big bang could come to an end with new discoveries as a result of research.

Ben

[The Gremlin]

but i doubt theyll find a genocidal Jehovah as the 'creative cause',

The Unmoved Mover however would fit in with an expanding and contracting universe though

[Ben Masada]

but i doubt theyll find a genocidal Jehovah as the 'creative cause',

The Unmoved Mover however would fit in with an expanding and contracting universe though

The "genocidal Jehovah" is only for the unlearned who have no idea of metaphorical language. I mean, those of the literal intepretation club.

Ben

[The Gremlin]

The "genocidal Jehovah" is only for the unlearned who have no idea of metaphorical language. I mean, those of the literal intepretation club.

Ben

How many of the Laws are meant to be interpreted literally? and how many are discarded as culturally primitive?

Just how much of the Old Testement (sorry to use its Christian name) is 'metaphoric' ?

Is every instance of Jehovah's commands to kill every man, woman, child, dog in a city to be taken metaphorically?

Are the plagues of Egypt metaphoric then?

Are we to seperate this jelous and vengeful 'persona' that Jehovah is said to possess from the more esoteric and metaphysical entity?

[Ben Masada]

How many of the Laws are meant to be interpreted literally? and how many are discarded as culturally primitive?

Just how much of the Old Testement (sorry to use its Christian name) is 'metaphoric' ?

Is every instance of Jehovah's commands to kill every man, woman, child, dog in a city to be taken metaphorically?

Are the plagues of Egypt metaphoric then?

Are we to seperate this jelous and vengeful 'persona' that Jehovah is said to possess from the more esoteric and metaphysical entity?

That's okay to say OT. It is not a Christian reference. If a New Covenant was established with the House of Israel and the House of Judah soon after the return of the Jews from Babylon through Ezra, it is only obvious for the Old Covenant to be referenced to as the OT. (Jer. 31:31)

All laws that imply anthropomorphism in God are supposed to be interpreted metaphorically as to point to man and not to God. Only the historical part of the OT can be taken literally. All the poetic and prophetic books are by definition metaphorical.

Right, all so called Divine commands to kill in wars either of agression or defense are to be taken metaphorically. God would not create and destroy His creation. It was common and natural for groups of peoples at that period of History to look for a place to settle down and they would kill all in order to prevent insurrection later on. Of course, being religious, they would attribute their conquests to their own gods. The Hebrews were only one of those peoples. It was called the time of migration of nomads in search of a place to quit their lives of wandering aimlessly.

God is not jealous nor vengeful. That's human transference of their own feelings to acquire Divine legality to their actions.

About the Egyptian plagues, research has been on the making to explain them as natural events. To anything that needs faith to be believed, time is the only thing we have to count with for verification.

Ben

Edited September 15, 2012 by Ben Masada

[The Gremlin]

That's okay to say OT. It is not a Christian reference. If a New Covenant was established with the House of Israel and the House of Judah soon after the return of the Jews from Babylon through Ezra, it is only obvious for the Old Covenant to be referenced to as the OT. (Jer. 31:31)

All laws that imply anthropomorphism in God are supposed to be interpreted metaphorically as to point to man and not to God. Only the historical part of the OT can be taken literally. All the poetic and prophetic books are by definition metaphorical.

Right, all so called Divine commands to kill in wars either of agression or defense are to be taken metaphorically. God would not create and destroy His creation. It was common and natural for groups of peoples at that period of History to look for a place to settle down and they would kill all in order to prevent insurrection later on. Of course, being religious, they would attribute their conquests to their own gods. The Hebrews were only one of those peoples. It was called the time of migration of nomads in search of a place to quit their lives of wandering aimlessly.

God is not jealous nor vengeful. That's human transference of their own feelings to acquire Divine legality to their actions.

About the Egyptian plagues, research has been on the making to explain them as natural events. To anything that needs faith to be believed, time is the only thing we have to count with for verification.

Ben

So by your reasoning.......

Joshua did not cross the Jordan with God's intervention....he used sappers to divert the course upstream?

God didnt bring down the walls of Jericho......Joshua's sappers (engineers) undermined the walls with tunnelling?

Moses did not literally speak to God via the burning bush......

The Israelites were not really given the Holy Land by God literally, but it was a way of using a patron deity to legitimise a land-grab.

[Ben Masada]

So by your reasoning.......

Joshua did not cross the Jordan with God's intervention....he used sappers to divert the course upstream?

God didnt bring down the walls of Jericho......Joshua's sappers (engineers) undermined the walls with tunnelling?

Moses did not literally speak to God via the burning bush......

