Adam And Eve - Tumblr Posts
so I finally read the Adam and Eve story for myself and I have some SHIT TO SAY.
So I finally read the Adam and Eve story for myself and I have some SHIT TO SAY. I stumbled upon it while researching the Greek creation myth, you can read it for yourself here.
First off, I feel the story of Adam and Eve, aka Genesis 3, is less about the consequences of disobedience and more about challenging authority and the risks that come with it. God told Adam and Eve that they would die if they ate from the Tree of Knowledge, but we know that wasn't necessarily true, showing fear-mongering in order to threaten believers into doing things. The serpent encouraged Eve to eat from the tree anyways, to which she was hesitant.
She was hesitant because the only thing she KNEW was God's word. Eve knew nothing but what God had told her, and she mainly didn't really have a choice in the matter. The serpent was trying to tell her that yes, she DOES have a choice, and she doesn't have to follow God's word all the time. It even said: 'For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.' God was lying to them, and the serpent was only giving her the glory of choice.
So Eve took the serpent's word and ate from the Tree of Knowledge. She even encouraged Adam to eat the fruit as well- on his own coalition and will! Both of them gained knowledge and feeling and the ability to distinguish right from wrong on their own. they grew as people; they no longer needed God to make choices for them, which should be an advancement.
When God saw that they knew more than HE thought they should, he immediately got mad and punished them. and how did God punish Eve, who was the first human in the world to realize her will? He stripped her of her free will, making her a slave to a man and bringing her pain. the serpent, the one who brought upon these lights, was put to death, and Adam, who should've gotten a punishment just as fitting as Eve's, was actually rewarded with the gift of agriculture. It's used to teach me that rebellion is an evil thing but in actuality I've learned how society punishes the ones who know they are corrupt.
I talked with my friend about this, and they also brought up some good points:
"[Eve] was a woman who was sheltered by care and love and when she finally rebelled and decided to think for herself, she was punished for it. Didn't help that she was lied to."
"HE TOLD ADAM 'HEY THAT'S THE TREE OF KNOWLEDGE OF GOOD AND EVIL DON'T EAT THE FRUIT' AND HE JUST TOLD EVE 'HEY YOU SEE THAT TREE THERE? YEAH DON'T EAT FROM IT.' DIDN'T TELL HER WHY!!!!" [in all caps because we were getting heated on this topic]
"It's a perfect model of the lack of respect we've had for women since the dawn of creation."
To be honest, I find it quite ironic that the story of Adam and Eve, the third story of the Bible, tells us just how the Roman Catholic Church (and how some churches still) treat the people who saw through their lies and wanted to know more about the world, away from God. And yet they still pass it around as a warning about the pursuit of hidden knowledge when they are the ones hiding this knowledge themselves.
This has been a rant.
no need for god
Wow Adam and Eve really are the original male wife/girlboss couple huh
Okay here me out for a minute and then I'll go crawl back under my rock I swear
So the forbidden fruit was never specifically stated but we as a society have seemed to agree that it was an apple (though I'm not quite sure why). It's a fun bit and everyone sticks with it. When you think of Adam and Eve or the garden of Eden you think apple but I've managed to convince myself it wasn't actually an apple.
I was in church earlier and just had a random thought "what if it was a pomegranate?". It made sense to me. In Greek mythology Hades trapped Persephone (part time I know but still) in the underworld with a pomegranate and religions often seem to overlap in a few aspects.
I thought it would be really interesting if it was the same fruit that doomed two different women from two different religions leaving them with the same type of fate.
My mindset switches up so fast when I get my period like
"Y'know I get it. Adam and Eve were naive and were manipulated we can't hold that against them. You've got to forgive. Things happen sometimes-"
*gets my period*
"THAT APPLE BETTER HAVE BEEN FUCKING SCRUMPTIOUS! EVE WHEN I GET YOU! EVEWHENIGETYOU. WHEN. I. GET. YOU!!!!! ON MY WAY TO FIST FIGHT THE DEVIL I'M ALREADY DYING WHO CARES ANYMORE AHHHHHHHH"
The Biblical urge to eat an apple every once in a while
*In the 1st, 2cnd and 10th drawing the two humans are Adam and Eve
I made this comic with @azuletatwt!
Don't eat THE Apple!!!
