Jesus died for our sins?

[fidiot]

I was wondering the other day, why do Christians seem to emphasize this so much? Yes, for an ordinary human being, this might be a very altruistic thing to do, but for an all-powerful god? When you look at the big picture, all of the sinners and unbelievers who are supposedly burning in hell for eternity would seem to suffer a lot more than one person dying on a cross. You'd think god would pull off something more powerful to get his message across.

[K-W]

The only answers to such issues is that god works in ways we cannot understand. Be interesting to understand the parameters god operates under if in order to enact his will he has to manifest himself as a human and get himself killed.

Originally posted by fidiot
I was wondering the other day, why do Christians seem to emphasize this so much? Yes, for an ordinary human being, this might be a very altruistic thing to do, but for an all-powerful god? When you look at the big picture, all of the sinners and unbelievers who are supposedly burning in hell for eternity would seem to suffer a lot more than one person dying on a cross. You'd think god would pull off something more powerful to get his message across.

Hi Fidiot :

According to your assumption Jesus really existed and died ?
I mean like a normal human.
Or do you think Jesus never existed ?

Thanks,
S&S

[fidiot]

S&S:

I'm simply looking at the christian belief and trying to see if it makes sense. According to christianity, Jesus was a real person, so in order to evaluate their claim one has to assume that.

[Lucifuge Rofocale]

The real sacrifice would have been jebuz burning in hell for all eternity. But jus dying...is not a real sacrifice for someone who is supposed to be alive and ready to come to earth for the second time....naaaaaah

Believer: JESUS DIED FOR YOU
Me: SO HE WILL NEVER GET BACK BECAUSE HE IS DEAD
Believer: HE IS ALIVE
Me: BUT TO DIE IS TO CEASE TO EXIST
Believer: HE DIED AND THEN RESURRECTED.
Me: SO HE DIDN'T PAY FOR OUR SINS...BECAUSE THE PUNISMENT FOR SIN IS ETERNAL TORMENT AND HE IS NOT IN TORMENT.
Believer: (add replies here)

Originally posted by fidiot
S&S:

I'm simply looking at the christian belief and trying to see if it makes sense. According to christianity, Jesus was a real person, so in order to evaluate their claim one has to assume that.

You did not answer my question.

Thanks,
S&S

[c4ts]

Originally posted by fidiot
I was wondering the other day, why do Christians seem to emphasize this so much? Yes, for an ordinary human being, this might be a very altruistic thing to do, but for an all-powerful god? When you look at the big picture, all of the sinners and unbelievers who are supposedly burning in hell for eternity would seem to suffer a lot more than one person dying on a cross. You'd think god would pull off something more powerful to get his message across.

If Jesus died for our sins, why couldn't he stay dead?

I am still waiting for your answer Fidiot.
-----------------------
According to your assumption Jesus really existed and died ?
I mean like a normal human.
Or do you think Jesus never existed ?
-----------------------

Then I will debate about your assumption in your opening post.

Thanks,
S&S

[fidiot]

S&S:

I didn't answer your question because my belief is irrelevant to this topic. I didn't start an argument about my beliefs, I started a discussion about christian beliefs. So if it really bothers you that I don't want to discuss irrelevant matter in this thread, then start a new thread about it.

[c4ts]

Don't try to reason with him. It's a futile gesture.

Originally posted by fidiot
S&S:

I didn't answer your question because my belief is irrelevant to this topic. I didn't start an argument about my beliefs, I started a discussion about christian beliefs. So if it really bothers you that I don't want to discuss irrelevant matter in this thread, then start a new thread about it.

You can not start a thread just for mockering in the beleifs of millions of people , since you are not sure or refuse to answer a simple question related to the same topic you started.
If you refuse to do it , then you are just using a Foolosophy.
First the first. Then you can mockery if you want and if you can.