The Israelites were not really given the Holy Land by God literally, but it was a way of using a patron deity to legitimise a land-grab.

Hey Gremlin, believe it or not, you are on the right track. Joshua did not cross the Jordan with literal intervension of God and neither did Moses back in the Exodus. If you read Number 12:6, you will understand that the conversation of Moses with God at the burning bush happened in a vision or lucid dream. And last but not least, how could God have literally given the Holy Land to the Israelites? God works through the laws of nature and not like a man who makes a gift of land unto another.

Ben

[The Gremlin]

Hey Gremlin, believe it or not, you are on the right track. Joshua did not cross the Jordan with literal intervension of God and neither did Moses back in the Exodus. If you read Number 12:6, you will understand that the conversation of Moses with God at the burning bush happened in a vision or lucid dream. And last but not least, how could God have literally given the Holy Land to the Israelites? God works through the laws of nature and not like a man who makes a gift of land unto another.

Ben

So in theory, Palestinian folk can convert to Judaism en masse and Israel would accomodate them without prejudice?

all of them?

what if they all did? what if everybody in the world did?

I can see that you are pretty rational, but not everyone is. Plenty believe in the divine intervention, and direct contact with a God or his angels........in the mythic past......

some folk are pretty fanatical about it.

[Ben Masada]

So in theory, Palestinian folk can convert to Judaism en masse and Israel would accomodate them without prejudice? all of them?

what if they all did? what if everybody in the world did?

I can see that you are pretty rational, but not everyone is. Plenty believe in the divine intervention, and direct contact with a God or his angels........in the mythic past......some folk are pretty fanatical about it.

Conversion has nothing to do with God or with the State. This is in the realm of religion. It is extremely hard to be accepted for conversion to Judaism.

Yes, many believe in the literal intervension of God with the afairs of man. IMHO, they prefer not to exert their minds by thinking of God anthropomorphically.

Ben

[The Gremlin]

<p>re: the Essenes and their 'children of light vs children of darkness'</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I can appreciate your desire to attach this essentially Zoroastrian theme to the Beginning in Genesis; and view the text in a metaphoric sense to 'enlightenment'......ie. those enlightened become children of light, whilst all who dont get it, havent heared, or dont want to follow are children of darkness.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>But I dont think that this theme sits as well on Genesis as metaphor as you would like.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Genesis is a mix of early stories, most of which have a Mesopotamian/Assyrian and Cannanite root. The rewriting of these stories to fit a monotheistic mould, as Judaism developed into a monotheistic state religion left a few rough edges; other strong influences into Judaic metaphysical thought (like the dualistic Zoroastrianism) affected groups within Judaism.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>That the Judaic story of Creation ties in with one theory connected to the universe (the big bang) is not particularly remarkable nor unique. Most primitive tribal religions, indeed most religions have some creation myth where the world was made. Most involve bringing some order to chaos...its a leftover from when man was able to 'tame' the wilderness with farming, and further detaching himself from the chaos of nature with collective settlement and urbanisation.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Aristotle's Metaphysics takes these primitive inclinations to another level of sophistication....and may in the end, be more correct than any other metaphysical thought on the matter.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>until we know the exact nature of the universe, that might have to wait.</p>

<p> </p>

[Ben Masada]

<p>re: the Essenes and their 'children of light vs children of darkness'</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I can appreciate your desire to attach this essentially Zoroastrian theme to the Beginning in Genesis; and view the text in a metaphoric sense to 'enlightenment'......ie. those enlightened become children of light, whilst all who dont get it, havent heared, or dont want to follow are children of darkness.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>But I dont think that this theme sits as well on Genesis as metaphor as you would like.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Genesis is a mix of early stories, most of which have a Mesopotamian/Assyrian and Cannanite root. The rewriting of these stories to fit a monotheistic mould, as Judaism developed into a monotheistic state religion left a few rough edges; other strong influences into Judaic metaphysical thought (like the dualistic Zoroastrianism) affected groups within Judaism.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>That the Judaic story of Creation ties in with one theory connected to the universe (the big bang) is not particularly remarkable nor unique. Most primitive tribal religions, indeed most religions have some creation myth where the world was made. Most involve bringing some order to chaos...its a leftover from when man was able to 'tame' the wilderness with farming, and further detaching himself from the chaos of nature with collective settlement and urbanisation.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Aristotle's Metaphysics takes these primitive inclinations to another level of sophistication....and may in the end, be more correct than any other metaphysical thought on the matter.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>until we know the exact nature of the universe, that might have to wait.</p>

<p> </p>

I don't believe we will ever know the "exact" nature of the universe. But, while we wait, learning is all that life is about.