Good Omens comic - part 1
>> Part 2
The Caretaker/Watcher and the first three humans
Yeah, mortals can transform into angels after spending an indefinite amount of time in Nirvana Paradiso
(Lilith, however is in hell with her husband Lucifer)
Conceal your sinful nakedness with a tasteful fig leaf, a centuries-old symbol of token modesty and purity. Perfect for re-creating the classic Adam and Eve story out on the town with your parish, or for covering up that human statue that's just a little bit too life-like for your bishop's taste.
If you too enjoy silly semi-lewd joke items, you can get this on my Etsy store!
Here's a codpiece I made earlier in the year, it's my fig leaf design but the customer wanted it in a darker set of colors.
I quite liked how it turned out, so I've added it as a standard option. Here's the Etsy listing!
Is there anything more dangerous, Eve, darling, than a woman with a belly full of knowledge and lips stained in nectar?
~love, lilith
Biblical Sin: Not as Behavior but as Ultimate Transgression
By Author Eli Kittim
I think the Greek phrase χωρὶς ἁμαρτίας (i.e. “without sin”) in reference to Jesus in Hebrews 4.15 has been greatly misunderstood. If in this particular context the phrase “no sin” (2 Cor. 5.21) is referring to Jesus’ action or behavior, it contradicts many New Testament (NT) passages. One that immediately comes to mind is Jesus’ temptation in the wilderness by Satan. If Jesus is sinless in the sense that he is born without a sin-nature——and therefore incapable of committing a sin, as the church proclaims——then the so-called temptation of Jesus becomes absolutely meaningless because how can you “tempt” someone who, by definition, cannot be tempted? And would Jesus “be like His brothers in every way” (Heb. 2.17), fully human, if he was unable to be tempted? The answer is a resounding no! If by “sin,” the NT is referring to behavior, it would also contradict aspects of human nature and common knowledge. It would imply that in his human development, from childhood to adulthood, Jesus never made a mistake and was without error, which is patently ridiculous (cf. Luke 2.52; 18.19).
So, what does the NT imply when it refers to Jesus being “without sin”? I would like to suggest that this reference has nothing to do with Jesus’ actions or behavior but rather with the nature of his being. According to Robert Mulholland, a NT scholar, “sins” (in the plural) are behavioral symptoms whereas “sin” (in the singular), out of which these symptomatic behaviors and attitudes arise, is a question of being. In this sense, it is a throwback to the garden of eden and the “sin” of Adam and Eve. There’s no particular “action “ or “behavior” that is associated with their transgression except that they accepted the serpent’s advice and partook of the idiomatic apple. Similarly, although It would have been utterly impossible for Jesus to avoid sin as an activity or behavior, nevertheless he did not sin in his being because, during his temptation by Satan, he ultimately did not transgress the law of God as Adam and Eve had done! He kept it!
Just as “Adam’s one sin brings condemnation for everyone, … [so] Christ’s one act of righteousness brings [salvation] … for everyone” (Rom. 5.18).
The Fullness of Time Theology: A Critique of Covenant And Dispensational Theology
By Author Eli Kittim
My Agreements and Disagreements with both Camps
One has to be au courant with Biblical Hermeneutics to evaluate various facets of Christian theology. I would like to stress at the outset that I’m not a proponent of either covenant or dispensational theology. I do accept certain aspects of both theologies while rejecting others.
I’m not a reformed theologian but I do agree that the Old Testament (OT) is essentially Christocentric (not Jewishcentric) and that the New Testament (NT) is not talking about two peoples (the church and the Jews) but rather one: the elect (cf. Eph. 2.19-20), which is to say the Biblical metanarrative of the OT is not about a race but about a person: the Messiah! Some pastors, like John Hagee, have gone so far as to say that the Jews don’t need Jesus; they can be saved by their own covenants. The dispensational view is therefore unbiblical because it creates 2 people of God: the Jews and the church. Part of the problem is their reliance on denotative meanings and a literal interpretation of Scripture. In my view, the church doesn’t replace Israel. The church is Israel (cf. Rom. 9.8; Gal. 3.29; 6.16). It’s always been about the elect in Christ. If in fact there are 2 peoples with 2 sets of standards (law & grace) by which they’re saved, then that would invalidate Christ’s atonement, as would the rebuilding of the third temple, which would necessitate the reinstituting of animal sacrifices.
