Reading the Bible again and have some questions

[Clear]

What I find fascinating, and I say this as someone who once believed in the Trinity, is that Genesis is a foreshadowing of the Trinity. Do you agree with that? Genesis 1:26 - 'Let us make man in our image.' The ''us'' has been speculated to mean that God could have been addressing his court (of angels) but angels didn't help in the creation of mankind. But, most likely, the commentators are saying ...the ''us'' signifies the first hint of the Trinity.

Hi Deidre. I like your thinking Deidre and the underlying logic of your tentative models.

1) Regarding the Phrase : “Let us make man in our image” (Gen 1:26)
Relatively modern (Post c.e.) rabbinic Judaism adopted the interpretation that God was speaking to angels in this phrase whereas the early Christian description described God the Father speaking to his Son Jesus who was among the spirits that existed before creation of the earth. For example, The Epistle Barnabas represents this model when it says :

“For the Scripture speaks about us when he says to the Son: “Let us make man according to our image and likeness, and let them rule over the beasts of the earth and the birds of the air and the fish of the sea.” And when he saw that our creation was good, the Lord said: “Increase and multiply and fill the earth.” These things he said to the Son. (The Epistle of Barnabas 6:12)


2) Regarding creation of material things (planets, stars, etc.)
Early Judeo-Christian documents describe the ancient Christian doctrine that God the Father originated the plan to send spirits of mankind to a mortal world for their education. But God then directs his Son to accomplish the actual material creation. This is why the many early Judeo-Christian texts (synagogal prayers and other Judeo-Christian texts) describe the son as being the Creator. For example :

“O Creator, Savior, rich One in favors, Long-sufferer, and supplier of mercy, who do not withdraw from the salvation of your creatures!.... 38 For you are the Father of wisdom, the Creator, as cause, of the creative workmanship through a Mediator...41 the God and Father of the Christ,... (Hellenistic Synagogal Prayers - #4:2, 38, 41)

Prayer #5 also echoes this same early doctrine : “O Lord, Almighty One, you created the cosmos through Christ, and marked out a Sabbath day for a remembrance of this. “ (Hellenistic Synagogal Prayers - #5:1-2)

The ancient Prayer of thanksgiving was : “We give thanks to you, O God and Father of Jesus our Savior...on behalf of the knowledge and faith and love and immortality which you gave to us through Jesus your Son. 4 O Master Almighty, the God of the universe, you created the world and what is in it through him, ... (aposCon 7.26. 1-3)

The ancient prayer #3 read : “ Blessed are you, O Lord, King of the ages, who through Christ made everything, and through him in the beginning ordered that which was unprepared; who separated waters from waters with a firmament, and put a lively spirit in these;...” (Hellenistic Synagogal Prayers - #3:1)

This doctrinal model continued in multiple textual witnesses : “[the] Logos followed Will for through the logos, Christ created all things. (The Secret Book of John of Sophia)

Whether one follows the doctrine under the appellation of “the Son”, or “the Christ” or “the word”, the doctrine is consistent in the early Judeo-Christian textual witnesses. The Odes of Solomon reads : “As the work of the farmer is the plough and the helmsman the guidance of the ship so my work is a song to the Lord ....He created and rested. Created things follow a pattern. They do not know rest. ....And nothing exists without the Lord. He was before anything was, and our worlds were made by his word, his thought and his heart. “ THE ODES OF SOLOMON ODE 16;

Right, okay. So there was no beginning in terms of humans, before this beginning. ....I do believe that there could have been angels - that explains Lucifer. Lucifer who eventually became Satan, and God created Lucifer, as an angel. You know that story?

3) Regarding beings that existed as spirits prior to the material creation of the earth (upon which these spirits now live as people)

Again, I think your logic regarding Satan existing prior to the world is quite good.

Regarding Satan existing before the earth, Jesus said : "...I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven. (Luke 10:18). The doctrine that Lucifer (Satan/Iblis/the Devil, etc) existed with other angels is not only quite orthodox, but there is a great deal of early literature describing the fall of Lucifer from heaven inside the authentic early Judao-christian theology. In fact, the Christian, Jewish and Islamic traditions all intersect and agree on the most common tradition regarding the fall of Lucifer.