Thanks,
S&S

[The Fool]

Originally posted by S&S


You can not start a thread just for mockering in the beleifs of millions of people , since you are not sure or refuse to answer a simple question related to the same topic you started.
If you refuse to do it , then you are just using a Foolosophy.
First the first. Then you can mockery if you want and if you can.

Thanks,
S&S
Carlos....you are being a naughty boy again. It is not polite to crash someones thread and start demanding they do things...Naughty carlos!

[fidiot]

Originally posted by S&S
You can not start a thread just for mockering in the beleifs of millions of people , since you are not sure or refuse to answer a simple question related to the same topic you started.
If you refuse to do it , then you are just using a Foolosophy.
First the first. Then you can mockery if you want and if you can.


Ok, this is the last time I'm going to explain this before I ignore your future posts of similar nature.

First of all, I wasn't "mockering" anyone's beliefs, I'm sorry, but it's all in your head. I was listening to a christian radio show and they had people on who were saying how realizing that "Jesus died for our sins" has made them turn to god, etc. I thought that it didn't make much sense, and so I started this topic to discuss this issue further. So if you don't want to discuss this, don't post here, but don't start hijacking the thread with your irrelevant questions.

Originally posted by fidiot


Ok, this is the last time I'm going to explain this before I ignore your future posts of similar nature.

First of all, I wasn't "mockering" anyone's beliefs, I'm sorry, but it's all in your head. I was listening to a christian radio show and they had people on who were saying how realizing that "Jesus died for our sins" has made them turn to god, etc. I thought that it didn't make much sense, and so I started this topic to discuss this issue further. So if you don't want to discuss this, don't post here, but don't start hijacking the thread with your irrelevant questions.

Irrelevant question ? Only under your fear perspective.

What is your fear to answer a simple question?

Thanks,
S&S

P.S.

Next steps : you already know Foolosophy : "troll, ignore buttom, don't feed the trolls, oh that poor english "

[ImpyTimpy]

You know, you just gave me an idea about something.

Jesus dies for our sins so he had to bear the sins of everyone (which I guess represents the suffering on the cross etc). After that, everyone was forgiven. Now the entire world (back then) would be a pretty nasty place, so if Jesus had to die for all sins past and present we're looking at a LOT of sinning. Yet when someone sins a fraction compared to what Jesus had to take on, they are told about eternal damnation (and how they must beg for forgiveness etc etc). If you ask me, the whole christianity has it all backwards... You can sin all you want, if God's punishment for all the sins of the world is to crucify you, then the punishment for the most sinful single life surely must be a few lashes or something.. Forget hell, sin away, if heaven is real you'll most likely get away with a slap on the wrist before being let in.

:D

Originally posted by Lucifuge Rofocale
The real sacrifice would have been jebuz burning in hell for all eternity. But jus dying...is not a real sacrifice for someone who is supposed to be alive and ready to come to earth for the second time....naaaaaah

Believer: JESUS DIED FOR YOU
Me: SO HE WILL NEVER GET BACK BECAUSE HE IS DEAD
Believer: HE IS ALIVE
Me: BUT TO DIE IS TO CEASE TO EXIST
Believer: HE DIED AND THEN RESURRECTED.
Me: SO HE DIDN'T PAY FOR OUR SINS...BECAUSE THE PUNISMENT FOR SIN IS ETERNAL TORMENT AND HE IS NOT IN TORMENT.
Believer: (add replies here)

[Gregor]

The easy way out.

While most criminals crucified took 48 hours to die of slow strangulation, Jesus 'died' in three hours. Further, presumably as a divine being, what real pain would he feel? Then, of course, he was taken down and later resurrected.

I think Xians should revise their trademarked tag line to:

"Jesus suffered three hours of minor annoyance for your sins (p.s. the sins that God put into you to begin with)."

[K-W]

Maybe god could just stop blaming us for 2 shmoes eating an apple millions of years ago instead of all this rigamorall to forgive us for something we didnt do.

[Gregor]

And why blame those two schmos to begin with? He created them without the ability to know the difference between right and wrong.

