• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

The Origin of Us.

Ellen Brown

Well-Known Member
POST ONE OF FOUR

Opening post)



Ellen, I admit I am often a fan of yours. I like your logical questions and comments in the main. I think this specific question of yours, if I understand it correctly, is an important base concept. I don’t like many of the later Christian theories and interpretations where infants come into the world having “inherited” moral taint from something someone else (Adam) did. It smacks of injustice to punish one person for what another person did. I think the early Christian interpretations that Adam is not the cause of moral evil in others. This is the point made in the early Text, Apoc of Baruch when Baruch is telling evil doers not to blame Adam for their evils :


…turn yourselves to destruction, you unrighteous ones who are living now, for you will be visited suddenly, since you have once rejected the understanding of the most High. For his works have not taught you, nor has the artful work of his creation which has existed always persuaded you. Adam is, therefore not the cause, except only for himself, but each of us has become our own Adam. The apocalypse of Baruch (Baruch 2) 54:17-19;


I think such early Judao-Christian doctrines have profound contextual advantages over modern theories. For example, consider the fall of Adam and Eve if one simply adds two simple, but important ancient contexts.

The first principle is reflected by the Prophet Sedrach’s observation to God the Father that : “It was by your will that Adam was deceived, my master (The Apocalypse of Sedrach 5:1-7). In this model, the fall of Adam was known to God beforehand, and in fact, it was his will that his plan for mankinds mortal experience should proceed despite the fact that Adam would fall.

The second principle was the early doctrine that the tree of “knowledge” (γνοστον) which Adam partook of was described as the “TREE OF WISDOM”. In that worldview, it was not simply the tree of "knowledge”.

The implications of both ancient principles was the basis of an entirely different paradigm. Combined and paraphrased, this ancient doctrine was : “IT WAS ACCORDING TO GOD’S WILL THAT ADAM ACQUIRED WISDOM”.

Just as the origin of Satan is not to be understood outside of pre-mortal Christian theology, I do not think the fall of Adam can be well understood without considering Pre-mortality; what God was attempting to with Adam (and the rest of us) and the role of gaining moral wisdom in God’s plan for mankind.



A) PRE-CREATION CONDITIONS RELATING TO ADAM - “GOD WAS IN THE MIDST OF SPIRITS”

According to this early Christian model, God did not create spirits of mankind out of “nothing” (and therefore was responsible for their characteristics – both good and evil). Instead, before the creation of this world, God was in the midst of spirits. Early textual testimonies describe innumerable spirits existing in “heaven” before creation. Regarding pre-creation heaven, Enoch records : "No one could come near unto him [God the Father] from among those that surrounded the tens of millions (that stood) before him". (1 En 14:23)

Enoch continues : "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". (1 Enoch 40:1-2)"

In this ancient doctrine, God was in the midst of spirits of all the spirits who ever lived or will live on this earth. The spirit that was to be clothed in Adam’s body was among these spirits. Jewish haggadah relates : ...With the soul of Adam the souls of all the generations of men were created. They are stored up in a promptuary, in the seventh of the heavens, whence they are drawn as they are needed for human body after human body.” (The Haggadah (The Soul of Man)

The pre-mortal Jesus is among these spirits as well. Enoch describes his vision of seeing the pre-mortal Jesus with the Father. Upon seeing these two individuals, Enoch asks who this individual (the pre-mortal Jesus) was and what role he had in the Father's Plan : "At that place, I saw the Beginning of days [i.e. the Father] And his head was white like wool, and there was with him another individual, whose face was like that of a human being. His countenance was full of grace like that of one among the holy angels. And I asked the one – from among the angels –who was going with me,..."Who is this and from where could he be, and for what reason does he go with him who precedes time?" And he answered me and said to me, "This is the Son of Man, to whom belongs righteousness, and with whom righteousness dwells...the Lord of the spirits has chosen him, and he is destined to be victorious before the Lord of the spirits in eternal uprightness...." (1 Enoch 46:1-4)