God, Angels and the spirits of mankind existed prior to the creation of the world
If the early Christians were correct in their description that matter existed from which God created the worlds, then it should not be surprising that they also believed that the spirits of mankind also existed before the creation of the world. (In fact, the world was created for them).

The early Judao-christian doctrine of Pre-existence underlies the earliest Judeo-Christian assumptions and illuminates other theological considerations : “And as Jesus passed by, he saw a man which was blind from his birth. And his disciples asked him, saying, Master, who did sin, this man, or his parents, that he was born blind? (Jn 9:1)” In such verses, the apostles are simply making the assumption that the man both existed and could sin before birth.

IF one knows that the disciples assumed that a persons’ spirit pre-existed birth, then it becomes clear that the concept of pre-existence is simply assumed in early theology, in their world-view and in their questions they ask.

: ”... I saw a hundred thousand times a hundred thousand, ten million times ten million, an innumerable and uncountable (multitude) who stand before the glory of the Lord of the Spirits. (1st Enoch 40:1)

The great scribe Enoch is commanded by the angel to : “... write all the souls of men, whatever of them are not yet born, and their places, prepared for eternity. 5 For all souls are prepared for eternity, before the composition of the earth.” (2nd Enoch 23:4-5) In his vision the angel bids Enoch, “Come and I will show you the souls of the righteous who have already been created and have returned, and the souls of the righteous who have not yet been created.”

After seeing various pre-existent souls, the ancient midrashic explanation is given us by himself Enoch regarding these many souls says : “the spirit shall clothe itself in my presence” refers to the souls of the righteous which have already been created in the storehouse of beings and have returned to the presence of god; and “the souls which I have made” refers to the souls of the righteous which have not yet been created in the storehouse.” (3rd Enoch 43:1-3)

The vast ascension literature, describes the pre-creation realm of spirits. Abraham, in his ascension Vision describes the unnumbered spirits he sees, many of whom are waiting to come into mortality. The angel says to Abraham : “Look now beneath your feet at the firmament and understand the creation that was depicted of old (i.e. planned). Among other things Abraham says “I saw there a great crowd of men and women and children, half of them on the right side of the portrayal, and half of them on the left side of the portrayal.”... He asks : “Eternal, Mighty One! What is this picture of creation?” 2 And he said to me, “This is my will with regard to what is in the council and it became good before my face (i.e. according to his plan).. “These who are on the left side are a multitude of tribes who existed previously...and through you. some (who have been) prepared for being put in order (slav” restoration”), others for revenge and perdition at the end of the age....those on the right side of the picture are the people set apart for me of the people with azazel; these are the ones I have prepared to be born of you and to be called my people (The Apocalypse of Abraham 21:1-7 and 22:1-5 and 23:1-3)

The doctrine of pre-mortal existence of the spirits within men permeates the biblical text as well. A knowledge of this simple principle explains and underlying so many of the quotes in many other texts as well. In the Old testament it was said : “Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it. (ecclesiates 12:7).

This principle of RETURNING to God is mirrored in multiple other early Judao Christian texts as well : When God the Father commands the son to “Go, take the soul of my beloved Sedrach, and put it in Paradise.” The only begotten Son said to Sedrach, “give me that which our Father deposited in the womb of your mother in your holy dwelling place since you were born.” (The Apocalypse of Sedrach 9:1-2 and 5).

When the Son finally DOES take the Soul of the Mortal Sedrach, he simply takes it back to God “where it came from”. God’s statement to the prophet Sedrach is simply a rephrase of what God said in Old Testament Ecclesiastes 12:7...” and the dust returns to the ground it came from, and the spirit returns to God who gave it.” This principle is repeated in this same ancient usage in many of the ancient sacred texts from the earliest periods.