The Dispensation of the Fullness of Time
As a framework for biblical interpretation, dispensationalism is often described as a series of ages or different periods in history. This interpretative framework defines each distinctive time period as a dispensation or an administration of an age. But the only temporal dispensation I find in the NT is that of the fullness of time. Ephesians 1.9-10 reads:
γνωρίσας ἡμῖν τὸ μυστήριον τοῦ θελήματος
αὐτοῦ, κατὰ τὴν εὐδοκίαν αὐτοῦ ἣν
προέθετο ἐν αὐτῷ εἰς οἰκονομίαν τοῦ
πληρώματος τῶν καιρῶν,
ἀνακεφαλαιώσασθαι τὰ πάντα ἐν
τῷ Χριστῷ, τὰ ἐπὶ τοῖς οὐρανοῖς καὶ τὰ ἐπὶ
τῆς γῆς · ἐν αὐτῷ.
Translation (NRSV):
“he has made known to us the mystery of his
will, according to his good pleasure that he
set forth in Christ, as a plan [οἰκονομίαν] for
the fullness of time, to gather up all things
in him, things in heaven and things on
earth.”
In short; the designation “the fullness of time” (τοῦ πληρώματος τῶν καιρῶν) refers to the period of time (οἰκονομίαν; dispensation) when all things, both in in the heavens and upon the earth, will conclude in Christ. The Greek word ἀνακεφαλαιώσασθαι means to “sum up” (see G.W.H. Lampe [ed.], A Patristic Greek Lexicon [Oxford: Oxford University, 1961], pp. 1094-95).
So, according to Eph. 1.10, it’s “a plan [dispensation] for the fullness of time,” which will culminate “at the end of the age” (cf. Gal. 4.4; Dan. 12.4 LXX; Mt. 13.39-40, 49; 24.3; 28.20; Heb. 9.26b)! Surprisingly, neither covenant theology nor dispensational theology refer to this Biblical dispensation. Similarly, in Acts 3.19-21, Peter is addressing a crowd and astoundingly refers to Christ’s coming in the context of futurist eschatology. He refers to “the Messiah appointed for you” as the προκεχειρισμένον (i.e. appointed beforehand) Christ “Jesus, who must remain in heaven until the time of universal restoration that God announced long ago through his holy prophets.” Peter says:
“Repent therefore, and turn to God so that
your sins may be wiped out, so that times of
refreshing may come from the presence of
the Lord, and that he may send the Messiah
appointed for you, that is, Jesus, who must
remain in heaven until the time of universal
restoration that God announced long ago
through his holy prophets.”
Thus, the key Biblical dispensation or plan of God is the one pertaining to the fullness of time (i.e. at the end of the age) when all his plans will be fulfilled.
Grace Has Always Existed
Ephesians 3.1-9 explains that God’s plan was always to turn the entire world into Israel (i.e. a holy people, not a race):
“This is the reason that I Paul am a prisoner
for Christ Jesus for the sake of you Gentiles
—for surely you have already heard of the
commission [οἰκονομίαν; dispensation] of
God’s grace that was given me for you, and
how the mystery was made known to me by
revelation [ἀποκάλυψιν], as I wrote above in
a few words, a reading of which will enable
you to perceive my understanding of the
mystery of Christ. In former generations this
mystery was not made known to
humankind, as it has now been revealed to
his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit:
that is, the Gentiles have become fellow
heirs, members of the same body, and
sharers in the promise in Christ Jesus
through the gospel. Of this gospel I have
become a servant according to the gift of
God’s grace that was given me by the
working of his power. Although I am the very
least of all the saints, this grace was given
to me to bring to the Gentiles the news of
the boundless riches of Christ, and to make
everyone see what is the plan [οἰκονομία;
dispensation] of the mystery hidden for
ages in God who created all things.”
In other words, it was part of God’s plan from the outset to call the entire world Israel! The dispensation or plan of God was to reveal the mystery that the Gentiles also form part of the chosen people of God. However, before we can demonstrate this point, we first need to show how grace was always available, even from the time of the Pentateuch (the Torah).
I should note, parenthetically, that there’s a theological confusion pertaining to God’s dispensation of grace with regard to soteriology. Many Biblical thinkers mistakenly assume that God’s grace is not offered to humanity until the *timing* of the atonement, or the cross, if you will. The age prior to that is often viewed as a time that precedes the age of grace. But that is an incorrect position which presumes that our salvation cannot precede the timing of Christ’s sacrifice (see my article: Theology Versus Chronology https://eli-kittim.tumblr.com/post/611676639545393152/theology-versus-chronology-a-soteriological-view).
