Steps toward loss and restoration of Salvation

Ah.. you got to the point to one of the main Jewish interpretations of the story.However, you are going with the Christian preconception that there was a 'Fall', and that there is original sin. Those are not the concepts the Jewish faith has, and therefore, the lessons of Adam and Eve are looked at much differently.Adam and eve were innocent. They could not have 'chosen' between right and wrong, because they did not understand right and wrong. Until they
ate from the tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, they did not understand the implications of 'disobediance', of good, of evil.This is something that in one Jewish view, was needed before Man could become closer to god. By understanding good and evil, man is given free will, and therefore have the opportunity to CHOOSE good, and therefore live a more sanctified life, and be closer to god.With out that, Man is just like any other beast in the field.I will also point out in Hebrew, the term 'Holy Spirit' is feminine , just to confuse the issue a bit more.

"Mix?" According to the New Testament, it fulfills and explains the Old. But this is no doubt off topic on this thread.

It may be worth investigating whether Adam has the Spirits indwelling or not. Note my position is to view that which scripture says. Whilst we may not understand what it means at least we seem to agree that is is God-breathed (no pun intended). There is little point in providing weight to your position by quoting what the early fathers thought (they weren't inerrant and although they may be expected to have a better insight we can't know where they erred and where they were accurate) Neither do what the 'vast majority of Christians think" add weight - for want of knowing who is or isn't a Christian. If they are not - then their view doesn't matter. If they are they may be wrong. The Sun is the best selling newspaper in England. It doesn't make it a good newspaper.For me the basis for our understanding must be internally shown from Scripture. But I don't know if that is sufficient for you. I don't hold that it is necessary that Adam went to hell in the end. It is irrelevant. My stance would be that when he fell, death came in. Death means a spiritual death, which means a break in the perfect relationship that existed between Adam and Eve and God prior to their sin. It also means physical death. What happened to Adam subsequently is not important. He became the first of many, separated from God by sin (spiritual death), going to die and like every other man, enter judgment. He, post-fall, is as much in need of salvation as anyone else. Whether he was ultimately saved in Christ or not we do not know (unless there is a case to be made for that - but like I say it is irrelevant).My premise is not rendered flawed by the existance of another premise. It remains to be seen which premise, if either, is correct Whatever Adam had with respect to the Spirit pre-fall, it is not like indwelling for those who are saved. What can we say about Adam:- a person who had no sin?
- a person who had no sinful nature?
- was not going to die physically?
- had an unsullied relationship with God?These are some differences between the person who has the indwelling of the spirit after begin reborn:- they still have sin operating in their flesh
- they are going to die physically
- their relationship with God is not perfect. They need disciplineComparing Adam pre-fall and man post-rebirth is comparing apples and pears. Spirit in one cannot be compared like for like. That Adam could lose what he had does not imply a person reborn could lose what they have. I don't see how that follows. There are any number of differences between Christ and Adam which would show us that "second Adam" can't be taken to mean that they shared anything but what they can be shown to share. Spirit in Christ is no more Spirit in unfallen Adam than it is Spirit in born again man than it is Spirit operating on unregenerate man to convict him of sin than it is Spirit operating on Balaam causing him to prophesy. One Spirit, many different motivations and ways of operating.Christ being the head and imputing righteousness to all in him would be sufficient to earn him the title "second Adam" - who imputed unrighteousness to everyone in him. There is no need to draw comparisons which cannot be scripturally shown to be the case. Again I think the parallel would need to be examined in the light that similarity does not mean same. There are, as I pointed out above enough disimilarities between Spirit 'in' sinless Adam and Spirit in sinful man to prevent us automatically taking as gospel that the reason and action for/of the Spirit in each to be equivilent.Thus Adams loss of position does not equate to a person born again being able to lose their position.By Adam the blank slate I mean that he had no sinful nature pre-fall. He had nothing working within him encouraging him to sin like we do. We sin because we are sinners. Adam wasn't in that position. He had a plain, unadulterated choice: obey God/disobey God. His choice.

I don't think so. They are mixing up New Testament concepts with an Old Testament story.

Not according to the religion that wrote the Tanakh (i.e.the old testament).

