The Salvation Paradox

[YoursTrue]

B'reishis

2:16
ויצו יהוה אלהים על־האדם לאמר מכל עץ־הגן אכל תאכל׃

2:17
ומעץ הדעת טוב ורע לא תאכל ממנו כי ביום אכלך ממנו מות
תמות׃

2:20
ויקרא האדם שמות לכל־הבהמה ולעוף השמים ולכל חית השדה ולאדם לא־מצא עזר כנגדו׃

2:24 ( the 2nd commandment almost everyone ignores)
על־כן יעזב־איש את־אביו ואת־אמו ודבק באשתו והיו לבשר אחד׃

3:6
ותרא האשה כי טוב העץ למאכל וכי תאוה־הוא לעינים ונחמד העץ להשכיל ותקח מפריו ותאכל ותתן גם־לאישה עמה ויאכל׃


3:11
ויאמר מי הגיד לך כי עירם אתה המן־העץ אשר צויתיך לבלתי אכל־ממנו אכלת׃

3:12
ויאמר האדם האשה אשר נתתה עמדי הוא נתנה־לי מן־העץ
ואכל׃

That, in English, would be Genesis 2, right?

 

[YoursTrue]

B'reishis

2:16
ויצו יהוה אלהים על־האדם לאמר מכל עץ־הגן אכל תאכל׃

2:17
ומעץ הדעת טוב ורע לא תאכל ממנו כי ביום אכלך ממנו מות
תמות׃

2:20
ויקרא האדם שמות לכל־הבהמה ולעוף השמים ולכל חית השדה ולאדם לא־מצא עזר כנגדו׃

2:24 ( the 2nd commandment almost everyone ignores)
על־כן יעזב־איש את־אביו ואת־אמו ודבק באשתו והיו לבשר אחד׃

3:6
ותרא האשה כי טוב העץ למאכל וכי תאוה־הוא לעינים ונחמד העץ להשכיל ותקח מפריו ותאכל ותתן גם־לאישה עמה ויאכל׃


3:11
ויאמר מי הגיד לך כי עירם אתה המן־העץ אשר צויתיך לבלתי אכל־ממנו אכלת׃

3:12
ויאמר האדם האשה אשר נתתה עמדי הוא נתנה־לי מן־העץ
ואכל׃

True, it does not use the word sin in those verses, at least in English. So tell me, was Adam obedient to God's command about not eating from that tree? Obviously not. So please do say what is your concept of sin.

 

[dybmh]

So tell me, was Adam obedient to God's command about not eating from that tree?

Prohibition: "לא תאכל ממנו" "not eat from it"

From where did Adam get the fruit? Was it from the tree?

See 3:6. "ותתן גם־לאישה עמה ויאכל" "and [it] was given also, to her husband with her, and he ate."

Adam did not violate the prohibition. Instead, he followed the 2nd law given to him 2:24. Adam did not sin. The author Romans is wrong.

This is further confirmed in the confession/interrogation sequence I cited. The entire story is a trap for the serpent, Nachash, who makes a future appearance in the prophets. The serpent is the only one which sinned. It's the only one which is cursed.

 

[YoursTrue]

Prohibition: "לא תאכל ממנו" "not eat from it"

From where did Adam get the fruit? Was it from the tree?

See 3:6. "ותתן גם־לאישה עמה ויאכל" "and [it] was given also, to her husband with her, and he ate."

Adam did not violate the prohibition. Instead, he followed the 2nd law given to him 2:24. Adam did not sin. The author Romans is wrong.

This is further confirmed in the confession/interrogation sequence I cited. The entire story is a trap for the serpent, Nachash, who makes a future appearance in the prophets. The serpent is the only one which sinned. It's the only one which is cursed.

Look, I don't like to play too many games like this, to be sure. But I'll mention that the fruit obviously came from the tree, although it was given to him by his wife. The author of Romans was not wrong. Adam took the fruit. He knew he was not to eat from that tree. He disobeyed his maker. Why? Do you think he thought it was a good thing to eat the fruit his wife offered him? As I said I don't like too many games regarding this and distorting the scriptures. So let's see -- what happened after Adam took the fruit? Was he allowed to stay in the garden?

Genesis 3: God spoke to Adam after he ate the fruit:

To Adam he said, “Because you listened to your wife and ate fruit from the tree about which I commanded you, ‘You must not eat from it,’
“Cursed is the ground because of you;
through painful toil you will eat food from it
all the days of your life.
18It will produce thorns and thistles for you,
and you will eat the plants of the field.
19By the sweat of your brow
you will eat your food
until you return to the ground,
since from it you were taken;
for dust you are
and to dust you will return.”

The scripture speaks for itself, I don't have to interpret it for you.

 

[The Hammer]

Adam didn't sin. Only the serpent sinned.

Did the serpent "sin" or just do what it was Fated to do?

 

[Heyo]

Yes. It's a good point. Another poster said the same thing. The words I used to describe this are "achievement" or "graduation" not "salvation". But I like how you phrased it better.

If the Savior is Self, then, I think, the Savior is a Hero, not a Savior. In order to be saved, there are 3 parties:

1. Opressor
2. Victom
3. Savior

If the Savior is the Victim, I think and hope we can at least agree it's a a totally different question.

It is a different question, but the situation is very similar. In Christianity there are also only two entities, with one being in personal union both oppressor and saviour.

 

[Koldo]

That supports my proposition. Salvation is self-defeating.

How does it support your proposition?

Glad we agree. I stopped reading after the 3rd sentence.

That's why you come to these weird conclusions: You don't read.

 

[Koldo]

There is one and only one which is perfect.