The fact that the original plan called for a savior to redeem meant that it was known from the very beginning that man would both fall and need a redeemer to save them from the fall. Early texts such as Jewish Zohar confirm this : “At the time that the Holy One, be blessed, was about to create the world, he decided to fashion all the souls which would in due course be dealt out to the children of men, .... Scrutinizing each, he saw that among them some would fall into evil ways in the world.” (The Zohar - The Destiny of the Soul)



B) GOD THE FATHER’S PLAN FOR MANKIND - “TO SEE AND UNDERSTAND THINGS”

If the early Christians were correct that spirits existed prior to creation, then one may ask what a moral and loving God would plan regarding these spirits? The ancient Jewish doctrine that God had instituted a divine plan is interwoven into multiple texts "Before all things came to be, he [God] has ordered all their designs" (Dead Sea Scrolls 4Q255-264)

....I (the Father), in the midst of the light (glory), moved around in the invisible things, like one of them, as the sun moves around from east to west and from west to east. But the sun has rest; yet I did not find rest, because everything was not yet created. And I thought up the idea of establishing a foundation, to create a visible creation." (2nd Enoch 24:4)

The Prophet Enoch describes the earliest stages of God’s plan before it was known among the heavenly host : "
for not even to my angels have I explained my secrets, nor related to them their origin, nor my endless and inconceivable creation which I conceived." (2nd Enoch 24:3) Once God sets in motion his great plan, God seems to take great care in both the planning of and in ensuring the deep involvement of the Heavenly Hosts (for whose benefit the plan existed).


Thank you for your comments. I would still be LDS were it not for a narrow range of doctrinal issues, and the leadership's position on them wound many. I hope to stand in the street shouting at them until they either repent, or I die.

It might be safe to say that my disagreement with Protestant and Catholic churches begins in Genesis. As you say, the idea that I carry the taint of the sin of Eve down through how many years is ludicrous, yet there are times that I seem to see the effect of Genesis 3:16 playing out. On this issue, I cry out to God with respect and reverence, that the sons of Adam have too rigorously carried that penalty out.

Those who exercise Priestcraft have at times introduced error and falsehood into the body.
 

Earthling

David Henson
Don't go pulling in your opinion that it "doesn't jive with the original Hebrew".

There are no original scriptures, they were all burned. So you cannot make such bogus claims on what you claim is the "original" Hebrew scriptures, they don't exist.

Put putting that aside, your claim also lays the foundation that there are many more "errors" in the bible, making it shaky ground to rely on. And that makes in not at all "god inspired" as the claim goes.

What claim? That the Bible is god inspired? It isn't. The original was but the translation wasn't.
 

Ancient Soul

The Spiritual Universe
What claim? That the Bible is god inspired? It isn't. The original was but the translation wasn't.

If you lost track of what you originally claimed, then go back and re-read your claim about Adam and Eve living forever. And then bring some real proof to back up your claim, not just opinion.
 

Earthling

David Henson
If you lost track of what you originally claimed, then go back and re-read your claim about Adam and Eve living forever. And then bring some real proof to back up your claim, not just opinion.

I'm sorry but if you haven't the logical capacity to understand that the opposite of dying is living forever I can't help you with that.
 

nPeace

Veteran Member
No, this is his original post that I replied to:

"
Earthling said:
No, you are missing the point in translation. If they ate from the tree they would die, if they didn't they would live forever. They died. The Hebrew says "in dying you shall die""

Now he's claiming that :

"f they ate from the tree they would die, if they didn't they would live forever."

Which is nonsense. And he's claiming he's "right" because he believes it means that, but won't provide any verses or other proof to back this up. But there is no such reference in the entire bible to back him up, so he's just obfuscating.
So I am confused as to what your claim is.
Are you claiming that if Adam did not eat of the fruit of the tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, he would have died? Or are you just making the claim that the Bible did not say that he would have lived forever?
If you are claiming the latter, the Bible did not specifically say how long Adam would live for, but God did say that if Adam and Eve ate from the tree of life, they would be guaranteed to live forever. So the tree of life served that purpose - God's guarantee of everlasting life.

