by Cold Steel 32 Replies latest watchtower bible
ok ok--enough about adamneve already....
now--what about the snake ? i reckon it played a big part in human history--so--it deserves a resurrection.
the big question is--will it grow its legs back ? how many did it have ? 2 or 4 ?
i think a talking snake standing on 2 legs would be pretty cool. i would pay good money for it.
Whether Adam and Eve, the snake and the fruit actually existed is irrelevant. The question is whether Adam and Eve will be resurrected according to JW doctrine is the question.
Cold Steel - "What happens to Adam and Eve?"
I dunno.
What happens to Adam and Steve?
What happened to them? Well, big J said they would die the day that they ate of the tree so they dropped dead that very day ... 900 years later, apparently. All totally believable and legit, no plot-holes whatsoever.
The JWs are wrong - Coldsteel
You are kind of preaching to the choir are you not?
Also when you ask a question and somebody posts detailed historical information you could not possibly have known without their help it's courteous to say thanks.
As my husband said recently, why would perfect people talk to a fricking snake! I wouldn't talk to a fricking snake and I'm not perfect!
Whatever happened? they were tricked. Eve was told she would die if she so much as touched the fruit, she did and didn't. So Adam seeing that Eve had a magic, no-death touch, that she had neutralized that threat, ate, perhaps mouth-fed, did-not die that day either, lived ~930 years, but did not live long enough to find out from Peter that the voice had really meant 1000 year days. . big mistake, Adam should have requested the 7000 year creative day.
I've always been interested in knowing what people think -- not because they are right or wrong but because of what it tells me about the people. For example, I ask people occasionally if they believe if animals have spirits or, if they're adventists, souls. It's not that I'm searching for the answer to this question, but rather, I'm more interested in their reasoning. If a person believes in Adam and Eve, and if they believe that the God they worship will destroy them because they ate forbidden fruit, it tells me something about them, the way they think and their perception of God and their willingness to worship Him.
That perception of God and people's willingness to worship Him is what I find most fascinating. Is God's power the only qualification for godhood? Or is it power and knowledge? How about disposition? If God were evil, would He still be worthy of worship by virtue of His power and authority?
I actually didn't know what the JW view of Adam and Eve's fate was when I wrote my post. Given that according to the story, the forbidden fruit gave the couple the ability to know good from evil. This of course implies that before they partook of the forbidden fruit, Adam and Eve didn't know good from evil, right from wrong. Thus, if God denies them coverage under the redeeming blood of Christ when they were more like children (in a state of innocence), what does this say of Him? One can only sin if they know good from evil. We don't kill a child if they disobey us, neither do we punish them excessively. In this case, Yahweh essentially judges children (who know neither right from wrong) by death.
This isn't what the Christian world teaches. In fact, the Orthodox teach that man's potential in the Garden was painfully limited. God essentially set man up specifically to fail. He couldn't bring the couple to sin on His own accord because it had to be man's doing. What did man stand to gain? Becoming like God Himself; being an heir through the blood of Christ to a heavenly glory far exceeding what Adam and Eve were capable of achieving in the Garden. On the other hand, there was much to lose if men chose the wrong paths in mortality.
Joseph Rutherford made doctrine when he declared Adam and Eve to be doomed. It speaks more to how he viewed God.
But if Rutherford declared his view to be doctrine, does this mean it can't be questioned? If Russell said one thing and Rutherford said another, could one bring it up in study and say, "After studying the issue I'm more inclined to agree with Russell than Rutherford"? Or is Rutherford's view binding on the congregation?
Cold Steel - "Joseph Rutherford made doctrine when he declared Adam and Eve to be doomed. It speaks more to how he viewed God."
Funny how often religious leaders who also happen to be assholes tend to think of God as being just like them. :smirk:
If Russell said one thing and Rutherford said another, could one bring it up in study and say, "After studying the issue I'm more inclined to agree with Russell than Rutherford"? Or is Rutherford's view binding on the congregation? - Coldsteel
Just like in the Mormon mind-controlling cult, the latest bullshit spouted by the latest leader is binding and supersedes all previous bullshit.