“Jesus said, “Blessed are the solitary and elect, for you will find the Kingdom. For you are from it, and to it you will return.” (THE GOSPEL OF THOMAS v 49)

“Therefore, fear not death. For that which is from me, that is the soul, departs for heaven. That which is from the earth, that is the body, departs for the earth from which it was taken.” (The Greek Apocalypse of Ezra 6:26 & 7:1-4)

The Early Christian usage of Ecclesiates 12:7 was used in this same way by the Apostle Peter as he explained to Clement that "This world was made so that the number of spirits predestined to come here when their number was full could receive their bodies and again be conducted back to the light." (Recognitions)


I think the more ancient Judeo-Christian doctrines make much more sense and are much more intuitive and rational than the many interpretations of later Christian movements and a return to these early doctrines will create the most accurate models of what God is doing. Still, whether the early Judeo-Christians were correct on their doctrines or not, I hope your spiritual journey is satisfying and wonderful as you synthesize your own concepts and ideas as to what is going on inside of this mortal existence.


Clear
δρδρδρω

 

[DaniëlT]

Before there was life on earth, it was barren and desolate. But God made it teeming with life, so the Lord always finds a way through all obstacles, in the same way that Moses crossed the red sea, against all odds. Mankind is His image, it was designed to create.

 

[outlawState]

Can someone explain that part to me, in better detail, as you understand it?.

The way to see it is that the Bible is not a scientific text book in respect of geophysics and never intended to be. What the author of Gen is doing is reducing the conceptually unique elements or stages of creation into an ordered whole, as deduced from what has been created, and identifying them as stages or periods of God's creativity, to discover the biblically significant number of 6 days of creation or work and a seventh day for rest.

Your separate question relates to the polytheistic civilizations. I tend to think that originally created mankind (outside of Adam) were not polytheistic but nature / fertility worshipping. Polytheism grew up at a later stage, where legends turned ancient human rulers into gods. One tribe took over another tribe's gods, and new gods were artificially invented once polytheism became established, but even within polytheism, there were usually higher or sovereign gods with a rough equivalent to the Hebrew YHWH. In fact this is the origin of El and Elohim, originally the head of the Canaanite pantheon that has analogies in Babylon too.

The Bible is only interested in the history of the Jews, of which Adam is the progenitor. He is said to be a living being i.e. in communication with God. Presumably there were other tribes of homosapiens who were not then regarded as essentially different from animals by the Jews, at a spiritual level. They were men of wickedness who probably interbred with Cain’s descendents in Canaan. Some, or at least those of them co-existing in the locale of the Sethites, were destroyed with the flood (Genesis 6:1-6) This is why Jesus refers to the Canaanites as dogs, i.e. not descended from Adam, or relegated by interbreeding to those who were never descended from Adam at all. For such Christianity is their only hope of salvation.

 

[Deidre]

The way to see it is that the Bible is not a scientific text book in respect of geophysics and never intended to be. What the author of Gen is doing is reducing the conceptually unique elements or stages of creation into an ordered whole, as deduced from what has been created, and identifying them as stages or periods of God's creativity, to discover the biblically significant number of 6 days of creation or work and a seventh day for rest.

Your separate question relates to the polytheistic civilizations. I tend to think that originally created mankind (outside of Adam) were not polytheistic but nature / fertility worshipping. Polytheism grew up at a later stage, where legends turned ancient human rulers into gods. One tribe took over another tribe's gods, and new gods were artificially invented once polytheism became established, but even within polytheism, there were usually higher or sovereign gods with a rough equivalent to the Hebrew YHWH. In fact this is the origin of El and Elohim, originally the head of the Canaanite pantheon that has analogies in Babylon too.

The Bible is only interested in the history of the Jews, of which Adam is the progenitor. He is said to be a living being i.e. in communication with God. Presumably there were other tribes of homosapiens who were not then regarded as essentially different from animals by the Jews, at a spiritual level. They were men of wickedness who probably interbred with Cain’s descendents in Canaan. Some, or at least those of them co-existing in the locale of the Sethites, were destroyed with the flood (Genesis 6:1-6) This is why Jesus refers to the Canaanites as dogs, i.e. not descended from Adam, or relegated by interbreeding to those who were never descended from Adam at all. For such Christianity is their only hope of salvation.

Thank you for explaining this.

