Growing up in the SDA church, I learned what I thought was a very common narrative on the story of the fall and subsequent redemption of mankind.

If anyone wants to answer, I'm curious what you believe the overarching biblical plot is—what is the story behind the scenes in other words—whether it's your own interpretation or the one you were taught. What led up to the creation mankind, and where is it all going after the fall?

(Or do you even process it as a fall/redemption story in the first place? Perhaps that phrasing is already too bounded for some interpretations.)

I think the fall is one of the most brilliant pieces of storytelling in the entire thing. It describes the childhood of man and men as interchangeable from the first to the then-present and still resonates in the now-present and by comparison, the other story of a christian redemption hasn't fared quite as well over an even smaller time period. The two stories are from separate cultures thousands of years removed from each other. There is no singular narrative from beginning to end largely because of that fact and the differences between. I think that the christian invention of redemption using a tortured misunderstanding of the coming davidic warlord was a more inclusive social vision. I've always found it odd that the line on this is that the jews got it wrong..rather than the christians getting it right.

I think..generously, the story behind the scenes is one of an extension of human society and equality and the rejection of those parts of us which, while natural, are certainly not great. Of our ability to summon hope even in the face of mortality, and our ability to dream (if not actually establish) a better kingdom here on earth by reference to an idealized kingdom of heaven. Freed of our past burdens and empowered by a new solidarity.

What a brilliant question!

For some, I would advise listening to the Kings Cambridge “9 lessons and carols” service on Xmas Eve. Milner-White did a fantastic job summarising the Xian story in readings.

A TL;DR version might perhaps be:

Humanity discovers disobedience to God. This is incompatible with eternal life so God goes all Timberlake.
God has a plan to solve this problem, which involves the descendants of Abraham. However they prove not up to the task, and a cycle of sin->exile->forgiveness->restoration gets repeated over and over.
God promised in a series of prophecies that He would sort out all these problems personally, and subsequently set up the Kingdom of God (KoG).
Israel gets exiled to Babylon and the return is not seen as proper forgiveness.
Around AD 33 Jesus says stuff about the KoG arriving, he dies and gets resurrected. As Israel's representative, he's sorted out the sin/death problem. The KoG is started, and we live in the latest act, in which this message is taken to the world.

(August 17, 2022 at 2:19 pm)The Grand Nudger Wrote: The two stories are from separate cultures thousands of years removed from each other.  There is no singular narrative from beginning to end largely because of that fact and the differences between.

Why do gospels and epistles make such a massive effort to show how the death and resurrection fit into prophecy and the whole OT narrative? Surely Jesus' death only means what it means because it is in a pretty rigid OT/prophecy framework?

(August 17, 2022 at 2:19 pm)The Grand Nudger Wrote: I've always found it odd that the line on this is that the jews got it wrong..rather than the christians getting it right.  

Would a better historical model be that Judaism forked between those who decided Jesus did bring in forgiveness etc and those who disagree?

(August 21, 2022 at 11:42 am)Vicki Q Wrote:

(August 17, 2022 at 2:19 pm)The Grand Nudger Wrote: The two stories are from separate cultures thousands of years removed from each other.  There is no singular narrative from beginning to end largely because of that fact and the differences between.

Why do gospels and epistles make such a massive effort to show how the death and resurrection fit into prophecy and the whole OT narrative? Surely Jesus' death only means what it means because it is in a pretty rigid OT/prophecy framework?

In a rigid OT framework, jesus' death means nothing in particular.  Why do the gospels and epistles make effort to recast the OT as it's own supporting documentation?  Because they felt it useful to their new religion.  There was quite a bit of debate in proto christianity whether the whole lot could be cast aside.  It could have been - but that's not the camp that won out in the end.  For better and for worse (largely for worse..I'd contend, obvs) christian authority determined that christianity could not make it on it's own.

Quote:

(August 17, 2022 at 2:19 pm)The Grand Nudger Wrote: I've always found it odd that the line on this is that the jews got it wrong..rather than the christians getting it right.  

Would a better historical model be that Judaism forked between those who decided Jesus did bring in forgiveness etc and those who disagree?

