Deep Sight:

@ Pastor - That there are common threads in mythology cannot be denied. I cannot go over this all over again, I have said everything I have to say in the thread "Four Noble Truths." In one instance you are ready to see similarities but in another instance of equally clear similarities you say - "I don't think that it is right or fair on either tradition to be mixing and conflating them."

Basically you are able to draw similarities about trees and fruits, but this -

- - - - which contains strong similarities with that which is conveyed in the first three verses of John 1 - you shy away from 'mixing and conflating'. . . I could just as well adjure you not to 'mix and conflate' the other traditions you mentioned, some of which are not even as compelling in similarity as this one. . .

To have been present at the creation is not enough to make one the Logos. The Logos is the MEANS by which the world is created. That is quite different from merely being a witness to it. If I see you sleeping with your wife that does not mean that I have myself slept with your wife.

Personally if I were to try to find a parallel for the logos in yoruba mythology or philosophical thinking then I would go for Ori. Ori is said to have the authority, it is said to be the Eleda eni, one's creator and it is understood as the format of existence.

Orunmila being witness to the works of God is quite different from being God. I think that in order to say that 2 myths have anything in common it requires the presentation of more than just one commonality. In your case the only thing they have in common is the fact that logos and Orunmila were both present at the creation.

However in the iconography of the Garden of Eden we find not only 1) a tree in the middle, 2)rivers running out of the garden (a source of water), 3)A serpent and 4)a goddess closely connected to the tree, and 5) the fruit of the tree which confers enlightenment, and the 6)goddess offering the fruit of the tree to the man. How many common elements is that?

Please how is the above 'not even as compelling in similarity as' Jesus is Orunmila?

Now let us carefully note that there can indeed be different corruptions of the same original myth. Nevertheless not all myths containing the same motifs are related. Trees are an exceedingly common object and I do know of hundreds of myths regarding trees back in my native Cape Coast, Ghana, but I tell you, these have nothing, I say, nothing, to do with Eden or Buddha or even related ideas.

I did not say that there are different corruptions of an original myth. In fact that statement makes it clear to me how far apart our viewpoints are. You are still in the paradigm that I mentioned where a myth starts far back in history and mutates over time, and is passed on from culture to culture when they come into contact with each other. That is not the paradigm via which I understand this phenomenon. I believe these myths to hail, not from some source in ancient history (in time), but rather from a source beyond time. So 2 different cultures don't even have to come into contact with each other in order to share the same myths or mythological iconography. Just like the yodelling of the Congolese Pygmies and the Swiss mountain dwellers. They don't have to have come into contact to share this cultural trait. They could have arrived at it independently.

In other words, I'm talking about one source beyond time (in eternity) that anyone at any point in time (history) at any place (geography) can have access to. These images sprout unbidden and enter into the folklore of peoples. And yes they may interpret them variously.

I know of many myths regarding trees too, but I bet you can not propose one that involves a serpent, a woman, and the fruit from the tree and argue that it has nothing to do with the Garden of eden.

You seem to be mis understanding me, as well as being inconsistent yourself. I could never deny common threads in mythology. And your example in your last post entirely resonates with me. I leave it.

How have I misunderstood you. And how have I been inconsistent?

Let us focus on IFA.

Any one. I quite like the topic on the ground at the moment though. Plus, it's not altogether disconnected from Ifa.

Deep Sight:

You do not see an inconsistency in your views to the extent that you have laboured to draw strings of similarity in religious lore which is identical to the inter-faith attempt of the sort being advanced by Negro Ntns. I did not revert on your serpent and Boddhi/ Eden Trees response above because when I earlier checked out your links there was more to suggest asymmetry than symmetry and I did not wish to go round in circles. It just seems interesting to me that you have turned about to play "spot the differences". . .

how did my links show more to suggest asymmetry than symmetry? Please break this one down for me because I'm very confused.

Where there are differences I'll point them out and where there are similarities I'll point them out too and this is just a simple matter of observation and has nothing to do with being inconsistent.

Pastor AIO:

To have been present at the creation is not enough to make one the Logos.  The Logos is the MEANS by which the world is created.  That is quite different from merely being a witness to it.  If I see you sleeping with your wife that does not mean that I have myself slept with your wife.  

Well you must agree that not all elements are on all-fours in all the myths you cited. Thus for me the mere fact that the similarity is not mutatis mutandis does not operate to obviate the similarity.

Jn. 1.2 does state that the word was with God in the beginning. . .same as Orunlima is said to be. . . Jesus own words speak about having observed everything that the father did - just as Orunmila is said to have done. . . the similarities needn't be exact - as you yourself have shown in your examples.

Personally if I were to try to find a parallel for the logos in yoruba mythology or philosophical thinking then I would go for Ori.  Ori is said to have the authority, it is said to be the Eleda eni, one's creator and it is understood as the format of existence.