If you don't know it's 'wrong' - it isn't sin. But I'll roast you anyway.

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by c4ts


If Jesus died for our sins, why couldn't he stay dead?

'Cos he had to come back to tell us! "Jesus died because of a rigged poll" doesn't quite have the same evangelical ring to it... ;)

[zakur]

Christians! They delegate their wrong-doing to Christ who suffers for them in proxy! 'Let Christ do the suffering,' that's their motto. 'Let Christ be punished in my place.' Christ earns God's grace the hard way, and all they have to do is drink Christ's blood and eat His flesh on Sunday. Christians acquire God's grace secondhand. For this service they are grateful and worship him. Been a popular sales pitch for thousands of years. Christians are the ones who get indignant when THEY get nailed to a cross; they think God's been falling down on HIS job and hire a lawyer to sue him...Your sins aren't transferrable. In the long run you get nailed to your own cross. Christ never saved a single soul but his own.
—Donald Kingsbury

[Samus]

Now that you mention it, the belief that Jesus died for our sins is kinda hard to grasp.

From what I understand (someone feel free to correct this if it's wrong), the gist is that we were all sinners due to Adam and Jesus was the sacrifice for everyone's sin. One can have their sins remitted by being baptized in the Name of Jesus.

I also know of the concept of "original sin," that we're born sinners. I think that's an idea restricted to Catholicism, yes? That would justify babies getting baptized, because we need to remit sins they haven't yet committed considering they're only a couple months old.

Thing is, Jesus died a couple millennia ago. For the population at the time, I could see how he died for their sins (their primary sin, I'm assuming, being a lack of belief in god).

The part I struggle with is this: how could someone die 2000 years ago for people that haven't been born yet? I wasn't committing sins when he was alive, how did he die for me personally? He died for my sins, but I didn't have any sins, I didn't exist.

I seek to understand this viewpoint, not mock it. After all, I can't mock it until I have a better understanding of it! :) How would a Christian reply to my question in the previous graf? How can a death 2000 years ago happen for people alive today?

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by K-W
The only answers to such issues is that god works in ways we cannot understand. Be interesting to understand the parameters god operates under if in order to enact his will he has to manifest himself as a human and get himself killed.

Well, Jesus was god's son, not god himself, although as part of the holy trinity they're all one person... god... um... have I ever mentioned why I gave up being a catholic? :D

[aggle_rithm]

I think it goes back to the concept of the scapegoat, which in ancient times was an animal that ritualistically assumed the sins of a community, then was killed or driven out. In Christianity, Christ is a kinder, gentler scapegoat (Lamb of God) who willingly took on the sins of the community (the whole world) and allowed himself to be killed as a symbolic gesture.

It's pretty deep, really. :cool:

[Samus]

So Jesus took one for the team?

Sounds more like the wimpy kid on the bench in Little League than the son of God.

[Crossbow]

Originally posted by aggle_rithm
I think it goes back to the concept of the scapegoat, which in ancient times was an animal that ritualistically assumed the sins of a community, then was killed or driven out. In Christianity, Christ is a kinder, gentler scapegoat (Lamb of God) who willingly took on the sins of the community (the whole world) and allowed himself to be killed as a symbolic gesture.

It's pretty deep, really. :cool:

Thanks aggle_rithm!

I have always wondered how the Jesus dying for our sins thing worked and now I have a better idea of how it works. I was beginning to think that no one, especially Christians, understood the what it actually meant.

However the biblical tale has been interpeted by many in this fashion,
which makes the interpetation into a dogma, and
which means that many will accept it without doubt or question.

However popular acceptance does not actually answer the question at hand.

[Ian Osborne]

Originally posted by Gregor
While most criminals crucified took 48 hours to die of slow strangulation, Jesus 'died' in three hours.