 

[pearl]

[QUOTE="Deidre, post: 5289319, member: 55994 In the footnote, it specifically states it plainly that there really would be no way for Moses (who is ascribed to as it relates to Genesis) to know this. I'd have to agree, just taking it for face value.[/QUOTE]

As with the study of any one book, its vital to understand how this one book, in this case, Gen. fits with the whole of the Pentateuch, its purpose, its place. In relationship to the Pentateuch as a whole, Genesis has as its purpose to show God's providential preparation of the Israelite people, born of the events of Exodus.

 

[metis]

I tend to think that originally created mankind (outside of Adam) were not polytheistic but nature / fertility worshipping. Polytheism grew up at a later stage, where legends turned ancient human rulers into gods. One tribe took over another tribe's gods, and new gods were artificially invented once polytheism became established, but even within polytheism, there were usually higher or sovereign gods with a rough equivalent to the Hebrew YHWH. In fact this is the origin of El and Elohim, originally the head of the Canaanite pantheon that has analogies in Babylon too.

It's far more likely the other way around because all of what we find that predates the development of monotheism in Egypt and in eretz Israel indicates polytheism. In pretty much all polytheistic religions there's one deity that tends to more stand out, so not all deities are considered equal.

 

[outlawState]

It's far more likely the other way around because all of what we find that predates the development of monotheism in Egypt and in eretz Israel indicates polytheism. In pretty much all polytheistic religions there's one deity that tends to more stand out, so not all deities are considered equal.

The oldest religious symbols by far are the Venus figurines from the Gravettian period (26,000–21,000 years ago), They are believed to be fertility icons or representations of a mother goddess. It seems to me that this elemental nature/fertility worship preceded the development of complex polytheistic systems, which can only be explained by syncretic evolution of different tribal beliefs, where the each tribe's god is retained. It is common in advanced polytheistic systems to find gods coming and going, in favour and out of favour, depending on faction or party. Thus at the Kaaba in Saudi Arabia there used to be a vast number of idols, originating from diverse places, including both Allah and Hubal, who were eventually merged.

In Babylon and that area of the word, it is known that some of the gods were rulers of old. Thus Nimrod an ancient ruler became the god Ninurta, a prominent god in Mesopotamian religion.

 

[metis]

The oldest religious symbols by far are the Venus figurines from the Gravettian period (26,000–21,000 years ago), They are believed to be fertility icons or representations of a mother goddess. It seems to me that this elemental nature/fertility worship preceded the development of complex polytheistic systems, which can only be explained by syncretic evolution of different tribal beliefs, where the each tribe's god is retained. It is common in advanced polytheistic systems to find gods coming and going, in favour and out of favour, depending on faction or party. Thus at the Kaaba in Saudi Arabia there used to be a vast number of idols, originating from diverse places, including both Allah and Hubal, who were eventually merged.

In Babylon and that area of the word, it is known that some of the gods were rulers of old. Thus Nimrod an ancient ruler became the god Ninurta, a prominent god in Mesopotamian religion.

As to the first part, that's not likely because fertility goddesses in most cultures also had other deities as well. Most deities tend to relate to the basic economic lifestyle of the society, thus when some hunters & gatherers morphed into horticultural societies, the status of their deities tended to change, including some being dropped and some being added.
In h & g societies, it's usually one specific animal that tended to dominate, such as the polar bear in Inuit society and the bison with the Plains Indians. In horticultural societies, it's often the sun deity that dominates.

It actually tends to be monotheistic societies that have the greatest problem of trying to mesh good & bad into one deity. Even in Christian and Jewish theology, there's this conflict whereas how can a "loving God" also be the source of hostile and brutal actions, such as within the Exodus narrative?

Other than the first part of your post, the rest I tend to be in likely agreement with.

 

[outlawState]

As to the first part, that's not likely because fertility goddesses in most cultures also had other deities as well. Most deities tend to relate to the basic economic lifestyle of the society, thus when some hunters & gatherers morphed into horticultural societies, the status of their deities tended to change, including some being dropped and some being added.
In h & g societies, it's usually one specific animal that tended to dominate, such as the polar bear in Inuit society and the bison with the Plains Indians. In horticultural societies, it's often the sun deity that dominates.

