Importance of Original Sin

in the scriptures, i'm not sure. in jewish tradition? sure. but it's clearly an idea that runs through the text, if unstated directly. there are very few examples, like job, where god acts to break the contract. instead, it is always phrased as the people breaking the contract, thus being punished by god (who is no longer bound by the broken contract). really, only job argues against this idea. okay. teach him what about god's purposes and infinite wisdom?because i see a very strong metaphor about death. jacob crosses the jabbok to be alone, thinking his brother esau intends to kill him and his family. the "man" he is wrestling with is his own mortality. it is god as the angel of death. that he demands,

quote:

---

'I will not let thee go, except thou bless me.'

---

is powerful here because the blessing, thematically in genesis, is life itself. he is demanding more life from an entity that intends to kill him.moreover, this entire passage is an allegory about the israelite people that is remarkably still relevant today. caught in the middle of perceived enemies and oblivion itself, they will fight tooth and nail for their rights to exist. and they will wrestle with god himself for that blessing. this theme is continued throughout the rest of the torah, as well. the israelites don't take anything without a fight, including their own salvation from egypt. yahweh, in the book of J, is not omniscient. that concept wasn't even devised until well after that this book was written. yahweh goes down to babel to see for himself what the people built. he sends angels to see what depravity exists in sodom, and whether there were ten righteous people there. he searches the garden for the man his wife. etc.perhaps this is because omniscience is boring from a literary standpoint. but i think it was just out of the conception of the people who wrote these books. none of these instances seemed to be for the sake of the other people in the story; they're just things that god does to find things out. this may surprise you, but that is exactly what i have done. rather, it is you who has projected "human wisdom" onto the scriptures, with ideas like the classical theist tri-omni god that simply are not found at all in the "totality of scripture". these are things you have assumed it must mean, not the things it says. read it with fresh eyes, and no preconceptions, and question everything, and you will come to a very different conclusion about what the bible says about the character of god.Edited by arachnophilia, : i accidentally a word

the mirroring of the verse:

quote:

---

כִּי, יֹדֵעַ אֱלֹהִים

​

for god knows...

---

and

quote:

---

כֵּאלֹהִים, יֹדְעֵי

​

as god, knowing...

---

is a strong indication that the word means "god". i believe a singular translation is better here as well for that reason, even though it's not part of a subject verb chain that would dictate it for sure.

don't consult bible dictionaries. they're always biased, and give incorrect information. elohim is most often used as a singular noun that means "god". it comes, etymologically, from the canaanites (to the north) and their head god el or elyon, and his pantheon the elohim. it was a singular council of multiple gods, and this idea is vaguely reflected in the monolatrist and henotheistic oldest texts of the bible. for instance, god calls a similar council in the book of job.the plural above, "one of us" is probably a quirk of the language and nothing more. the text says,

quote:

---

הֵן הָאָדָם הָיָה כְּאַחַד מִמֶּנּוּ

---

but note that this very word, mi-menu (all the way the end on the left) is rendered singularly earlier in the chapter:

quote:

---

כִּי, יֹדֵעַ אֱלֹהִים, כִּי בְּיוֹם אֲכָלְכֶם מִמֶּנּוּ

​

"fod god knows that when you eat from it...

---

same vowel points and everything.it's just something that doesn't translate well. there's no good reason to read in some kind of weird point about the plurality of god because on a single word that's just an artifact of translation.

What gets me is why some people never let Jesus in. They think they are better off being independant.You sometimes claim that the gods dont care---or that they don't listen. Do you personally have any beef with Jesus?

It isn't about "letting Jesus in"; it's about keeping sin out. If you keep sin out, Jesus is "in" in the only real way He ever will be.And sin means what you don't do as well as what you do. If you fail to take care of the least of His brothers, you come short of the glory of God. I like Him better than Long John Silver. I respect His message more than most fundies do.

My innate tells me that Jesus is not automatically "in" everybody. He is with everybody in that He stands at the door knocking. Having God "in" you is not some extension of our own internal idea.

As I said, and you quoted:

quote:

---

If you keep sin out, Jesus is "in" in the only real way He ever will be.

---

The only way to internalize Jesus is to internalize His message. You have to do it yourself. He isn't going to wear you like a Phat suit and do it for you.

Is His message limited to one book?(66,to be exact)Edited by Phat, : No reason given.

Actually Jesus message is limited to only parts of four books.

Logically, this appears true. Some, however, believe that the Word was inspired by God (all 66 books). Surely these authors didn't just grab a cup of coffee and crank this stuff out like JK Rowling--so many Harry Potter stories.

But that seems to be just what the evidence shows. If inspired by God then why is there no uniform and universal list of what books should be included? Why are there two flood stories just mushed together? Why two mutually exclusive creation tales?And you were talking about Jesus message which is not found anywhere but in the Gospels.

"His" message is contained in the gospels; it could be seen as a refinement of Old Testamenr Judaism; some see Paul's message as a refinement of Jesus' message.But "the" message isn't confined to books. It's written on our hearts, as Paul said, in the form of conscience.

You and I agree on this point. Perhaps I see it as a communion---in that part of God lives within me---whereas you see it as entirely your own conscience. Not much difference.

Its the whole "too many chiefs and not enough Indians" argument. Let the One be in charge and quit trying to duplicate His authority. It all gets back to evidence-based versus faith and belief-based. The belief that you have chosen to market relies on taking the Bibles teaching and focusing on emphasis of personal responsibility rather than blessing and favor. Honestly...yes, it is more logical. Not sure that I'm ready to buy it yet. I want favor and blessing. The fact that a God would create a Hell and fill it with Christians is just as evil of a God as one who filled it with atheists. Why not just create a Heaven with first class and coach and make the Christians live on streets of silver rather than gold. or perhaps copper? It may now be my money in name, but it was his sweat that put some of it there. I would be on the street asking you for spare change were it not for my father years ago. Maybe that's also why I see God as a rescuer versus a Being who simply wants to boot me out and force me to grow up.

To clarify, we Christians can and do still sin. Perhaps you mean that we have a new nature that cannot ever be condemned by sin again. Ringo would argue that this get-out-of-hell-free card never helps us to grow up and become responsible. Comments?