Very well. This could be the parallel then. By the time we speak of Orunmila, Ori and Oldumare. . .the Trinity is complete - especially as the functions are not too different. . .your Ori could be the equivalent of Holy Spirit. . .

Orunmila being witness to the works of God is quite different from being God.  I think that in order to say that 2 myths have anything in common it requires the presentation of more than just one commonality.  In your case the only thing they have in common is the fact that logos and Orunmila were both present at the creation.

That is surely not true? Is Orunmila not said to have incarnated just as the Logos is said to have in John 1? That is a second similarity. See here -

Among West Africans, Orunmila is recognized as a primordial Irunmole that was present both at the beginning of Creation and then again amongst them as a prophet that taught an advanced form of spiritual knowledge and ethics, during visits to earth in physical form or through his disciples.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orunmila

And just as in John, 1 - is said to participate in creation - a third similarity : see here -

Orunmila was in heaven assisting Olodumare with the organization and creation of the universe. because of his great assistance and vast wisdom and knowledge, Olodumare sent Orunmila to Earth with Oduduwa to complete the creation and organization of the world, to make it habitable for humans.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orunmila

And undeniably, these three functions or similarities are absolutely core to the activity and ontology of the logos described in the bible, no?

However in the iconography of the Garden of Eden we find not only 1) a tree in the middle, 2)rivers running  out of the garden (a source of water), 3)A serpent and 4)a goddess closely connected to the tree, and 5) the fruit of the tree which confers enlightenment, and the 6)goddess offering the fruit of the tree to the man.  How many common elements is that?  

1. I have shown you that the Orunmila also has at least three very key similarities/ functions. And very core similarities identical to those that are core to the activity. ontology of the logos. Not one similarity, as you claimed.

2. You have drawn a very wide parallel. . .the story of Buddha under a Tree is very different from the Eden Story, do I need to go into this?

3. I do accept that there can be common absorption of these lores from a spiritual source, or as you say, beyond time and space. . . but as you equally noted one should be wary of conflating things unduly.

4. Given that it is possible to draw from a common spiritual source, would you be so bold as to deny that it is also possible to draw from a common historical, cultural or geographical source?

5. Would you not say that given that both occur (sourced from beyond time and space/ and sourced from common historical source) . . . which would you say is more common in this physical world?

6. Surely you do not deny that many similarities in myths are caused by the spread and corruption of a single ancient myth? Or would you say that this does NOT occur AT ALL?

I did not say that there are different corruptions of an original myth.  In fact that statement makes it clear to me how far apart our viewpoints are.  You are still in the paradigm that I mentioned where a myth starts far back in history and mutates over time, and is passed on from culture to culture when they come into contact with each other.  That is not the paradigm via which I understand this phenomenon.  I believe these myths to hail, not from some source in ancient history (in time), but rather from a source beyond time.  So 2 different cultures don't even have to come into contact with each other in order to share the same myths or mythological iconography.  Just like the yodelling of the Congolese Pygmies and the Swiss mountain dwellers.  They don't have to have come into contact to share this cultural trait.  They could have arrived at it independently.

I accept this. For me there is no doubt that it is true. However note the latter questions above, and surely do not suggest to me that this is the ONLY way in which myths spread across the world. Or that ALL myths which appear to have similar motifs are therefore irrevocably ALL sourced from beyond time and space. . .

If that were the case do you not think that there would be greater universal agreement in such matters as the death of christ?  

In other words, I'm talking about one source beyond time (in eternity) that anyone at any point in time (history) at any place (geography)  can have access to.  These images sprout unbidden and enter into the folklore of peoples.  And yes they may interpret them variously.  

Again, accepted.

Genesis creation narrative
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Genesis creation narrative, found in the first two chapters of the Book of Genesis in the Bible, describes a supernatural beginning of the earth and life, and culminates in the creation of humanity in the image of God. As a creation myth it is similar to several ancient Mesopotamian creation stories, differing from them in its monotheistic outlook

Why do you think there are great similarities amongst the Mesopotamian creation myths?

Deep Sight:

Why do you think there are great similarities amongst the Mesopotamian creation myths?

Likely because they are in close proximity to each other. But I don't see what that has to do with anything that we are talking of here. We were talking about the imagery in the Garden of Eden and how it was used to explain the 'fall of man'.

There is no mesopotamian creation myth that mentions Man being placed in a garden, as far as I'm aware.

The Joke of the Ifa discussing, expert named PASTOR AIO must be on the Christians and Christianity.

The Ifa Pastor probably, since I dont for sure, laughing his way to comedy bank on the deficit account of the Christians.

^ Do pray for the day that you might be as gifted with a mind as vast and mobile as Pastor AIOs.

But for now, it will suffice if you exit this thread with permanence, thanks.