It actually tends to be monotheistic societies that have the greatest problem of trying to mesh good & bad into one deity. Even in Christian and Jewish theology, there's this conflict whereas how can a "loving God" also be the source of hostile and brutal actions, such as within the Exodus narrative?

Other than the first part of your post, the rest I tend to be in likely agreement with.

I don't think that animals that are eaten are going to be made into "gods." The Venus figurines are archaeological fact and they are found all over the place. They also predate polytheistic civiliazations by a very long time. It's not a question of polytheistic theological doctrine, but one of archaeology. These are the earliest known representations of god-statutes and are symbolic and stylistic.

Evil is explained by the attributes of God and of man. It's those who can't conceive these attributes properly who have problems with evil. There are not many gods that are specifically evil and such as there are occur in later dualist systems, such as Manichaeism, Marcionism and all manner of heretics who hate the Old Testament.

 

[metis]

I don't think that animals that are eaten are going to be made into "gods."

Then I suggest you actually look it up and find out for yourself.

The Venus figurines are archaeological fact and they are found all over the place. They also predate polytheistic civiliazations by a very long time.

You are making an assumption and declaring it as being a fact. You might check pictures of the cave drawings that predate these figurines that were drawn by "Cro-Magnon", as well as pictographs from various locations.

It's not a question of polytheistic theological doctrine, but one of archaeology.

Exactly, and I am an anthropologist who has studied this for roughly 50 years, taught it for 30 years, plus also including being involved in a dig in Israel in the summer of 1998. I also taught a comparative religions course as a spin-off from my anthropology.

Evil is explained by the attributes of God and of man. It's those who can't conceive these attributes properly who have problems with evil.

Tell that to the Jewish sages and theologians who have had much difficulty trying to figure out why God would "harden Pharaoh's heart", just for one example?

Another example is the difficulty that Christian missionaries had with attempting to convert the Inuit, the latter of which could not understand how a "loving God" can let or even cause nasty things to happen to innocent people.

Now, maybe it's time for you to get off your high-horse, do some serious studying, and then come back and we can discuss this further. If you need suggestions on some reading material, just let me know, OK? Until then, ...



BTW, you might just want to check out the last issue of BAR.

 

[outlawState]

Then I suggest you actually look it up and find out for yourself.

No, if you dispute something you provide the evidence. The only animals that I know of that are worshipped, are regarded as sacred, and not to be killed. Thus snakes and birds etc in Eqypt were not exactly meat.

I know of no society that worshipped farm animals.

You are making an assumption and declaring it as being a fact. You might check pictures of the cave drawings that predate these figurines that were drawn by "Cro-Magnon", as well as pictographs from various locations.

Just because animals are drawn on a cave does not mean that they are worshipped.

Exactly, and I am an anthropologist who has studied this for roughly 50 years, taught it for 30 years, plus also including being involved in a dig in Israel in the summer of 1998. I also taught a comparative religions course as a spin-off from my anthropology.

Well then start telling us what you know instead of criticizing me all the time.

Tell that to the Jewish sages and theologians who have had much difficulty trying to figure out why God would "harden Pharaoh's heart", just for one example?

God doing something with respect to humans, like hardening their hearts, is allowing humans to do their natural thing. It's still the human that makes the decisions. God does not do things in the way that humans would do something.

Another example is the difficulty that Christian missionaries had with attempting to convert the Inuit, the latter of which could not understand how a "loving God" can let or even cause nasty things to happen to innocent people.

Now, maybe it's time for you to get off your high-horse, do some serious studying, and then come back and we can discuss this further. If you need suggestions on some reading material, just let me know, OK? Until then, ...

Such questions and difficulties arise from not apprehending the nature of God and men. There are no "innocent people." I think that is rather a fundamental doctrine of Christianity. I was rather taught the converse when I was young, that I was a black insignificant spec of sin. If the Inuit are supposing that there are innocent, they have not been taught properly.

BTW, you might just want to check out the last issue of BAR.

What is BAR?

 

[metis]

What is BAR?

"Biblical Archaeology Review".