I think you mean asphyxiation. It often took several days to die on the cross because what killed you was your bodyweight dragged you down, making it difficult to breathe. Of course, you could push yourself up again with your legs and breathe again, until exhaustion, blood loss and fatigue prevented you doing so. This is why crucified criminals that weren't dead by the end of Friday had their legs broken, so they would die quicker and could be taken down before the Sabbath.

By the time Jesus was crucified, he was already in a weakened state due to being flogged earlier. That's why he alone collapsed when carrying his cross to the place of execution. The reason he died sooner, then, is that his body became exhausted sooner.

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by aggle_rithm
I think it goes back to the concept of the scapegoat, which in ancient times was an animal that ritualistically assumed the sins of a community, then was killed or driven out. In Christianity, Christ is a kinder, gentler scapegoat (Lamb of God) who willingly took on the sins of the community (the whole world) and allowed himself to be killed as a symbolic gesture.

It's pretty deep, really. :cool:

Actually, it's the ultimate protection racket.

Jesus died to save us from our sins. Save us from what? Well, to save us hell. But why would we go to hell? Because God (i.e. Jesus) says so. God's just a mafia boss, and "paying for sins" is just a protection racket.

"You need to pay us a hundred dollars to protect your business."
"Protect it from what?"
"To protect it from supposing that it got set on fire. We ain't going to let that happen if you pay us."

Of course, if the only reason the place would be set on fire int eh first place is because those guys will come back and light it. That's a protection racket. Then there's God:

"You need a sacrifice for your sins to save you."
"Save me from what?"
"To save you from being sent to hell. You won't go to hell if you are saved."

Of course, the only reason hell is a danger in the first place is because God send you there. So the "died for our sins" is just a protection payment.

[K-W]

Originally posted by Ian Osborne

By the time Jesus was crucified, he was already in a weakened state due to being flogged earlier. That's why he alone collapsed when carrying his cross to the place of execution. The reason he died sooner, then, is that his body became exhausted sooner.

But dont you think being the son of god might give you some extra endurance?

[TylerD]

I've always had trouble with the whole "Jesus died for our sins" racket, it's always sounded like a load of crap to me.

There was a question asked by Thomas Paine in the "Age of Reason", that was "How can man be improved upon by the example of murder?" How does God killing himself save anybody from anything?

Well, there's no real point in posing these questions to Christians. When you do it usually goes something like this.

XIAN: Jesus died so that you can have eternal life!
ME: Why can't God just give it to me.
XIAN: Because you have sin and need to be saved from it!
ME: Didn't God create sin?
XIAN: NO! Sin was created by the initial disobedience of Adam and Eve!
ME Uh...wouldn't there already have to be sin in order for Adam and Eve to sin in the first place?
XIAN: Oh...um..ug (insert pathetic rationalization) YOU MUST ACCEPT JESUS AS YOUR LORD AND SAVIOR!!!

It's sad really.

[Dymanic]

I think aggle_rithm's got it with the scapegoat thing.

It all just kind of clicks with the way our brains are wired to work.

An angry human may be pacified with a gift--a piece of fruit, maybe, or a hunk of meat. A group of hostile humans may be pacified with a gift of a virgin. From there, it's not a long walk to the idea that an angry mountain, or whatever is in charge of rainfall, may be similarly appeased. So it is not surprising that the practice of blood sacrifice (burnt offerings, etc.) arose in many different primitive cultures worldwide.

Some individuals came to realize that if they could convince others that they had a special ability to understand what sacrifices were required and when, they could earn a living doing nothing else. So a priesthood developed. In many cultures, possession of these secrets enabled the priests to wield greater power than even the ruling class.

Christianity is a modernized version of this ancient game, but with a couple of innovative twists. Jesus is the ultimate blood sacrifice--the blood sacrifice to end all blood sacrifices. In keeping with his new image as a 'kinder, gentler' God (in contrast with the angry, jealous, selfish, brutal, sadistic dictator he was in the old testament), God himself provides the sacrifice.