You were saying something earlier about the day, and Adam dying.
I don't seem to be understanding the point you are making.
 

Ancient Soul

The Spiritual Universe
I'm sorry but if you haven't the logical capacity to understand that the opposite of dying is living forever I can't help you with that.

So you are admitting that you cannot provide any such verse/"proof" to back up your claim, leaving you with only an OPINION as to what it meant.

Why cannot you just say so, rather than coming up with an arrogant condemnation to cover that you got nothing?
 

Earthling

David Henson
So you are admitting that you cannot provide any such verse/"proof" to back up your claim, leaving you with only an OPINION as to what it meant.

Why cannot you just say so, rather than coming up with an arrogant condemnation to cover that you got nothing?

Well, because I don't see it that way. The fact is I probably could find a support in scripture for that, I just don't think it's necessary. I think you are being unreasonable. The tree of life was in the garden before Adam sinned, it was removed to signify that Adam could no longer live forever. Genesis 2:9 Genesis 3:22-23.
 

Ellen Brown

Well-Known Member
Well, because I don't see it that way. The fact is I probably could find a support in scripture for that, I just don't think it's necessary. I think you are being unreasonable. The tree of life was in the garden before Adam sinned, it was removed to signify that Adam could no longer live forever. Genesis 2:9 Genesis 3:22-23.


I have a loose theory on the subject of the Tree of Life and the Garden. In reading the relevant passages in the KJV, to me it seems that they are still there, but human access to it has been entirely cut off. Terrifying beasts now guard the entrances. Pardon me, I do not wish to run afoul of grumpy, fixated old authoritarians at all.
 

Earthling

David Henson
I have a loose theory on the subject of the Tree of Life and the Garden. In reading the relevant passages in the KJV, to me it seems that they are still there, but human access to it has been entirely cut off. Terrifying beasts now guard the entrances. Pardon me, I do not wish to run afoul of grumpy, fixated old authoritarians at all.

What would be the purpose in preserving it? Edited To Add: Wouldn't it have been destroyed in the flood?
 
Last edited:

nPeace

Veteran Member
What would be the purpose in preserving it? Edited To Add: Wouldn't it have been destroyed in the flood?
I agree, the trees had a purpose, and served their purpose. Since God could not allow anyone to eat from the tree of life he would either have to guard it, or remove it, and I believe he killed it, just as Jesus withered the fig tree instantly.
 

Ellen Brown

Well-Known Member
What would be the purpose in preserving it? Edited To Add: Wouldn't it have been destroyed in the flood?

Getting back to my offbeat, perhaps half baked theory, Perhaps the Garden simply occupies another dimension, and that portal has been closed? Perhaps when Jesus returns, he will simply come through that portal?
 

Earthling

David Henson
Getting back to my offbeat, perhaps half baked theory, Perhaps the Garden simply occupies another dimension, and that portal has been closed? Perhaps when Jesus returns, he will simply come through that portal?

Why would Jesus return? There's nothing in the Bible about a physical return of Jesus. The word used for Jesus' return signifies a presence other than a physical return. The same word Paul used for himself as being there in "spirit" rather than flesh. Also the same word the LXX used to signify God's presence, though he wasn't literally there. Or wait a minute . . . that might not have been the LXX but rather Josephus. I would have to look it up, but the word is parousia translated "presence."

If you haven't figured it out yet, religion has, over time, presented the Bible student with a great deal of false teachings to wade through before getting to the truth.
 

Ellen Brown

Well-Known Member
Why would Jesus return? There's nothing in the Bible about a physical return of Jesus. The word used for Jesus' return signifies a presence other than a physical return. The same word Paul used for himself as being there in "spirit" rather than flesh. Also the same word the LXX used to signify God's presence, though he wasn't literally there. Or wait a minute . . . that might not have been the LXX but rather Josephus. I would have to look it up, but the word is parousia translated "presence."

