Steps toward loss and restoration of Salvation

Ah.. you got to the point to one of the main Jewish interpretations of the story.However, you are going with the Christian preconception that there was a 'Fall', and that there is original sin. Those are not the concepts the Jewish faith has, and therefore, the lessons of Adam and Eve are looked at much differently.Adam and eve were innocent. They could not have 'chosen' between right and wrong, because they did not understand right and wrong. Until they
ate from the tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, they did not understand the implications of 'disobediance', of good, of evil.This is something that in one Jewish view, was needed before Man could become closer to god. By understanding good and evil, man is given free will, and therefore have the opportunity to CHOOSE good, and therefore live a more sanctified life, and be closer to god.With out that, Man is just like any other beast in the field.I will also point out in Hebrew, the term 'Holy Spirit' is feminine , just to confuse the issue a bit more.

Not according to the religion that wrote the Tanakh (i.e.the old testament).

That is very true. Amoung the 'New Testament' concepts that are being
retrofited INTO that story of gensesis are1) Original sin
2) "The Fall"
3) "Holy spirit indwelling"
4) THe serpent being satan

Well, Three points.The Jewish faith does not accept 'revelation' to be scripture. Anything that it might claim is not relevant to the way the Jewish faith views Genesis.The writer of Revelation was writing his own words, not the words of Jesus.The 'ancient worm' in revelation is more closely corropsonding to the leviathan rather than the snake in Genesis.

The point of the 'holy spirit' being feminine in format basically shows that concept. The thought is god needs to have both male and female attributes to create mankind in his image.

Unfortunately, that is a concept i am not really familar with. It is possible that Paul was influenced by that concept, but it seems to me that much of Paul's theology was more influenced by the major religion of the city he grew up in (tarsus), which was not predominately Jewish.It does look like it is an interesting subject. I suspect that it could very well have been an influence.

Chapter and verse?? I bet the matter is not nearly as 'cut and dry' as you think it is.And , of course, like I said, for the Jewish faith, what Jesus is alledged to have said is irrelavent.And you do realise that no, he did not 'quote the accended Jesus'. He specifically was talking about the politics of Rome at that time. The book of revelation nearly did not make it into the canon.This message has been edited by ramoss, 12-20-2005 09:58 AM

It basically is saying that you are incorrecty using the New Testament to distort the story of Genesis. It is because of the distortion that the readers of the New testament has given Genesis that many of the conflicts about 'salvation' is created. The story of Genesis has not message about 'salvation', because of the fact that the religion it originally came from does not have the concept of "salvation'.This message has been edited by ramoss, 12-20-2005 10:10 AM

NOpe, they are under no obligation to view it.However, it will be pointed out that the concepts are being read INTO genesis, rather than being taken FROM genesis.

Your opinion, corrupted by the concepts of Saint Augustine, no doubt.

Interesting..I will note that 'The wisdom of SOlomon' was written in Greek, and is very hellenised, from what I read. There also is debate about when it was written

quote:

---

David A. deSilva writes: "There is wider debate concerning the date of Wisdom, which has been placed anywhere between 220 B.C.E. and 100 C.E. The terminus a quo is set by the author's use of the Greek translation of Isaiah, Job, and Proverbs, the first of which was probably available by 200 B.C.E. (Reider 1957: 14; Holmes 1913: 520). The terminus ad quem is set by the evident use of the work by several New Testament authors (Holmes 1913: 521; Reider 1957: 14).

---

I am not going to argue that. It just is not very traditionally Jewish.. but definately has hellenistic influences , according to the source I saw....Many religions influenced each other .. and this concept seems to have come more from the Greeks than the Jews.

That is where I was reading up on it. .. VERY nice site. I don't always agree with Peter Kirby's opnion, I find his presentation of both sides of the arguement, and his documentation and sources excellent. His other site (Early Christian Writings: New Testament, Apocrypha, Gnostics, Church Fathers) is equally well documented.

There is a slight descrepency about the view physical death came to adam because of his sin.If you look at the section of Genesis where Adam and Eve were driven out, it says

quote:

---

3:22 And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:

---

That implys he did not eat from the tree of life yet.