Biblical Translation—Eden, 3

Joseph writesIm laughing out loud. How in the world do you get out of the above sillness, of the simple words, "Do not "earnestly desire" covet".It is clear no one would have time to covet anyhting because they would be spending all thier time trying to understand your complicated and completly unreasonable mangling of Gods simple import. Really Joseph I have not stopped laughing yet and I mean that respectully. No Joseph God is still just saying what he said in the simple import.D Bertot

AM no one is irratated here, it is simply called debating. No one is asking you to agree with anything you do not wish. It was not my irratability I was refering to in my previous posts but yours.It is also clear that we will not budge from our positons, however, it was you that asked me why I believed it to be a real story and to take you down that road, remember? I hten asked and have asked you about the rest of the OT in connection with miracles and the supernatural. this was my basis for believing it to be real. To this you have not replied.If however, you have found in Joseph a way to discuss metaphroical perponderances, then I am happy to let you proceed with that issue.
The only realistic way we can proceed is to discuss it as actual or poetic, otherwise we will be running into the same wall.Remember my prophecy about how difficult this would be in the begging., i told you so.The choice is yours I have plenty to do otherwise.D Bertot

Joseph writesIm not meaning to be disrespectful here but why not just build a temple? I dont remember Abraham being in any physical temple, but hey, you make up the rules as you go along anyway, why not here too.Your a very interesting fellow Joseph.As AM saysAll the best.D Bertot

bertot: You stated: I have read Romans chapter 7 twice {KJV & NRSV).Paul is really heavy into the whole sin/body relationship, “the flesh sold into slavery under sin.” He also says, “It was sin, working death in me through what is good, in order that sin might be sin, and through the commandment might become sinful beyond measure.” Then he says, “For I know that nothing good dwells within me, that is, in my flesh.”I hope you don’t mind, but I picked the above excerpts because they struck me as being most expressive of Paul’s utter contempt for his own humanity, and all humanity.How exactly does Paul, and do yourself, reconcile this statement in particular”“For I know that nothing good dwells within me””with Man being made in God’s image, according to God’s likeness (Gen. 1:26/7), and Gen. 1:31 “God saw everything that he had made, and indeed, it was very good.”?I realize that somewhere within Gen. 1:26 through 31 “Adam & Eve” in the Garden of Eden are supposed to have deliberately disobeyed God’s Command, but I have as yet been unable to figure out when that Original Transgression would have occurred. It must have occurred sometime during the sixth and final day of creation, but Gen. 1:31 conveys God perceiving “everything that He had made {including “Adam”, “Eve”, and the serpent}, and indeed, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day. (NRSV)How do you, as a Pauline Christian, reconcile all this?All the best,
Ger

I will get back with you in a while am busy right now.D BERTOT

quote:

---

it is used to denote an "ambassador. I would strongly suggest that the Chrubiym and the flame of the sword be looked at as if they represent intermediaries between God and man and as such be perceived in a figurative sense rather than a supernatural sense.

---

Yes, I concur - all mention of spiritual beings [angels/satans] are agents. Further, they all come from the Creator, including that what we percieve as bad. The allocation of bad/evil to a force outside the Creator's control is a misunderstanding or error on the part of many. There are verses in the OT which says plagues, famines, tsunamis and defected babies are pointedly the work of the Creator, with the statue alongside it, whatever the Creator does is good.One will find it difficult to understand passages like adam and eve if this is misconstrued.

quote:

---

Im not meaning to be disrespectful here but why not just build a temple? I dont remember Abraham being in any physical temple, but hey, you make up the rules as you go along anyway, why not here too.