If you haven't figured it out yet, religion has, over time, presented the Bible student with a great deal of false teachings to wade through before getting to the truth.

Not disputing what you say yet. I'll have to do some digging. Isn't Jesus presented as returning on a "White Horse" and wielding a two edged sword in the book of Revelations? Your window says you are a Bible Believer ???
 
I'm Officially Challenging the doctrine of Original Sin!
And good on you for doing so.

There is not, nor has there ever been, anything even remotely similar to the exclusively chr-stian concept of “original sin” in Judaism or in the Hebrew Scriptures. The very concept of vicarious atonement is alien and foreign to Judaism.

Judaism teaches that there is no such thing as vicarious atonement. No one else can take responsibility for your wrongdoings, nor can you take responsibility someone else’s wrongdoings. Just read the Eighteenth chapter of Ezekiel, it’s all right there. No one can save anyone else from their sins; only you can atone for your own sins.

When confronted with this fact, the early chr-stian apologists had to come up with something that their hero had to die and then undie to save people from. Thus the invention of the ridiculous doctrine of “original sin.”

They thought they had won the day, but surprise, surprise a new question arises. Wouldn’t the demigod chr-stian hero have inherited “original sin” from his human mother? Uh oh… what now? The even more absurd doctrine of “immaculate conception.” Many people probably don’t realize the doctrine of “immaculate conception” is about Mary, and not her child. According to the doctrine at the instant of conception, the stain of “original sin” was erased from the Mary zygote by the chr-stian “god-squad,” in order to make her a fitting host for the upcoming demigod hero.

If the chr-stian “god-squad” was able to erase the stain of “original sin” from the Mary zygote, why couldn’t it do the same to a naturally produced Yéshu zygote? Why couldn’t it do the same to the rest of humanity?

When you start out with a lie, and then get called out on the lie, and then tell another lie to keep the first lie going, and then get called out on that lie as well, so you tell yet another lie to back up your second lie; you just keep digging yourself deeper and deeper until you end up burying yourself.
 

islam abduallah

Active Member
The answer to Original Sin, and the Atonement? Can it be that God made defective people? Did he do it on purpose? What?

Well, Allah created people with desires and temptations he says in Qur'an
And We have already created man and know what his soul whispers to him, and We are closer to him than [his] jugular vein

Our soul and Satan asks us to do the prohibited things, on the other hands we have god's law which we should obey , then an internal spiritual battle will start between what our souls and desires want against what Allah ask us to do
Allah wants us to choose him over our desires and the temptations around us
And he knows we gonna sometimes fail so he told us just pray for forgiveness and he'll

He doesn't need to create us ideal like angels as he already have them who don't have a desire to sin, so there's no need to make us a copy of their version

 

Ellen Brown

Well-Known Member
And good on you for doing so.

There is not, nor has there ever been, anything even remotely similar to the exclusively chr-stian concept of “original sin” in Judaism or in the Hebrew Scriptures. The very concept of vicarious atonement is alien and foreign to Judaism.

Judaism teaches that there is no such thing as vicarious atonement. No one else can take responsibility for your wrongdoings, nor can you take responsibility someone else’s wrongdoings. Just read the Eighteenth chapter of Ezekiel, it’s all right there. No one can save anyone else from their sins; only you can atone for your own sins.

When confronted with this fact, the early chr-stian apologists had to come up with something that their hero had to die and then undie to save people from. Thus the invention of the ridiculous doctrine of “original sin.”

They thought they had won the day, but surprise, surprise a new question arises. Wouldn’t the demigod chr-stian hero have inherited “original sin” from his human mother? Uh oh… what now? The even more absurd doctrine of “immaculate conception.” Many people probably don’t realize the doctrine of “immaculate conception” is about Mary, and not her child. According to the doctrine at the instant of conception, the stain of “original sin” was erased from the Mary zygote by the chr-stian “god-squad,” in order to make her a fitting host for the upcoming demigod hero.