Yes, the savior.

 

[Kenny]

1. Beggars can't be choosers.
2. Salvation is salvation.
3. Any port in a storm.
4. The enemy of my enemy is my friend.
5. Desperation calls for strange bed-fellows / desperate times call for desperate measures
6. Necessity is the mother of invention ( title of Savior, capital 'S', is manufactured out of necessity )
7. Stockholm syndrome

So, if I understand correctly, we have no history for this “Savior”? It is like “He just appeared and we don’t know if he is foe or friend?"

 

[Kenny]

There is one and only one which is perfect. Because of this, it is highly unlikely the savior is perfect. This, naturally, sets up the possibility that the savior could at some point flip and become an oppressor. This doubt increases when one considers their most recent oppression, from which they required the saving. Hence the savior.

LOL I think we are trying to construct a position of an immovable object hitting an unstoppable force when we make assumptions with no foundation to support it such as “highly unlikely the savior is perfect”. Not to mention that in my context since it was “the only one who is perfect” who came.

 

[dybmh]

Look, I don't like to play too many games like this, to be sure

I am not playing games. I'm hurt by the implication. You asked me a question. I brought you the exact verses, in their original language. It is undeniable that Adam did not sin. This is serious. This is a serious allegation. It's a serious crime. The author of Romans is condemning an innocent man to death. That's not a game to me. And it shouldn't be labeled that way unless you are not taking scripture seriously. And I know you too well to believe that is the case.

 

[dybmh]

It is a different question, but the situation is very similar. In Christianity there are also only two entities, with one being in personal union both oppressor and saviour.

You're butting into our conversation in order to preach. Please don't.

This is a fail. You want to preach and post from the atheist meme-factory, but you've completely lost touch with your own statements.

there are also only two entities

Your meme only works if there are not two entities. Jesus is saying in the speech-bubble: "I'm here to save you from myself."

 

[YoursTrue]

I am not playing games. I'm hurt by the implication. You asked me a question. I brought you the exact verses, in their original language. It is undeniable that Adam did not sin. This is serious. This is a serious allegation. It's a serious crime. The author of Romans is condemning an innocent man to death. That's not a game to me. And it shouldn't be labeled that way unless you are not taking scripture seriously. And I know you too well to believe that is the case.

I'm beginning to wonder -- what do you think sin is? Maybe you can start there so we have a somewhat common ground. ? If you've already defined what you think sin is, please excuse but write it again. Thanks.Sorry if your feelings are hurt, I apologize...I'm a bit farblungered (mixed up, confused) that you do not think Adam sinned. Maybe you think he was blessed by God because he ate the fruit his wife gave him which he knew he was told not to eat.

 

[dybmh]

The scripture speaks for itself,

You're not quoting scripture. You're quoting the JW's adaptation ( spin-off ). I love them. They're wonderful. But their translation is not "scripture".

Cursed is the ground because of you

Please show me the Hebrew word in the verse which is being translated as "because"?

אֲרוּרָ֤ה הָֽאֲדָמָה֙ בַּֽעֲבוּרֶ֔ךָ בְּעִצָּבוֹן֙ תֹּֽאכֲלֶ֔נָּה כֹּ֖ל יְמֵ֥י חַיֶּֽיךָ

Hint: It's not there. The JWs added that because Romans said so. If the scripture is left to speak for itself, the translation would not be adding words.

 

[dybmh]

I'm beginning to wonder -- what do you think sin is?

Good timing: That discussion is happening in another thread. I wrote about it this morning. Start here ( LINK ) and read the replies.

 

[YoursTrue]

How does it support your proposition?

You were responding to @dybmh's statement when he said, "That supports my proposition. Salvation is self-defeating."
And I wonder the same thing as you do -- how does he come to the idea that "salvation is self-defeating." @dybmh ?

 

[YoursTrue]

You're not quoting scripture. You're quoting the JW's adaptation ( spin-off ). I love them. They're wonderful. But their translation is not "scripture".



Please show me the Hebrew word in the verse which is being translated as "because"?

אֲרוּרָ֤ה הָֽאֲדָמָה֙ בַּֽעֲבוּרֶ֔ךָ בְּעִצָּבוֹן֙ תֹּֽאכֲלֶ֔נָּה כֹּ֖ל יְמֵ֥י חַיֶּֽיךָ

Hint: It's not there. The JWs added that because Romans said so. If the scripture is left to speak for itself, the translation would not be adding words.

There are certainly various translations. So again -- how do you come to the conclusion that Adam did not sin? (Was he without sin?) Let's try to start there.

 

[dybmh]

Maybe you think he was blessed by God because he ate the fruit his wife gave him which he knew he was told not to eat.

Eve is the blessing. Adam cleaved to her as directed. And they are being blessed forever more. Eve took one for the team. She's a heroine. Adam did the right thing sticking with her. There are many profound secrets in the story. But the only way to appreciate it is to look at the story from the perspective of each of the characters in the story.

1. Jehovah-Elohim
2. Adam
3. Eve
4. Nachash ( Serpent #1 )
5. Samael ( Serpent #2 hiding in plain sight )

Both of the serpents ( Nachash and Samael ) are also included in Gen 1. They are the conjoined twin forces: "Tohu v'Bohu" Chaos ( Nachash ) and Void ( Samael ).

 

[dybmh]

How does it support your proposition?

Think about it. I'm too busy to spoon feed you.

 

[dybmh]

Yes, the savior [ is the one and only one which is perfect ].

How do you know? That's the whole point of the thread. How does one know that their savior won't flip to oppressor? Your argument is suffering from stockholm-syndrome.