One could reasonably argue that grace was always available “by the predetermined plan and foreknowledge of God” (Acts 2.23) and was even explicitly mentioned in the writings of the law and the prophets. Deut. 30.6 is a case in point. The undermentioned verse from the Torah doesn’t appeal to works but to grace:
“circumcise your heart and the heart of your
descendants, so that you will love the Lord
your God with all your heart and with all
your soul, in order that you may live.”
Ezekiel 36:26 is very similar. Here, once again, the OT is not referring to Works but to Grace. The text reads:
“I will give you a new heart and put a new
spirit in you; I will remove from you your
heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh.”
Jeremiah 31.33 (cf. 24.7; 32.39-40) is along similar lines:
“I will put my law within them, and I will write
it on their hearts.”
In a comparable manner, Ezekiel 18.31 (cf. 11.19) says:
“Cast away from you all the transgressions
that you have committed against me, and
get yourselves a new heart and a new spirit!
Why will you die, O house of Israel?”
But if this covenant with Israel is a covenant of Grace (cf. Jer. 31.33; Heb. 8.10), then who is Israel? Answer: the elect; the chosen people; those who are in Christ. If that was always God’s plan or οἰκονομίαν, to which all things in the OT pointed, then Grace was always available and did not suddenly come into play during NT times.
Therefore, there are not two people of God but only one: those who are in Christ. At the end of the age, Christ will not judge the world like a shepherd separating three types of people: the elect, the reprobates, and the Jews. Rather, he will separate “the sheep from the goats” (Mt. 25.32). In other words, there are only two categories: you are either in Christ or out of Christ!
What is more, Pastors do Christianity a disservice when erroneously stating that the Jews will be saved after the rapture. No they will not! The gates will be shut after the church leaves the earth. Matthew 25.10-12:
“and the door was shut. Later the other
bridesmaids came also, saying, ‘Lord, lord,
open to us.' But he replied, ‘Truly I tell you, I
do not know you.' “
That’s what the Parable of the Ten Virgins signifies. The 10 virgins represent the church that is waiting for the Bridegroom, who is Jesus (Mt. 9.15), to take her away in the rapture——“for the marriage of the Lamb has come, and his bride has made herself ready” (Rev. 19.7).
That is what the parable of the 10 virgins means. To teach that Jews will be saved after the rapture is a false and dangerous teaching that is jeopardizing people’s lives.
Just because the Jews misinterpreted their Scriptures doesn’t mean that grace wasn’t available or that God didn’t refer to their regeneration-through-the-spirit in the OT. Therefore, to arbitrarily superimpose different dispensational ages and read them back into the text is as dangerous as it is reprehensible.
So, Grace was always present from the very beginning. But it was not fully understood until the NT era. But that doesn’t mean that it was not alluded to or explicitly referenced in the OT. It certainly was, as I have demonstrated.
What Does the term Israel Mean?
The term Israel can refer to many things. It can mean the promise land (Palestine); it can signify the former northern kingdom; it can refer to the purported historical person known as Jacob; it can be a reference to the 12 tribes; it can refer to God’s chosen people (of which a subset would be God’s people of the OT & NT); Israel can refer to Jews; it could mean the modern nation that’s located in the Middle East; it can also refer to anyone who is of the Abrahamic covenant; that is, the descendants of Abraham (both figuratively and literally) can be called Israel; the religion itself can be called Israel (i.e. those who worship Yahweh); the people of God in today’s generation (aka the church) can also be called Israel; and so on and so forth. Thus, to interpret this term exclusively as “the Jews” is to ignore all the nuances of meaning that the text provides. Using the analogy of Scripture, we allow Paul to give us an exact definition of what it means to be a "Jew" within the NT context. Apparently, the biblical term Jew does not denote a race but rather an inner essence or, more precisely, an indwelling spirit pertaining to God. In Romans 2.28-29, Paul writes:
“For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly,
nor is circumcision that which is outward in
the flesh. But he is a Jew who is one
inwardly; and circumcision is that which is
of the heart.”
To further explore the significance of this passage, read William Barclay, a world-renowned NT scholar, and his commentaries in the book, The Letter to the Romans. The Daily Study Bible Series. Rev. ed. (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1975, p. 47). What is more, 1 Pet 2.9 uses OT language, related to Israel, to describe the elect in Christ:
“But you are a chosen race, a royal
priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his
own possession, that you may proclaim the
excellencies of him who called you out of
darkness into his marvelous light.”