The reason this package gained popularity is that it offerred an effective means of ousting repressive and often brutal priesthoods from their entrenched positions of power.

[Dancing David]

I think tha the scapegoat goes back to Ibrahim and god demanding he kill his son to test his faith, then he previded the goat after Ibrahim showed his faith in god. (I feel that he passed the test already:'Cot off the end of my ... you must be kidding God)


Even when I was a Xian ididn't buy the whole resurection and death for sins thing, Jesus didn't say it afetr all, it was the disciples using him as a sock puppet.

I thought that they broke your arms to make for a shorter cruxifiction.

Peace

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by Dancing David

I thought that they broke your arms to make for a shorter cruxifiction.



I think you have this confused with how they handled a shorter cross..

Originally posted by TylerD
ME Uh...wouldn't there already have to be sin in order for Adam and Eve to sin in the first place?


I'm afraid I don't follow this point. If god had stated that it was not to be done, and they went and did it anyway, that was an initial transgression, and the first sin. There were no others before them to sin...

So are you saying that the initial state of transgression already existed because god set up the conditions under which A&E could make the wrong choice?

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by Lost Sailor


I'm afraid I don't follow this point. If god had stated that it was not to be done, and they went and did it anyway, that was an initial transgression, and the first sin. There were no others before them to sin...

So are you saying that the initial state of transgression already existed because god set up the conditions under which A&E could make the wrong choice?

This is one of the most famous biblical paradox's(?)..


A&E sinned by eating the fruit that gave them knowledge of good and evil... WTF?:confused:

[c4ts]

I don't remember reading about the fruit being filled with knowledge of what is good and evil. If that is supposed to be what original sin is, then there's no evidence for it, because most people really don't have that knowledge.

[Ricomise]

c4ts,

Genesis 2:17: But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

and:3:4 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die: 3:5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.


Taken directly from the King James Version. I supposes there may be other versions that do not say this.

[aggle_rithm]

Originally posted by dwb
So Jesus took one for the team?

Sounds more like the wimpy kid on the bench in Little League than the son of God.

Well, it wasn't his idea.

I've always had a fantasy of God giving Jesus a pep talk before sending him to Earth:

OK, Jesus, you're going to have to go down there and die for the world's sins. By Gum, I wish I could be going with you... Let me know how it comes out...

[Gregor]

As to Genesis - Is God a liar as well as an unfit parent?

He says Adam will die if he ate the fruit.
He said the fruit would give him the knowledge to know the difference between right and wrong.

It didn't kill him.
Adam was punished because he did not know it was wrong. It's whipping (for eternity) your one year-old for pulling the dog's tail after you said 'don't do that'.

[And don't give me that lame justification "Once Adam ate the apple, he became mortal and subject to death." Because (i) that's not what the admonition was and (ii) God told the other gods in Gen. 3:22 let's kick him out of Eden before he eats from the tree of eternal life and becomes 'one of us!' It doesn't follow that Adam had eternal life before he ate the first fruit.]

And as for Jesus as a scapegoat, it's good, but it's clearly special pleading. This is how it really happened . . .

[Scene: Gallile 33 CE, Tuesday] Peter speaks: "We were all a bunch of cowards running away at his arrest, and now they've killed him."

James: "You know he was a great guy. They killed him, but we could continue his message of peace and help for the poor."

Luke: "Yeah, it's like he died for us."

Peter: "God must have wanted him to die, but why?"

James: "He had to die, so that we could . . . um . . . live forever."

Peter: "Sure, that's the only good explanation."

Luke: "Where did they bury him?"

Peter: "We sure don't know, we ran away. But I heard Mary Magdalen say this morning that she went to the tomb they temporarily buried him in and his body was gone."

Luke: "I guess they moved him or someone stole the body."

James: "Wait a second, guys, He appeared to me last night - I thought it was just a dream, but since you say the body is missing, maybe it was really him."

Luke: "It was. I think He was resurrected!"