---

As you will be aware, the temple was not a construct of man, but sanctioned by a command at Sinai. Also, the temple was twice destroyed and Israel exiled - first by Babylon. The temple was re-built after 70 years, under great risk and opposition by the non-Israelites at that time; so much so, that only some 5% of the Israelites ventured with Ezra to re-build. Thus there is every possibility it will be re-built after the Rome destruction, even though this appears an affront to the world at large today. This is possible because Israel was returned when it was least plausable.The current temple returning should not be seen as an affront to others, but alas it is. What is wrong with a nation building a temple to show they believe in God - all nations do that? To answer your question why it is not there, I will put two valid reasons:'We will never support the return of the Jews to *THEIR HOMELAND* - because they rejected Jesus' - Pope Pious.'No religion can prevail in Arabia' - Mohammed.Now as you may know via factual history, Jews, like the copts and kurds - predate Islam, the Arab race, christianity, Rome and Greece. The jews have never 'OCCUPIED' anyone's lands in all their 4000 year history - despite being the most dispersed peoples around the world - yet this charge is made, even when they now occupy, legally, just 12% of the land allocated them in the Balfour Dec; why is that?Instead of asking why the temple is not built, a good christian must ask: why not!? And that it is wrong for anyone to willfully and obsessively obstruct it. Thus it will be nice to see good christians march against such historical crimes - far more so than against the Ozone layer. It is the true pollution of humanity.Re. Abraham. Actually he did initiate the Temple. This spot was annointed by Abraham following the covenant made with God [Genesis], and the name of Jerusalem, a fully hebrew name, selected here, with the adjoining of two words [Yeru-Shlayim], marking the sacrifice offering of his son. This is why the temple was commanded only at this time. The laws relating to the temple worship was also adjoined to this very spot, and the observances of all temple laws was made forbidden any other place. As you may know, there was a church erected here, which was destroyed when islam emerged, and a mosque erected on the same spot, and which stands today. There are existential issues which make the Temple re-building implausable today. Then again, this also applied to Israel's return. It is seen as an affront - but not because this is not the sole and abolute rightful possession of the jews.Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

quote:

---

It is clear no one would have time to covet anyhting because they would be spending all thier time trying to understand your complicated and completly unreasonable mangling of Gods simple import. Really Joseph I have not stopped laughing yet and I mean that respectully. No Joseph God is still just saying what he said in the simple import.

---

I put as an example - JERUSALEM. Here, via great improvisations and manourverings, the truth became side-lined, factual history transcended by two, unrelated contrasting beliefs, and both truth and the laws flaunted.Another example: Adultry and Stealing. These are born of more than passing fantasy and desire, but become perpertrated when one covets. If one checked themselves and desisting coveting - they would have not done those things.You will find no instance of example, except in medevial Europe, where a thought is a crime. Here, religious enforcement and persecutions were seen as in no other time in geo-history. It culminated in the murders of more innocent souls than any other example in geo-history, and this is true even when Europe's last two worst centuries are not factored in the accounting. Surely, this occured by reason of more than mere bad thoughts? I put to you to consider it well, that a bad thought is the legitimate right of someone, it is mostly involuntary, and affords one time to desist. But it becomes bad when one does not check themselves, allowing it to transform into an obsession and goal. In fact, even one who does wrong can rectify it - which refers to the same example marking the difference between a bad thought and an obsession [coveting]; the former is not a sin, while the latter is - it has flaunted the requirement for re-considering the bad thought. Thus the saying:'Where a repenent sinner stands - the most rightious cannot'.

quote:

---

How exactly does Paul, and do yourself, reconcile this statement in particular”“For I know that nothing good dwells within me””with Man being made in God’s image, according to God’s likeness (Gen. 1:26/7), and Gen. 1:31 “God saw everything that he had made, and indeed, it was very good.”?

---

I too see problems with Paul, as did the Nasserites who supported Jesus. There is no way one can elevate themselves but through the physical body. The only antidote against evil is via the laws of God - else they would not be given to humanity. Paul would have failed abjectively, had he not annuled the laws - there is absolute historical precedence to this.Thus I do not in any wise connect Paul's writings to Jesus, a Jew under the yoke of depraved Rome, and who Paul never met. There are no writings from jesus - these are from a source far and alien from him. Now had I lived in this time of Paul - I would have asked, why does a revelation not come from Moses or the God of Sinai - the original source of the laws, and especially so when it is over-turned? Would you not?! Surely any honest christian would and did so - when islam emerged - they rejected Mohammed because they wanted revelation from the one they percieved made it originally. So the same principle has to apply with Paul. It appears to me, Europe only accepted what is wanted to hear - the wishlist transcended the disdained truth.

To do evil is to break Gods law. The 'antidote' to doing evil is not to break Gods law? You seem to be saying that the antidote to a sickness is not to get sick in the first place.- If you had lived in the time of Paul then you would have also found yourself living in the time of Jesus. If you had lived in the time of Jesus and witnessed his resurrection (as Paul did) then you might have sufficient reason to suppose that revelation worthy of consideration. Granted, we have only reports that Paul witnessed the resurrected Lord. But then again we only have reports that the God of Sinai revealed to Moses. It's really a question of belief after that.

quote:

---

To do evil is to break Gods law.