BTW, I did not say "farm animals".

Also, even though I'm not crazy about the source, this segment from Wikipedia does fit into what I had described: Quasi-monotheistic claims of the existence of a universal deity date to the Late Bronze Age, with Akhenaten's Great Hymn to the Aten. A possible inclination towards monotheism emerged during the Vedic period[14] in Iron-Age South Asia. TheRigveda exhibits notions of monism of the Brahman, particularly in the comparatively late tenth book,[15] which is dated to the early Iron Age, e.g. in the Nasadiya sukta. Bonpa Dharma, perhaps from twentieth century BCE,[16] was the first recorded religion to declare that there is one God above all, whom it calls Sangpo Bumtri.[17] However, it does not encourage monotheistic worship of a Sangpo Bumtri or any god for salvation but rather it focuses on karma. -- Monotheism - Wikipedia

Also, a reminder that many cultures, including what happened at Sinai, worshiped the spirits of animals such as the "golden calf" that we made during the Exodus. Old habits die slowly. BTW, ever see a "totem pole"? Any idea what it represented and how it was "used"?

The point is all the observations we have indicate polytheism existed before the development of monotheism, and there's not one iota of evidence that suggest that any culture worshiped one deity prior to the Egyptians, and they only did so under one pharaoh.

 

[metis]

Just because animals are drawn on a cave does not mean that they are worshipped.

Except there are footfalls in a circular pattern that suggest dance, and such activities we normally associate with ceremonies.

God doing something with respect to humans, like hardening their hearts, is allowing humans to do their natural thing.

Except that was an active role done by God, not a passive one, and this action by God led to the killing of a great many people, according to Exodus, including children.

There are no "innocent people." I think that is rather a fundamental doctrine of Christianity.

Not all churches buy into the concept of "original sin", and even some that do have difficulty with that concept at the literal level because it implies that you have sinned even before you were born because someone else sinned many years ago. At the literal level, that makes not one iota of sense, but at a more symbolic level, it can.

 

[Thief]

I didn't want to post this outside of the DIR, lest there be comments that lead to a debate. I'm not looking to debate, I'm looking to see what someone who is a true follower of the Bible believes. And why you believe it.

Okay, so I'm reading a study Bible, English Standard Version, and so far I like it a lot. It explains things in long footnote form, that helps me to better understand the depiction of some of these Bible passages.I'm reading it all with an open mind.

So, I'm fascinated right now by how in Genesis, in the very beginning it states ''the earth was without form and void.'' In the footnote, it specifically states it plainly that there really would be no way for Moses (who is ascribed to as it relates to Genesis) to know this. I'd have to agree, just taking it for face value.

So, in the footnotes, the Bible scholars responsible for this study guide, go on to say that there were polytheist civilizations that competed with the Hebrew God. Can someone explain that part to me, in better detail, as you understand it?

I look forward to a good discussion, and like I said, I'm reading this with an open mind.

indeed.....with an open mind.....

when I read that catch phrase.....earth without form and void....
I noticed it was actually two sentences butted against each other

the earth.....no form
the earth ....was void

these are two separate ideas lumped back to back

I also noticed.....the earth was not created until several days after that first pronouncement.....
Let there be light

therefore the opening line is not about earth as we see earth under our feet
that initial 'point' of existence had nothing to speak of

no light.....no shadow
no heat ....no cold....
nowhere to be
nowhere to go

the inky black of perfection
the universe was uniform .......lacking any and all.......form

light is an aberration

 

[outlawState]

Except there are footfalls in a circular pattern that suggest dance, and such activities we normally associate with ceremonies.

Could just be walking around. Dangerous to dance in a cave.

Except that was an active role done by God, not a passive one, and this action by God led to the killing of a great many people, according to Exodus, including children.

No distinction between active and passive with God. That is a human attribute. Morally God is able to destroy what he created. That is why he should be feared. He cannot be criticized for withdrawing that which he gave,

Not all churches buy into the concept of "original sin", and even some that do have difficulty with that concept at the literal level because it implies that you have sinned even before you were born because someone else sinned many years ago. At the literal level, that makes not one iota of sense, but at a more symbolic level, it can.