If the chr-stian “god-squad” was able to erase the stain of “original sin” from the Mary zygote, why couldn’t it do the same to a naturally produced Yéshu zygote? Why couldn’t it do the same to the rest of humanity?

When you start out with a lie, and then get called out on the lie, and then tell another lie to keep the first lie going, and then get called out on that lie as well, so you tell yet another lie to back up your second lie; you just keep digging yourself deeper and deeper until you end up burying yourself.

Shalom:
It was the Chr_stian excesses that caused me to start challenging the Original Sin, and numbers of other doctrines. Not knowing anything about Judaism, at first I decided to be one who believed in Abraham and the One he followed. For me, Islam and Judaism are like brothers that do not always get along. That relationship was forecast in Genesis 16. I do not challenge it, but it makes me sad.

It seems clear to me that the best we can do is to obey and follow G_d to the best of our ability.

Is the child of Mary what Chri_stians say he is? I don't know do I? From the conduct of the Chri_tians they do not provide proof he is and the Creator has not spoken to me to say. I don't have an abundance of time left to wait, and then I will know, or will not.
 

Ellen Brown

Well-Known Member
Well, Allah created people with desires and temptations he says in Qur'an
And We have already created man and know what his soul whispers to him, and We are closer to him than [his] jugular vein

Our soul and Satan asks us to do the prohibited things, on the other hands we have god's law which we should obey , then an internal spiritual battle will start between what our souls and desires want against what Allah ask us to do
Allah wants us to choose him over our desires and the temptations around us
And he knows we gonna sometimes fail so he told us just pray for forgiveness and he'll

He doesn't need to create us ideal like angels as he already have them who don't have a desire to sin, so there's no need to make us a copy of their version

As Salaam Alaikum:
You can partially see what I am from my avatar, yet there are many questions and I do not have the answers. My issues with Islam are what men have done to it since Muhammad PBUH. It is discouraging that Sunni and Shia hate and kill each other. It is so sad that men took the words of the Quran and made Islam harsh toward women, and then the brutal punishments of beheadings of all.

Still, in my heart ...
 

islam abduallah

Active Member
As Salaam Alaikum:
You can partially see what I am from my avatar, yet there are many questions and I do not have the answers. My issues with Islam are what men have done to it since Muhammad PBUH. It is discouraging that Sunni and Shia hate and kill each other. It is so sad that men took the words of the Quran and made Islam harsh toward women, and then the brutal punishments of beheadings of all.

Still, in my heart ...

I can understand and excuse, Some Muslims are doing negative impacts about Islam by their hate speech and media catch that perfectly and target Islam itself not those Muslims

But Islam isn't what came after prophet Muhammad, it's what was revealed to him during his life , Allah says
. This day those who disbelieve have despaired of [defeating] your religion; so fear them not, but fear Me. This day I have perfected for you your religion and completed My favor upon you and have approved for you Islam as religion
When abi bakr Ra the (the greatest figure in Islam after the prophet) heard this verse he cried saying after completion and perfection of the religion imperfections will come , he smelled it too early

Shia and Sunni , it's clear that the difference between them was due to political reasons not religious, if you read about the origin of shia you will find it's as they wanted Ali Ra to be the third successor after the prophet not othamn Ra ( by time they claim he should be the first not abi bakr) this is Shia origin , so I don't consider them as a religious sect more than a political party who decide to collapse the whole umma if not agreeing that a dead man was better than another dead man , may Allah guide them
By the way Saudi are more morst than Shia in my opinion and they don't represent Islam, Sunni nor sslafi , they represent the royal family only

Women in Islam , too much to be said about that , but it's enough to say that the third chapter is called women and it's all about their rights
And the prophet sayings in this matter are too much to be counted in a reply but it needs books
 
Top