Peter: "Ok, now we know. He was killed for us. He's kind of like the scapegoat the rabbi talks about. And he rose again and he lives today."

James: "Somebody better write this stuff down."

Luke: "Well, let's wait 50 years - my memory gets better with age."

THE END

[c4ts]

Originally posted by Ricomise
c4ts,



and:


Taken directly from the King James Version. I supposes there may be other versions that do not say this.

I seem to remember a translation that said mortality was in the fruit, that's all.

[Gregor]

c4ts
There were two trees:

2:9 And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

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:

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by Ricomise


Taken directly from the King James Version. I supposes there may be other versions that do not say this.

Here are a few:

New International Version
Genesis 2
8 Now the LORD God had planted a garden in the east, in Eden; and there he put the man he had formed. 9 And the LORD God made all kinds of trees grow out of the ground-trees that were pleasing to the eye and good for food. In the middle of the garden were the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

New American Standard Bible
Genesis 2
8 The LORD God planted a (1) garden toward the east, in Eden; and there He placed the man whom He had formed.
9 Out of the ground the LORD God caused to grow (2) every tree that is pleasing to the sight and good for food; (3) the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

The Message
Genesis 2
8Then GOD planted a garden in Eden, in the east. He put the Man he had just made in it. 9GOD made all kinds of trees grow from the ground, trees beautiful to look at and good to eat. The Tree-of-Life was in the middle of the garden, also the Tree-of-Knowledge-of-Good-and-Evil.


Amplified Bible
Genesis 2
8And the Lord God planted a garden toward the east, in Eden [delight]; and there He put the man whom He had formed (framed, constituted).
9And out of the ground the Lord God made to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight or to be desired--good (suitable, pleasant) for food; the tree of life also in the center of the garden, and the tree of the knowledge of [the difference between] good and evil and blessing and calamity.(1)

Contemporary English Version
Genesis 2
8The LORD made a garden in a place called Eden, which was in the east, and he put the man there. 9The LORD God placed all kinds of beautiful trees and fruit trees in the garden. Two other trees were in the middle of the garden. One of the trees gave life--the other gave the power to know the difference between right and wrong.

You can check other versions here:
The Bible Gateway (http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible?passage=GEN%2B2%3A8-9&showfn=on&showxref=on&language=english&version=ASV&x=15&y=5)

Looks like the fruit of " the knowledge of good and evil " is pretty consistant...

[Dancing David]

Unfortunatelt the Bible is heavily edited so we are lacking the rue polytheistic flavor of the original.
What is interesting is that god clothes A&E in the skins of animals, which I think has something to do with incarnation.

Then there is the whole thing about Adams first wife....

Peace

[K-W]

IF he didnt know good and evil before eating the apple, how woud he know following gods orders was good and following talking serpants was evil?


All in all, god can be a real jerk sometimes. He just sets people up.

[JAR]

I know what you mean, dude.

[aerosolben]

New and Improved Christianity (apologies to pirated mythologies):

God (think Brahma) creates the universe. God creates two sons, Jesus (good) and Lucifer (evil) (think Taoism). Jesus is given dominion over the heavens, and he creates many happy souls (angels) to populate it, all living in eternal bliss. Satan gets dominion over the Earth, and he populates it with humans and gets his jollies by giving them free will and watching them duke it out in his big reality show (think South Park) then throws them in hell when they die to mess with them personally.
Now Jesus looks down on the Earth from heaven and takes pity on the people suffering there. He disguises himself as a mortal and goes out wandering amidst the commoners, teaching them ways to make their time on Earth (before they're directly in Satan's clutches) more palatable, via the Golden rule and such. Finally, Satan notices, gets pissed, and annihilates Jesus' mortal form. Since Jesus' immortal soul had been bound to the form, he ceases to exist forever.
God notices this (he's all powerful, but omniscience is usually turned off for peace of mind), and gets royally pissed at Satan for destroying his brother. He bars him from interfering directly in the affairs of Earth, and, in memory of the son he lost, allows Jesus' followers on Earth to join his followers in Heaven when they die.

