It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Tell that to Jesus, who accepted a ton of worship, which for a jew would have been blasphemy and idolatry. You can find him being worshipped in all the Gospels not just the book of John.
It's you who has boxed yourself in. Do you realize there are a few other theorists out there coming from different traditions permuting different languages making similar claims to yours? Does this not beg the question?
I see no complicity in the crime on Adam's part being described in Genesis.
Eve was tempted, Adam's sin was greater as he ate the fruit without being tempted.
Where does it say in the Bible that there is a "fine".
You break the law and you will be condemned by the law, if you cant afford to pay the fine then find a friend who can pay it for you.
The natural law, God the judge, Jesus the friend who pays your fine.
One is an individual's personal experience, the other is communicating that to people who have not yet had such an experience.
If one understands God as a reality, he is therefore is limiting it in story form. I just see this as a sort of contradiction.
You're telling me that Yahweh (supposedly Jesus' Father) . . .
The Greek word for "worship" in the NT was proskuneo, which also meant an act of homage, not the worship of God that Jesus himself engaged in.
My "story" is general. All human lives are stories; and as I said, I am PHILOSOPHIZING this interpretation. I do not pretend (and this should score points with you) that my interpretation is the only plausible interpretation.
Conversely, the Christian narrative of Jesus sets up Jesus as THE story; the end. It is infallible; it is the archetype. It is taken absolutely literally.
Now, as an allegory, it could make a lot of sense.
My interpretation is my interpretation. It's a bit low-brow of you to think that I'm merely parroting an orthodox viewpoint - especially when there is absolutely nothing orthodox about my opinion.
In any case, people are always at risk of being coaxed into views that aren't theirs; an atheist parent indoctrinates it's child into atheism; is that any different from a religious person exposing his child to religion? Most kids who are exposed to a particular view tend to retain that view throughout life; our brains were primed to prefer a particular interpretation, ascribing a particular value, with a range of emotional quality (be it awe, faith, skepticism, doubt, etc).
And philosophy precedes theology. Theology has to be philosophically justified.
Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by BELIEVERpriest
I see no complicity in the crime on Adam's part being described in Genesis.
Eve was tempted, Adam's sin was greater as he ate the fruit without being tempted.
Eve had to get up close to even see what the fruit looked like, to decide if she thought that it looked good to eat.
When she gave Adam some to eat, it does not say that she told him where she got them.
The realization that there was a problem would have been when Adam realized there was a problem, that his "eyes were opened".
edit on 21-8-2013 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)
Yes, Mary was a sinner. But Jesus was God, so He was given a flawless vessel.
A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit.
By seeing Eve already having turned naked? Is the change instantaneous?
So Adam knew what he was doing before he did it.
It doesn't say that they had ever eaten from the tree of life.
Plus, if Adam was able to eat from any other tree, then he would have known that this mystery fruit was prohibited since it would have been the only unfamiliar fruit.
Originally posted by BELIEVERpriest
reply to post by windword
Sin is passed on by the male. How did Mary avoid the sin nature. Please explain.
Originally posted by windword
reply to post by BELIEVERpriest
Yes, Mary was a sinner. But Jesus was God, so He was given a flawless vessel.
Nonsense.
A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit.
By Jesus' own words, either Mary was without sin, or Jesus was not. If Jesus was God, why did he need to be baptized?
When proteins render a body from information, we get a two sided human (Concrete and Abstract).
Essentially, you are saying it is too hard to understand and there are too many shadows to examine, therefore, it is all false.
These two languages alone are enough to show the same shadows in other languages.
DNA is a shadow of the true language of information contained in light. What is the purpose of concrete and abstract? Chirality is the right and left handed aspect of duality in nature. Coalescence is the act of combining two to make one. Bet Nun is your seed in this refinery of left and right hand joining in union. There is a purpose for you to be Cain moving to Abel. Jacob must claim the birthright over Esau. You have an angel above waiting (Matthew 18). "10 “See that you do not despise one of these little ones. For I tell you that their angels in heaven always see the face of my Father in heaven. "
As creation rises to the next level, so can we. We are promised a new Crown (Mind) and a new Robe (Body). I, for one, look forward to the new day when shadows are removed and the cloud (Neph) is lifted.
Originally posted by Astrocyte
reply to post by EnochWasRight
Put succinctly, you exaggerate the importance of Hebrew, and old and new testament scriptures.
When proteins render a body from information, we get a two sided human (Concrete and Abstract).
I'm sorry, I'm not following you.
98% of the human genome doesn't even code for protein; it codes for something else. A large part of what regulates protein production is epigenetic, such as histiones and Methyl-DNA. Can you somehow work this fact into your pseudo-scientific theories which treats the Bible as not merely a book of revelation, but a book of science as well?