That is very true. Amoung the 'New Testament' concepts that are being
retrofited INTO that story of gensesis are1) Original sin
2) "The Fall"
3) "Holy spirit indwelling"
4) THe serpent being satan

Jesus in Revelation tells us that the serpent in Eden was Satan, so that isn't something this thread is imposing on the text. Original sin which IS the Fall definitely is a New Testament interpretation of the Old, so, again, it's not being imposed on the text by this thread. About the Spirit indwelling I'm not enough up on the texts.

Then exactly what Spirit was breathed into Adam by God then?Do you know, according to standard Christian theology, of any other Spirit of God which creates in man a clean heart -- and a state of innocence like we find in Adam -- a Spirit other than the Holy Spirit?Like I said, I'm not going any further in this discussion until we either definitively agree or disagree on whether Adam had the Holy Spirit's indwelling.If you disagree, explain why. I've already pointed out why I feel the Holy Spirit was indwelling Adam. I've provided Scriptural references for it too -- so please at least address my starting point before we move on to the other parts.Ok?This message has been edited by Mr. Ex Nihilo, 12-19-2005 10:54 PM

I've enjoyed reading some of the teachings of Moses Maimonides -- and, like St. Thomas Aquinas, I've retained some things from the "rabbi's" teachings.Consequently, I actually don't believe that God the Father is a "man" in the "human" sense anyway. Neither the Holy Spirit. God is Spirit -- and sexless.Bearing this mind, the designations of male and female are pretty much irrelvant to me since God is described in the Hebrew Scriptures using both male and female characteristics, although admittedly male characteristics are more dominantly used than female.

Having read some of your links I'm not sure that the word 'exactly' can be easily applied. I agree that God breathed something of himself into man which made him in his image and likeness but the biblical material available is too limited to tell us precisely what was involved. I would agree that it was Gods Spirit that entered man. But how that took effect on man I do not know. The word 'indwelling' of the Spirit has it's in/outworkings fairly clearly described in the context of a person who has been justified by fait. But what that has to do with "indwelling" of the Spirit as it pertained to Adam I don't know. The use of the word indwelling is to my mind inappropriate as it is not described as having the characteristics and purposes associated with NT indwelling. The person who receives the indwelling in the latter case is a completely different case from Adam. Their starting from 2 different vantage points: 1 is fallen the other at the time of receipt, wasn't.This message has been edited by iano, 20-Dec-2005 11:15 AMThis message has been edited by iano, 20-Dec-2005 04:57 PM

Hey ramoss,
Been awhile. I was searching the internet concerning this dwelling thing and Judaism. I came upon this article by Jeremy Rosen which caught my attention. I'm not familiar with this person, but thought you might shed some more light on the concept and where I might find better understanding.This section caught my eye. I would like to understand this concept better. It makes me wonder if Paul, being Jewish, was presenting this idea instead of the "indwelling" presented in this thread. Not really an intermingling as has been suggested in other threads, but where God has chosen to have an impact.This section concerning Schechina at this site also added to my interest.

---

There are two ways of spreading light: to be the candle or the mirror that reflects it. -Edith Wharton

Well, Three points.The Jewish faith does not accept 'revelation' to be scripture. Anything that it might claim is not relevant to the way the Jewish faith views Genesis.The writer of Revelation was writing his own words, not the words of Jesus.The 'ancient worm' in revelation is more closely corropsonding to the leviathan rather than the snake in Genesis.

The point of the 'holy spirit' being feminine in format basically shows that concept. The thought is god needs to have both male and female attributes to create mankind in his image.

Unfortunately, that is a concept i am not really familar with. It is possible that Paul was influenced by that concept, but it seems to me that much of Paul's theology was more influenced by the major religion of the city he grew up in (tarsus), which was not predominately Jewish.It does look like it is an interesting subject. I suspect that it could very well have been an influence.

What makes how the Jewish faith views Genesis or anything else important to this topic? The Christian faith strongly disagrees. He quoted the ascended Christ. That's what it says. Again, Jesus Himself told us the snake in Eden was Satan.This message has been edited by Faith, 12-20-2005 09:50 AM