Adam Shamed and Killed (“crucified”) by a Tree

docphin5

Well-known member
You're just asserting your interpretation of scripture as "what scriptures actually say".
It is not an “interpretation” that Genesis describes two creation accounts. It is COMMON knowledge.

It is not my interpretation that there are two Adams when Paul explicitly wrote about it.

You just have that typical attitude of most people which is based on a party line rather than on evidence and reason.
 

docphin5

Well-known member
When the TOR, Philo, and Paul first began allegorizing scripture the Pharisees resisted by placing a literal interpretation of scripture against its allegorical meaning The solution might have been an appeal to authority or even power, but these can be subjective, as authority is argumentative and political power can shift over time. Who is in power today may not be in power tomorrow., right? The ultimate decision on truth should come from God but that can be subjective in a world filled with opposing opinions. Therefore, what do do? What marks the true interpretation of scripture, at the end of the day, is its fulfillment in reality?

Therefore, if the logic, reason, and historical precedence for a spiritual or celestial Messiah forming a moral consciousness within man, aka, “last Adam”, who rules a future world, a new creation, as described in the OP,—is rejected, in preference for a literal, fleshy Messiah of nation Israel who rules the nations of this earth, then the proof will be in the reality on the ground.

The reality on the ground has been and will continue to be that no national Messiah of nation Israel is ever coming to rule the nations of the earth. Reality is that nation Israel has never ruled the nations of any significance, currently is unable to rule Palestinians, and has no chance of ruling its Islamic neighbors, much less greater nations like China, Europe, Russia, or the Americas. Therefore, Jews waiting for a national Messiah, wait in vain.

This inevitable reality on the ground is the mark of the true interpretation of scripture, that is, the Christ or Messiah is spiritual, namely, Yeshua the Holy Spirit ,forming a moral conscious in humanity. The promise being to those pious, virtuous souls or “chosen ones” a bodily resurrection into a new creation, a “promised land”, not this material one, but an ideal, intelligible world created by the Holy Spirit, a “new heaven and new earth” predicted by Isaiah.

In anticipation of those who say that this future world is subjective and cannot be objectively observed, I say, neither is your national Messiah an objective reality. You wait in vain for something that will never happen in this world, whereas, I hope in faith for a world promised by the Spirit, one that is now being formed within myself and in the cloud of witnesses who came before us. For who will inhabit that future world but pious, virtuous souls being formed by the Spirit now, not by works of the Law, but by trust in the Spirit alone. This was and is the Gospel message of both the Teacher of Righteousness and of Paul.

For evangelicals who think of Messiah in terms of the flesh, ruling from the earthly Jerusalem, I remind you what Paul said,

“Even though we once regarded Christ according to the flesh, we regard him thus no longer. Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation.” (2 Cor 5:16)

IOW, Paul once regarded Christ as a national Messiah, according to the flesh, but no longer. To Paul, Christ was celestial and his kingdom is from above, being formed within man, and his new Jerusalem is heavenly too, a city formed of pious, virtuous souls, his Temple will be the ideal world, a cosmic construction, so that we might enter into the holy of holies, forever.

I urge everyone to look in and look up, not out and down to earth. Inside is where the Holy Spirit forms the divine nature, a moral consciousness, and up is where he creates the ideal world for us to inhabit. Our family is there, our home is there, where the Celestial Messiah has prepared a place for us.

I get why Paul washed his hands of the Jews, because he tired of arguing over interpretations and authority, things that are subjective. He went to the Gentiles who valued a changed life free from outward rituals of purity, sabbath keeping, food restrictions, animal sacrifice; and who valued the inner Holy Spirit over the alternative: fits of rage, jealousy, condemnation, and wrath. Ultimately, the true interpretation and true authority will be proven by what happens in reality. I propose that the TOR, Philo, and Paul and gnostic Christians will be proven right, who perceived a celestial Messiah that has always been and always will be the inner Holy Spirit forming moral perfection of the individual soul, i.e., “born again”, in preparation for an ideal world prepared by God.

It has been a pleasure, my best wishes for everyone. I think I am finished here.
 

sk0rpi0n

Active member
It is not an “interpretation” that Genesis describes two creation accounts. It is COMMON knowledge.

Genesis 1 gives a summary of creation. Genesis 2 gives a close up look at how Adam was created. It's the same creation story.

If there were two creation accounts and two Adams, then there must be two earths, two heavens and so on, which makes zero sense.

It is not my interpretation that there are two Adams when Paul explicitly wrote about it.

Oh, I see. Paul wrote about it, so therefore it's true? lol ok then.
 

Open Heart

Well-known member
You mean like Hitler was a Christian so all Christians hate Jews.

Your analogy is still absurd. Mormonism has nothing to do with a sect of Judaism 2.200 years ago.
No, that is not the analogy a is to be as b is to c, and in fact what you said is logically fallacious.
 

Open Heart

Well-known member
Sounds like the true Scotsman fallacy, an appeal to purity. Again, all Judaism died out in Palestine after the Jews revolted and "The Way" evolved into Christianity. But why allow history to get in the way of your prejudice?
No, this is not the true Scotsman fallacy. My statement is that if a sect dies out, it was never of God. That's a whole different animal. That's the second post from you that has tried to apply a form of bad reasoning to something I've said. Your ability to logically analyze is seriously impaired.
 