Who Are the Heirs of the OT Promises of God?
In the Book of Romans, Paul does not explicitly deny the notion that the concept of grace existed in OT writings. Since this was foreshadowed but not fully explained in the OT——with the exception of some soteriological allusions in certain passages, such as Isaiah 53.3-8 and Zechariah 12.9-10, for instance——Paul takes it upon himself to expound the merits of Grace vis-à-vis the messianic atonement in his letter to the Romans.
Even Covenant theologians find this so-called new manifestation of grace rather disturbing. According to them, there is only one covenant of grace that has been operating uniformly in each and every age. Thus, when Paul discusses “the commission of God's grace that was given” to him (Eph. 3.2), he’s referring to a “revelation” (ἀποκάλυψιν) in Eph. 3.3-7:
“the mystery was made known to me by
revelation, as I wrote above in a few words,
a reading of which will enable you to
perceive my understanding of the mystery
of Christ. In former generations this mystery
was not made known to humankind, as it
has now been revealed to his holy apostles
and prophets by the Spirit: that is, the
Gentiles have become fellow heirs,
members of the same body, and sharers in
the promise in Christ Jesus through the
gospel. Of this gospel I have become a
servant according to the gift of God's grace
that was given me by the working of his
power.”
What is this secret that “in former generations” was unknown? Ephesians 3.6 asserts that “the Gentiles have become fellow heirs”:
συνκληρονόμα [joint-heirs] καὶ [and]
σύσσωμα [a joint-body] καὶ [and]
συμμέτοχα [joint-partakers] τῆς [of
the] ἐπαγγελίας [promises] ἐν [in] Χριστῷ
[Christ] Ἰησοῦ [Jesus].
This means that the Israelites are not the sole inheritors of the OT promises of God. The Gentiles are co-inheritors. That is, they are identical with or equivalent to the people of Israel. In other words, they are like Israel in every conceivable way with regard to their divine relationship and position. In short, they share equal rights and status with Israel as the chosen people of God, the elect, so that they and Israel have become one and the same! This means that the OT passages regarding Israel, or the chosen people of God, necessarily allude to them, given that they figure prominently in the economy of God’s plan. However, in the end, it is those that are in Christ that are truly chosen (whether Jew or Gentile), not simply the literal Israelites. As descendants, Jews cannot appeal to their tradition for salvation, as if to say “We have Abraham as our father” (Mt. 3.9), because race alone will not save them (cf. Rom. 2.28-29).
The Fallacies of Dispensationalism
What is more, the arbitrary dispensations that refer to the age of innocence or the age of conscience have always been uniformly present in the development of human beings. They are not ages of time but rather stages of human development. A child is innocent until he/she reaches the age of reason or conscience after which they can make moral choices and decisions. The story of Adam and Eve is the story of humankind. It is the tale of temptation during the age of innocence in the life of every human being. The tree of the knowledge of good and evil is a connotative representation of those dual proclivities latent within the unconscious mind. There is no literal Cherubim wielding a flaming sword, or a literal garden, nor is there a tree of life planted somewhere on the earth which can make one live forever (i.e. the so-called fountain of youth). This is metaphorical language. To turn allegory into biography and call it the age of innocence or the age of conscience is a literal misrepresentation of Scripture.
Moreover, dispensationalists hypothesize the coming of a Millennial Kingdom, which seems to be a representation of the *timing* pertaining to the end of the age rather than a literal thousand year reign on earth (See my article, The Fallacies of Millennialism: https://eli-kittim.tumblr.com/post/634098142546198528/the-fallacies-of-millennialism).
Conclusion
The only Biblical dispensation that can be rigorously defended is that of *the fullness of time,* which refers to *the end of the age,* when “all things” will conclude in Christ (Eph. 1.9-10)! Moreover, as I have shown from the law and the prophets, grace has always been operative since the dawn of recorded history (cf. e.g. Gen. 3.15, 21). What is more, based on a *revelation* that was disclosed by Paul——the Christocentric content of which has always been part of God’s plan——the elect in Christ are the true heirs of the OT promises of God and, therefore, the true Israel. Finally, both covenant and dispensational theology have failed to grasp the Biblical metanarrative, whose central dispensation unfolds at the end of days (Dan. 12.13; Mt. 24.3; 1 Cor. 10.11), when all the inhabitants of the earth will witness “the revelation of Jesus Christ” (1 Cor. 1.7; 1 Pet. 1.13; Rev. 1.1), the tribulation, the rapture, and the final consummation!