There are two kinds of original sin, the heretical which comes by transfer at birth, which is beloved by followers of Augustine, and the pragmatic which notes only that all sin in that all follow the flesh, just because sin is in the world. i.e. sinning is by immitation. That is why everyone who says "I have not sinned" is a liar (1st epistle John),

 

[Thief]

There are two kinds of original sin, the heretical which comes by transfer at birth, which is beloved by followers of Augustine, and the pragmatic which notes only that all sin in that all follow the flesh, just because sin is in the world. i.e. sinning is by immitation.

so you are using the word 'original' more to a sense of 'type'
rather than event

?????

 

[outlawState]

so you are using the word 'original' more to a sense of 'type'
rather than event
?????

I suppose so. This is the "original sin" adopted by John Wesley in contradistinction to Augustine. Sinning is by immitation of the sin that is alreay in the world, and because of the weakness of the flesh. No-one can claim that they have not done it.

 

[metis]

Could just be walking around. Dangerous to dance in a cave.

Except they used torches, which we know from the build-up of residue on the cave walls.

Again, to repeat, there is not one shred of evidence that you have put forth that even suggests any monotheism that predates the Egyptians, and the reason you can't do that is because none has been found. OTOH, there's significant documentation of polytheism prior to that due to a variety of finds, such as finding cave bear skulls in a circular pattern facing outward around dead Neanderthal men in some locations in Europe.

No distinction between active and passive with God.

There very much is a difference if God does something versus does nothing.

There are two kinds of original sin, the heretical which comes by transfer at birth

So, if your grandfather committed murder, should we put you on trial for murder as well do to this inherited sin?

and the pragmatic which notes only that all sin in that all follow the flesh, just because sin is in the world.

Most Christian groups believe one can only sin by intent, not accident, so how can a just-born child sin? What about a child that's severely mentally challenged?

IMO, the more sensible application is that eventually almost all of us will sin due to the many temptations that we'll be exposed to, which may fit your definition of "pragmatic".

 

[outlawState]

Except they used torches, which we know from the build-up of residue on the cave walls.

Again, to repeat, there is not one shred of evidence that you have put forth that even suggests any monotheism that predates the Egyptians, and the reason you can't do that is because none has been found. OTOH, there's significant documentation of polytheism prior to that due to a variety of finds, such as finding cave bear skulls in a circular pattern facing outward around dead Neanderthal men in some locations in Europe.

I think you have completely misunderstood me. I never equated nature or fertility worship with monotheism. I only said that it seems to have predated polytheism. The biblical Adam is the progenitor of monotheism and arrived quite late on the scene.

For the sake of argument I could accept that true polytheism had begun to develop by the time that Adam was placed in the garden of Eden, but it doesn't matter one way or the other vis-a-vis the bible.

There very much is a difference if God does something versus does nothing.

God only has to speak to make something happen. "Even the winds and the waves obey him!" He doesn't have to "do" anything.

So, if your grandfather committed murder, should we put you on trial for murder as well do to this inherited sin?

I called that version (sin by reason of birth) "heretical." You'll need to take it up with a calvinist or a catholic. I don't believe in it.

Most Christian groups believe one can only sin by intent, not accident, so how can a just-born child sin? What about a child that's severely mentally challenged?

You'll need to pay greater attention to what I say. I called that version of sin heretical. Negligent sin is of course possible. It's what happens when you take your eye off the ball.

IMO, the more sensible application is that eventually almost all of us will sin due to the many temptations that we'll be exposed to, which may fit your definition of "pragmatic".

Well you agree with me on something then.

 

[Thief]

I suppose so. This is the "original sin" adopted by John Wesley in contradistinction to Augustine. Sinning is by immitation of the sin that is alreay in the world, and because of the weakness of the flesh. No-one can claim that they have not done it.

years ago I studied Spanish.....never really caught on.......but....

sin.....means ......without

we are born without God
we could live our lives without Hm
and die without Him

born in sin
live in sin
die that way

some say sin can only be relieved by God Himself

well....if living without God IS sin
then it's true
only His Presence can take it away