There you go. Real sacrifice on the part of Jesus (actually risking his immortal soul), explanation for why evil is on Earth in the first place, explanation for why belief and not good deeds get you into Heaven (God isn't particularly benevolent). I'm sure if I took more than 5 minutes I could iron out most of the rest of the holes too.

[c4ts]

If Satan controls the Earth, what was the Garden of Eden doing there?

[triadboy]

Originally posted by fidiot
S&S:

I'm simply looking at the christian belief and trying to see if it makes sense. According to christianity, Jesus was a real person, so in order to evaluate their claim one has to assume that.

The problem with Christianity is - it was never supposed to be believed as history. It was supposed to be believed in the same way that all the "mystery religions" (mithraism, Osiris, Dionysus, etc) were believed - as a symbol.

In the mystery religions, a wonderful story was given to the 'initiate" for them to dwell on. It was the story of a dying god-man who is unjustly put to death but is resurrected.

After the 'initiate' understood this concept - the 'initiate' was made privy to the 'inner mystery' in a ceremony that was kept hush-hush. (These ceremonies are documented in Egypt, Greece, Rome, etc) The people who were inducted into the inner mysteries understood something beyond religion and became excited about life.

Paul (from Tarsus - a hotbed of mithrasim) introduced the "story" - and apparently inducted people into the "inner mysteries". (His letters are dripping with mystery religion wording) Unfortunately, people believed the story as history (with the help of the early church fathers) and were never privy to the inner mystery ceremonies.

[As many of you know, a letter fragment by Clement makes reference to a secret Gospel of Mark. This secret gospel may have been the instructions for initiating 'story initiates' into the inner mystery.]

It's all so fascinating!

[triadboy]

Originally posted by c4ts


I seem to remember a translation that said mortality was in the fruit, that's all.

I believe there is a reference to the fruit not containing seeds(?)

If that is the case then the fruit is a banana! Isn't that appropriate?

[Acrimonious]

Adam and Eve were the first scientists.

They don't know the snake is evil.
They don't know God is good.

They have 2 conflicting accounts on what the tree's fruit does. One of them disobeys God, but this has no bearing whatsoever. They don't know disobeying God is evil.

So they're in paradise with conflicting signals, with no way to know which one is correct. They also have an eternity of time to spend in figuring out. That's right. They're there forever, and the only interesting thing going on relates to the fruit of that darn tree.

Obviously it's important. Obviously, one or both of these supernatural beings is lying to them.

What do they do to test the claims of God and the serpent in the absence of moral indicators?

The Scientific Method.

Experiment 1:
==========
Don't eat fruit
Observe results

They've been refraining from eating the fruit for an age and a half. God's correct, in that they still don't know good from evil. The snake is correct, in that they don't have the powers of God. More testing is needed.

Either: God's trying to deceive them to keep them from becoming Gods.

Or: The snake's lying, and eating the fruit will give them Good & Evil knowledge, but will kill them.

There's only one way to find out.

Experiment 2
=========
Eat Fruit
Observe results.


Nevermind the fact that an omniscient and omnipotent God would:
a) know the outcome of the entire scenario before setting it up
b) have the power to change the set-up to prevent the incident.
c) have the power to prevent satan from infiltrating Eden
d) know exactly when and if satan infiltrated Eden, and would have the power to kick him out.
e) know that with no knowledge of Good and Evil, the curiosity HE PUT INTO his own creations would cause them to want to find out the truth of the effect of the fruit.

The short version: Eden is a classic case of Entrapment.

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by triadboy


I believe there is a reference to the fruit not containing seeds(?)

If that is the case then the fruit is a banana! Isn't that appropriate?

If this was true, chances are, Eve would have never shared it with Adam.

[Skeptical Greg]

Acrimonious,

Nice!:)