Who Gave Satan the Authority to Become the God of this World?
By Author Eli Kittim
——-
Because God supposedly had given him dominion over the earth, most people assume that Adam surrendered his authority to Satan after his transgression, and therefore allowed the latter to become the god of this world. But in order for this particular *dominion theory* to work, it must impinge on *divinity* itself. However, Adam was a created being. He was not a god and could never be understood as a god in any sense of the word. The fundamental problem with the classical view is twofold. First, a mere mortal, such as Adam, does not have authority over the earth. Second, Adam doesn’t have any *divinity* to give away, much less any “divine” dominion over the earth. A close reading of Gen. 1.26 reveals that the dominion God gave to Adam was limited to the animals and creatures of the earth. In other words, Adam was not “the god of this world” (cf. 2 Cor. 4.4); God was! Adam was simply placed on earth “to till it and keep it” (Gen. 2.15). By contrast, only Christ is said to have “all authority . . . on earth” (Mt. 28.18).
What is more, Adam had not yet eaten from “the tree of life” (Gen. 3.22, 24) at the time of his transgression. So, given that Adam was a created being who was not even immortal, much less a god, how could Satan *become* the “god” of this world by taking this divinity from Adam? It’s a logical impossibility; a logical fallacy, if you will. Adam, by default, is not a divine being and therefore cannot, by definition, surrender godhood to Satan. It is both logically and ontologically impossible!
So the question remains, how then did Satan become the god of this world? Who gave him the title deed to the earth, so to speak? The only person who has full authority over the earth, and who is truly a god, is the only one who can surrender this right to Satan. And this is in fact conceivable both from a logical and an ontological perspective. Thus, by the process of elimination, the only person capable of surrendering his divine authority over the earth is none other than Christ! Without a doubt, this relinquishment would temporarily make Satan the god of this world.
This, of course, would imply that Adam could not have been anyone else but Christ. And it would help explain why “God said, ‘Let us make humankind in our image, according to our likeness’ “ (Gen. 1.26). It would further imply that although the first human was created, nevertheless God breathed his own divine Spirit into him and gave him “the breath of life” (Gen. 2.7). If Christ was Adam, it would also help explain why he would have to die to pay for the sins of the world. This view would also help clarify how the transgression of one man could possibly spread biologically to his posterity, which would otherwise be inexplicable.
I’m by no means espousing the “Adam–God doctrine” of Brigham Young (Mormonism). This is a totally fictitious and bogus account based on UFOs and aliens. I do not accept this LDS *account* at all.
But why does Christ say in Rev. 22.13 (NIV) that he’s “the first and the last”?:
I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First
and the Last, the Beginning and the End.
We know why he is the last. But how exactly is he the first? In fact, Heb. 1.6 calls Christ “the Firstborn” (πρωτότοκον). Let us review some key Biblical points. Whereas Adam was made in the image of God, Christ is said to be “the image of the invisible God” (Col. 1.15). Both Adam and Christ are said to have dominion over the earth. Both are givers of life (1 Cor. 15.45 NIV):
The first man Adam became
a living being; the last Adam, a life-giving
spirit.
Both became men. Both are called “son of God” (Lk 3.38; 1 Jn 5.10). Both were pure and holy. Both were tested by Satan. One suffered in the Garden of Eden, the other in the Garden of Gethsemane. There are far more similarities than differences. And the Biblical passages make much more sense when understood from this point of view than from the classical one. If humankind is made in the image of Christ, who was the first Man, then this special creation would refute the conclusion of evolutionary science that Adam was not a historical person. In fact, the classical perspective makes no sense whatsoever. It’s neither logically nor ontologically feasible, or even possible, that a mere mortal, who was not god, surrendered both his authority and divinity to Satan, who subsequently became the god of this world. That’s a contradiction in terms. It’s like talking about a married bachelor or a squared circle. It can never happen in any possible world!
——-
“The fruit was never an apple”
Max Svabinsky, (1873-1962)
“In Paradise” circa 1918
TUMBLR WILL LITERALLY EXPLODE WHEN THIS MOVIE WILL BE OFFICIALLY RELEASED. I CANNOT WAIT! <3