---

There is no evil outside this factor. This is also an underlying meaning of the eden story.

quote:

---

You seem to be saying that the antidote to a sickness is not to get sick in the first place.

---

Everyone is going to get sick and break laws: including Moses and what is reported of Jesus. It's fixing is via rectification. The meaning of those who hate God - is only a reference to the abuse of the laws.

quote:

---

If you had lived in the time of Jesus and witnessed his resurrection (as Paul did) then you might have sufficient reason to suppose that revelation worthy of consideration.

---

Maybe I would clap hands and be amazed - maybe more than amazed. What would not happen - is the conclusion made of it by christians - who had no history of monotheism. If any one, far from it being pointed only at jesus, made such a claim, it would have been totally and absolutely rejected; thus this cannot be seen as an affront to any particular religion - the preceding history with the Romans, Greeks and Babylon affirm this also. This is manifest in history: the Jews did not make of Moses anything more than a human being and acting as an agent. Here too - they demanded direct revelation. They were right in asking for that and christians were wrong for not doing the same. However, christians did demand proof elsewhere - yet not of their own. They proved this when Islam emerged - which makes jews right for asking proof.

quote:

---

Granted, we have only reports that Paul witnessed the resurrected Lord. But then again we only have reports that the God of Sinai revealed to Moses. It's really a question of belief after that.

---

But there's a difference in kind than degree here. Moses gave the world HARD COPY proof, by virture of laws and freedom from Egypt: Liberty, Democrasy and inalienable human rights shook the world - a high risk enterprise till today. It is a miracle a miniscule, tiny Judaism and Jews even survived. Now there is certainly more evidence of Moses than Jesus - despite the difference in time; I see no excuse for the absence of any writings from Jesus - I know of no revered soul or prophet which emulated this. It has to be seen as suspicious. Fact is - the Jesus story emerged far away, when jews were not a nation anymore, and all their heritage and possession was in the public domain. Here, one could say whatever they wanted against jews, and they would be hailed be it true or false - but it lacks credibility: no arms length; no lack of motive - the NT unilaterally assumed itself the owner of the OT - while also manifestly not being able to observe any of its conditions. Paul knew what he was doing - he would be a total failure had he not pleased those who previously rejected the OT laws.I see it as a mysterious compulsion which occured, that christianity swept the world, despite its total ubsurdities - this in fact is a greater credibility than belief or what the NT says. I think something happened which had nothing to do with the gospels or Jesus. When one zooms out and sees the big pic - each belief's ego becomes irrelevent here. Christianity asked of Judaism the impossible; Islam did the same to both christianity and judaism. These are hardly outcomes the result of any belief - but an occurence which transcended and put on indifinite pause all beliefs by rendering them mutually contradictive and in violation of factual history.If anything, one can only conclude with safety, that the prophesy of the OT occured - the dead sea scrolls prove this prophesy predated christianity and Jesus, and was a prophesy made independently, after predicting that israel will surely be in bondage. These are vindicated here:ABRAHAM SHALL BE THE FATHER OF MANY NATIONS' [Gen].This is not subject to belief. Something has to give - to break the current status quo. Humanity cannot progress the way it is, and only disaster is pointed in the way ahead. Its got nothing to do with Judaism or Jews either. We have two king kong sized religions which are in total, abject, mutually exclusive, death-to-you contradiction. Whatever the jews would have done - or not done - they would still be bad/wrong in such a scenario. If anything, I see the king kong religions only prevailing because of a scapegoat. Consider the inevitable face off, if all jews were sent to a gulag and not seen again. Would Jerusalem be called Al Quds, Jesus a palestinian muslim and all churches forbidden in Arabia? What is stopping this occurence now? I rest my case.Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

To AM and Josaphine, Ha Ha I am having both computer problems and very busy presently, Hold my place and I will get back to you as quickly as I can. In the mean times I am hoping that IANO and Jaywill will hit a few of your points, thanks fellasD Bertot

I ran down and copied the latest comments a place of buiness and will try and keep up with your rambling nonsense, thanks for you good natured spititsD bertot

Not subject to belief ?"And He brought him outside and said, Look now toward the heavens, and count the stars, if you are able to count them. And He said to him, So shall your seed be.

​

And he believed Jehovah, and He accounted it to him as righteousness." (Genesis 15:5,6)

AM I noticed you were still up would you like for me to continue my responses?