There's nothing explicitly historically accurate about relative moral ideologies.  There, I'm expressing my amazement that this is even contextualized as an item of historical disagreement, rather than ideological.  As though the christian's new religion was the proper historical form of judaism, through the implication of prophecy.  It isn't.  It is, however, a much more inclusive view of The People than judaisms ethnocentric wargod. Judaism did not get itself wrong. Christianity got an item of moral import right, and in so doing, ideologically distinguished itself from it's (alleged.....)predecessor.

You could not become, by self affirmation, a member of the chosen people under the previous view of divinity. This necessarrily constrained it's share of the religious market. Altering that notion was both good....and profitable.

It's total BS, the ony thing that lead to the creation of mankind is a few million years of evolution

(August 21, 2022 at 12:07 pm)zebo-the-fat Wrote: It's total BS, the ony thing that lead to the creation of mankind is a few million years of evolution

Simply because a story isn’t factually true doesn’t mean it can’t be instructive, especially since the OP isn’t about creation.

While I agree with Nudger that there’s no real connection - other than a politically motivated one - between the Fall and the Redemption fables, the former is chiefly meant as a lesson on the consequences of disobedience (and not just disobedience to God), while the latter is a rather cynical way to try to keep the plebes in line.

Boru

(August 17, 2022 at 2:05 pm)John 6IX Breezy Wrote: Growing up in the SDA church, I learned what I thought was a very common narrative on the story of the fall and subsequent redemption of mankind.

If anyone wants to answer, I'm curious what you believe the overarching biblical plot is—what is the story behind the scenes in other words—whether it's your own interpretation or the one you were taught. What led up to the creation mankind, and where is it all going after the fall?

(Or do you even process it as a fall/redemption story in the first place? Perhaps that phrasing is already too bounded for some interpretations.)

The overarching story behind the Bible is you are worthless by birth,  and you should discard any means to make yourself feel less worthless except by listening to one particular set of outrageous liars.

(August 21, 2022 at 12:46 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote:

(August 21, 2022 at 12:07 pm)zebo-the-fat Wrote: It's total BS, the ony thing that lead to the creation of mankind is a few million years of evolution

Simply because a story isn’t factually true doesn’t mean it can’t be instructive, especially since the OP isn’t about creation.

While I agree with Nudger that there’s no real connection - other than a politically motivated one - between the Fall and the Redemption fables, the former is chiefly meant as a lesson on the consequences of disobedience (and not just disobedience to God), while the latter is a rather cynical way to try to keep the plebes in line.

Boru

The issue isn’t whether or not a non- factual story can be instructive.   The issue is such instruction as a particular story might seem to offer is intended as the bait for what?

(August 17, 2022 at 2:05 pm)John 6IX Breezy Wrote: Growing up in the SDA church, I learned what I thought was a very common narrative on the story of the fall and subsequent redemption of mankind.

If anyone wants to answer, I'm curious what you believe the overarching biblical plot is—what is the story behind the scenes in other words—whether it's your own interpretation or the one you were taught. What led up to the creation mankind, and where is it all going after the fall?

(Or do you even process it as a fall/redemption story in the first place? Perhaps that phrasing is already too bounded for some interpretations.)

The whole story is predicated on the existence of two human beings, Adam & Eve, from whom, per the story, all of humankind descended.  Of course, this idea is wholly false:

What Genetics Says About Adam and Eve

Pope Pius XII recognized this fact stating:

Quote:When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains either that after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parent of all or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled with that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the Teaching Authority of the Church propose with regard to original sin, which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam and which through generation is passed on to all and is in everyone as his own.  (Humani Generis, 37)

(August 21, 2022 at 1:19 pm)Anomalocaris Wrote:

(August 21, 2022 at 12:46 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: Simply because a story isn’t factually true doesn’t mean it can’t be instructive, especially since the OP isn’t about creation.

While I agree with Nudger that there’s no real connection - other than a politically motivated one - between the Fall and the Redemption fables, the former is chiefly meant as a lesson on the consequences of disobedience (and not just disobedience to God), while the latter is a rather cynical way to try to keep the plebes in line.

Boru

The issue isn’t whether or not a non- factual story can be instructive.   The issue is such instruction as a particular story might seem to offer is intended as the bait for what?

I think I just answered that.

Boru