American Gothic

Well-known member
Yes, there are two creation stories. The first is the song in Genesis one where each day is a verse. The second is chapters 2-3, and concern adam and eve in the garden. The two stories even conflict, where plants are made before human beings in Genesis 1, but Adam is made before plants in Genesis 2.
could this just be making a distinction between plants in general (created before) and specific plants that were going to be grown for food?
"Now (Adam) tilled the land as he had been instructed in the garden of Eden" Jubilees 3

"before any plant of the field was in the earth and before any herb of the field had grown. For the Lord God had not caused it to rain on the earth, and there was no man to till the ground; 6 but a mist went up from the earth and watered the whole face of the ground.

7 And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.

Life in God’s Garden​

8 The Lord God planted a garden eastward in Eden, and there He put the man whom He had formed. 9 And out of the ground the Lord God made every tree grow that is pleasant to the sight and good for food. The tree of life was also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
 

Rachel Redux

Active member
Yes, there are two creation stories. The first is the song in Genesis one where each day is a verse. The second is chapters 2-3, and concern adam and eve in the garden. The two stories even conflict, where plants are made before human beings in Genesis 1, but Adam is made before plants in Genesis 2.
There are two creation stories but not in the way that you mean. The gap theory explains the change between chapters in Genesis. Ruin and reconstruction.
 

American Gothic

Well-known member
What Is the Gap Theory? (The Ruin and Reconstruction Theory?
I like how that presents both sides on the issue.

I'm ok with the notion the Universe and Earth were created before,
but if they were indeed made on Day One, then that's fine too.
I'm just not positively sure that the latter is what is being said there.
 

Open Heart

Well-known member
could this just be making a distinction between plants in general (created before) and specific plants that were going to be grown for food?
"Now (Adam) tilled the land as he had been instructed in the garden of Eden" Jubilees 3

"before any plant of the field was in the earth and before any herb of the field had grown. For the Lord God had not caused it to rain on the earth, and there was no man to till the ground; 6 but a mist went up from the earth and watered the whole face of the ground.

7 And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.

Life in God’s Garden​

8 The Lord God planted a garden eastward in Eden, and there He put the man whom He had formed. 9 And out of the ground the Lord God made every tree grow that is pleasant to the sight and good for food. The tree of life was also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
Quoting the book of Jubilees to me is as hilarious a non-point as quoting from the New Testament. You might as well be quoting Harry Potter.
 

Open Heart

Well-known member
There are two creation stories but not in the way that you mean. The gap theory explains the change between chapters in Genesis. Ruin and reconstruction.
Lovely theory, but beside the point. I am making the point that Genesis 1 and Geneis 2-3 are separate stories, made obvious by the fact that they conflict over when plants were made.
 

Rachel Redux

Active member
Lovely theory, but beside the point. I am making the point that Genesis 1 and Geneis 2-3 are separate stories, made obvious by the fact that they conflict over when plants were made.
No, it isn't beside the point. It perfectly explains the so-called conflict.
 

American Gothic

Well-known member
Lovely theory, but beside the point. I am making the point that Genesis 1 and Geneis 2-3 are separate stories, made obvious by the fact that they conflict over when plants were made.
Do you believe there was a literal Adam and Eve? and a Garden?

assuming there was -
Genesis 1&2 are covering possibly 7 years of time in literary brushstrokes
you're assuming and insisting there is Conflict in the narrative to me is suspect

the only way you can respond is to dis Jubilees?
 

Open Heart

Well-known member
No, it isn't beside the point. It perfectly explains the so-called conflict.
No, it doesn't address the conflict even a little bit. The idea of the Gap Theory is that there was an earlier creation in Gen 1:1 than the creation that began in Gen 1:2. It doens't even begin to deal with the fact that Gen 1 has plants before humans, and Gen 2 has plants after humans.
 

Open Heart

Well-known member
Do you believe there was a literal Adam and Eve? and a Garden?

assuming there was -
Genesis 1&2 are covering possibly 7 years of time in literary brushstrokes
you're assuming and insisting there is Conflict in the narrative to me is suspect

the only way you can respond is to dis Jubilees?
No, there was never a literal, historical Adam and Eve in a Garden of Eden.

Gen 1 has plants before humans. Gen 2 has plants after humans. The conflict is irreconcilable.

Look, I don't bother responding to quotes from the New Testament because they are not part of the Jewish canon. Neither is Jubilees, or Enoch, of many of the books from the DDS. If you want to waste you time quoting from these texts, I can't stop you from doing so, and you can't stop me from laughing in your face. You might as well be quoting from Harry Potter.
 

Jewjitzu

Well-known member
So why do Jewish scholars like Rashi write of a literal historical Adam and Eve in a Garden of Eden in their commentaries? Was Rashi wrong?
Rashi is but one opinion. There are others. Outside of Jewish Halacha (Jew), opinions aren't required to be accepted or believed.

How many opinions do you have in Islam? Christianity? Etc.?
 
Top