Ben

[Tutankhaten-pasheri]

I don't believe we will ever know the "exact" nature of the universe. But, while we wait, learning is all that life is about.

True, and I think we would be incapable of properly understanding the true nature of the universe, unless we ourselves had become capable of saying the words "Let there be light", and it became so. Hmm, to me it seems short sighted to look back to the Jewish god. He is a newcomer and has borrowed much from what is, IMO, the original, Ra

[Ben Masada]

True, and I think we would be incapable of properly understanding the true nature of the universe, unless we ourselves had become capable of saying the words "Let there be light", and it became so. Hmm, to me it seems short sighted to look back to the Jewish god. He is a newcomer and has borrowed much from what is, IMO, the original, Ra

If all it takes is to say the words, here it goes:

LET THERE BE LIGHT, AND THERE WAS LIGHT

It has been an a "tohu vavohu" among many questioners, especially Christians, even many Jews, to come up with an explanation for that kind of light in Genesis 1:3 wen the sun, which gives light by day was created only on the 4th day of creation. The embarrassment is that at both, Atheists laugh. And not because they know any better in terms of an adequate answer, but for two other reasons: First, because they look for answer only in Science; and of course it is not there but in Theology. And in Theology, they laugh at us for they think that we are all speaking about an anthropomorphic god, which, as I don't blame them: It indeed never existed.

But what light is indeed the Torah writer referring to when he reports of God as declaring, "Let there be light?"

Since before the creation of the universe it was already in the designs of God to provide for salvation of Mankind a People whom salvation would come from, in the words of Jesus himself in John 4:22, that salvation comes from the Jews.

When for good, the Assyrians removed Israel from existence by replacing the Northern population of the Galilee with Gentiles, and after the Jews or Southern pupulation was taken for an temporary exile of 70 years in Babylon, and the time had arrived for their return to the Land of Israel, Prophet Isaiah said that the people who walked in darkness, he meant the Gentiles in Galilee, had seen a great light as the Jewish People was returning to the Land of Israel. (Isa. 9:2)

Then, later, he confirms that light of Genesis 1:3 when he explained that Israel had been assigned as light to the nations. (Isa. 42:6) But the light was to remain divided from the darkness, so that both should exist in the same world; although, in the language of the Essenes, there would always be a conflict between the children of Light and the children of darkness. Between Jews and Gentiles. Just as light cannot coexist together with darkness. Wheneverlight is come, dakness is gone.

Jesus was aware of this Light as he delivered his famous Sermon of the Mount to a crowd of Jews, when he said to them: "You are the Light of the world." (Mat. 5:14) The reason why he said "you are" and not "you have" is that what one has, it can be taken away, but what one is, he is no matter what. Individually, we have the light the world needs to know God. But as a People, we are that light of Genesis 1:3, which the world needs for salvation.

Ben

[The Gremlin]

I dont think that this revisionist theory works, your just reinterpreting Genesis to make it less fantastical and unreal.

I can understand why ethnocentric Jews of today would like their Book to be revised in this way, since now the book is recognised as being derivative of other earlier stories and myths, scientifically unsound etc. They would like to restore some authority to it.

To be frank it is a primitive, and unoriginal text, that is itself an attempt to revise the culture-group's history and origins, and owes more to foreign influences than anything definitively Israeli.

It is the moral aspect of the work that is particularly Jewish, it sets the book apart from its influences, the merit of this should be seen in its proper context rather than undermined by revisionist attempts.

Edited September 26, 2012 by The Gremlin

[Tutankhaten-pasheri]

The light is simply the sun. No sun, no life. This was recognised many many millenia ago. All gods are the sun, or from the sun. Call them Ra, Horus or Aten, they are all one, all the life giving sun. Akhenaten was perhaps the first to untangle the mess caused by so many aspects of the sun being given human(ish) form, and control of various aspects of the world they saw around them. Perhaps even call them saints, it is the same process. Shows how retrograde some religions are 3,400 years after the nonsense was swept away, for a short time.... There are no children of darkness, we are all the children of light. Even in a duality there is no dark and light side in the sense of good and evil. This duality is, to me, simply a way ancient peoples rationalised day and night, life and death. Horus of the two horizons is a duality contained in one being. Not good and evil, simply different phases of one being, Ra, or Aten if you wish, which many don't....

True monsters, children of the dark, without redeeming features, like dangerous powerful gods, are all constructs to frighten the children into submission. Monsters such as Hitler are simply people who are damaged, not agents of some sentient evil force. There is only light, and we are it's children.

Edited September 26, 2012 by Atentutankh-pasheri