Gender in Resurrection?

[Nayto]

If Eve was seduced by a male angel and Adam likewise succumbed, what then was the gender of Adam's seducer?

I Timothy 2:14:

And Adam was not deceived, but the woman had been thoroughly beguiled when the transgression occurred.

Interesting to investigate Paul's real meaning, because Adam definitely at of the fruit (figuratively speaking).

[SwordBrethren]

@Staropraman, I always appreciate your observations and thoughts, I have done so in a similar manner in your threads .

@Swordbretheren
You can't prove either way with Scripture or otherwise. Seems you think that questioning you amounts to questioning God, you are the one who fancies himself a god, not me. Yahweh is my God, His way is like our way, not like the nonsensical 'religions' of the animals, it is Truth, it is Bread, He always reveals Himself through logic and reason, not vain delusions. Zechariah is not important, I acknowledged that it was disputed, I also said that I was not implying that God has a wife and dismissed such pagan absurdities. God is beyond gender. Seems the 'prove it' line is simply being used as a vain confrontation as you cannot prove anything, thereby we are free to decide for ourselves, and in this way I prefer logic over sentimentalities. I think this is a core teaching of the Bible, that vain delusion is always overcome by reason and insight.

You can't prove either way with Scripture that Santa Claus does or doesn't exist... That's the EXACT same logic [false logic] you are trying to use to prove female angels, it is no logic at all. Your logic is fool's logic and you are a fool.

It is not incumbent on me to use scripture to prove that they DO NOT exist, if you want to claim they exist, you must prove your claim. A positive claim must be affirmed by the one putting forth the claim. Absence of evidence to negate the claim does not automatically validate and affirm the claim.


If you think that I am delusional because I refuse to accept your corruption of logic and your arguments based on logical fallacies, "well there's no proof they don't exist so they must exist" then you are a deluded fool and you are academically dishonest.

[SwordBrethren]

Question for SB, is this really about female angels? I find it hard to determine your intent... or why this is so important to you that you would accuse me of forsaking my God. Which is a heavy charge indeed. I think your intent was to belittle/forsake a Brother.

Edited to address Zechariah 5:9

It would be odd to switch between the two words, women and angels, if they were the same.

It would also be odd to describe 'Women' with wings, lifting up the measure between Heaven and earth. As it would be odd for a 'Man' to be able to disjoint the hollow of Jacobs thigh with a touch.

You cannot have a discussion without acting like a dramatic hysterical woman or an effeminate man and taking everything personally.

I point out that your logic is flawed and that there might be evidence for your claim but you have failed to provide compelling evidence as of yet, and you take it as though I am suggesting you are forsaking God.

You're a drama queen who doesn't know how to have a rational debate/discussion without taking it as a declaration of war, and yet you call me a vain man with delusions and then accuse me of personally attacking you! Get real!


Your theory is interesting but you won't ever prove or validate it by shouting "vain deluded man" at opponents or doubters, and you won't prove it by shouting, "there's no evidence to the contrary!"


I have a glass of water each morning and I have never contracted Tuberculosis, there's no evidence that the water is not protecting me, therefore the water must be protecting me from getting Tuberculosis... That is the style of your argument, the manner in which you structure an argument/position and then call it reasoned logic... It is no logic at all.

[bahr]

Interesting to investigate Paul's real meaning, because Adam definitely at of the fruit (figuratively speaking).

What do you mean by "figuratively speaking"? To eat of the fruit of the tree of knowledge mean "to have sexual intercourse with someone not of the tree of Life". How can you have a "figuratively speaking" sexual intercourse?

[wmfinck]

Why don't y'all start here, and then come talk to me:
http://christogenea.org/ShemiticIdioms

We will be doing a new Two Seedline series soon.

There is an old one I did with November that started out okay, but it is 35 arduous parts:

http://archive.christogenea.org/twoseedlineprograms

[Nayto]

Interesting to investigate Paul's real meaning, because Adam definitely at of the fruit (figuratively speaking).

What do you mean by "figuratively speaking"? To eat of the fruit of the tree of knowledge mean "to have sexual intercourse with someone not of the tree of Life". How can you have a "figuratively speaking" sexual intercourse?

Well they didn't literally eat fruit, hence I'm saying "figuratively"

I just find Paul's quote interesting given the events in the garden. There seems to be a logical inconsistency which I'm sure would make sense with a bit of insight. I've never actually compared the two.

[wmfinck]

Two really bad assumptions made on both sides of the Two-Seedline debate:

1) That the serpent in the garden was a "heavenly" angel, as angels are depicted by those such as Catholics.

2) That Adam had to have sex with a "heavenly" angel in order to also "eat".

[bahr]

Well they didn't literally eat fruit, hence I'm saying "figuratively"

I just find Paul's quote interesting given the events in the garden. There seems to be a logical inconsistency which I'm sure would make sense with a bit of insight. I've never actually compared the two.

A woman being the flesh and the bones of her husband, when she "eats", he automatically "eats" also, of course. But the Scriptures don't say that Adam had sexual intercourse with a female.

[Kentucky]

Why don't y'all start here, and then come talk to me:
http://christogenea.org/ShemiticIdioms

From the following quote, we can then assume that both Adam and Eve partook of the same forbidden fruit, which was sex:

"Is the Genesis chapter 3 account also about sexual seduction and awakening? Of course it is, and so “... the eyes of them both [Adam and Eve] were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons” (Gen. 3:7). At “aprons”, a footnote in The King James Study Bible, Thomas Nelson Publishers, ©1988, says “girding coverings”. Adam and Eve, ashamed of themselves after their sexual awakening, attempted to conceal their nudity by covering their bodies, specifically their loins – as that type of garment alone is sufficient enough to inform us – thereby hiding the “scene of the crime”, and the source of their feelings of guilt!"

This then begs the question of whether Adam's sexual partner was male or female. The identity of the sexual partner is secondary to the question of gender (for the purposes of this thread).

"So it is evident that the serpent – and the phrase “that old serpent” surely must refer to the serpent of Genesis – is one with Satan, the Devil, and other epithets given to him and his kindred throughout Scripture."

"If the serpent was a man (though not an Adamic man), what is the “tree which is in the midst of the garden” (Gen. 3:3) which Adam and Eve ate from in the temptation?"

I've read your treatise before and reread it again today and the issue of who seduced Eve is fairly clarified, but not too much on Adam (if it was some kind of sexual encounter as well). Is it fair to assume then that Adam's sexual partner was a male i.e. "him" and "man"?

We will be doing a new Two Seedline series soon.

There is an old one I did with November that started out okay, but it is 35 arduous parts:

http://archive.christogenea.org/twoseedlineprograms

Yeah, I would much rather prefer listening to your research than interspersed with your former colleague. The Two Seedline doctrine does need some rehabilitation considering the catholic infusion of some things. In the last couple of years, you've helped me understand a number of things better than before you came on the scene. But, there still persists a number of perplexing and conflicting issues in my understanding of the Genesis narration.

Mark

[wmfinck]

I did not elaborate upon what cannot be proven. Adam ate too, and scripture leaves it at that. The Talmud has an opinion, from which the Lilith tale is developed. Note that I called it a tale.

All Adam had to do in order to eat along with Eve was to accept Eve in her condition of sin, and that is good enough for him to be considered a partaker of her sin, in my humble opinion. As Paul says, Adam was not deceived, but made a conscious decision to do so.

That is where Scripture leaves us, and it is where I would prefer to keep it.