---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Binah Hochma <[email protected]> Date: Thu, Mar 17, 2011 at 2:35 PM Subject: Re: Gen. 3:21 To: Bryan Oboczky <[email protected]>
Ok, well here is my friends thoughts: The spelling of blood is necessary for the atonement of sin. Adam and Eve sinned, disobeyed, so some kind of death had to occur. If blood was not shed, and the conclusion would be that... I may have to run at short notice so if I don't finish this thought I'll try to get back to it ...the Lev. laws of sacrifice were because the shedding of blood was necessary, then the death of Yashwah (Jesus) was for not... Conclusion is that animals (some kind of death and G-d was welling to except an animal for a human sin) had to be sacrificed for Adam and Eve to justify death of Yashwah. My thoughts: Like you, Bryan, I think there is a problem with the idea that G-d would need to make a sacrifice to G-d in order to atone for their sin. I also don't believe a blood sacrifice here is necessary to justify the death of Yashwah. But that leads to the question of what was the purpose of the sacrificial system in the first place. Maybe that needs to be a different thread. The thing that is more interesting to me is what nakedness needs to be covered. If they were naked and unashamed, and we are talking about a physical nakedness like us walking around naked today, then eat of the Tree of Knowledge of good and evil, then saw that they were naked and are now ashamed...Who are they now trying to hide that physical nakedness from, each other?? G-d?? Nether makes sense. G-d sees you in all nakedness. You are going to have to take a bath sometime, and take care of other bodily functions. What part of your physical body (or inner self) can you hide from G-d. From the other does not make sense either. The very first verse of ch.4 they are getting naked and making babies. I think that there was something more exposed in the Beginning. A complete openness or full consciousness. Paul says we will fully know and be fully known. Could this be how it was in the Beginning? And we are trying to find our way back there? We talk now of our sub-conscious, what if in the Beginning there was no such thing? This to me would be a more devastating exposure after I had displeased my Creator. I would want very much to cover my inner self because at this point this is not only displeasing to the Creator but to me as well. It is the beginning of separation between me and my Creator. The beginning of the collective sub-conscious, maybe? A physical body v. a spiritual body: I am not sure I would say that the first bodies were not physical, just not the same as we see them today. Does Gen. 2:7 necessarily imply that they were the same? I think they most likely were physical especially in comparison to the purely spiritualistic "body" of the Creator. But could they not have been "more" then this body we know today? Evolution implies that some how we are "getting better", evolving into something greater. I think we are not. Scientist used to say we only use 10% of our brain (how they know this is beyond me) I think they now say we only use 8%. I'm sure Adam and Eve used all their brains until they decided to "think' without G-d. Pat, I am pretty sure Rashi says animal skin. I just disagree :) And some day when I have lots and lots of time I want to learn Hebrew, too Bryan, Shamanism is a big word, what relationship do you mean? And I agree, there is only One Creator who tries to speak to all, most don't listen and those who do don't most of the time :( Now I am going to try to read some of everyone else s post. Binah On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 8:02 PM, Bryan Oboczky <[email protected]> wrote: > i dont thik it was a blood sacrifice , iv read gennessis 50 times > over(im exaggerating ) and never thought of this as such. animal > sacrifice in the old testament is always done with the best animal or > if crops the best of the crop if an animal , the one with the purest > white coat. furthermore god would have no need to make a sacrafice in > veneration of himself. the idea that the coat of skin is a medifore ( > me at smart for good spelling.........any hoo) for the tranformation > from spiritual to physical being is intresting and insitefull, but > once again i dont belive this is the case GEN.2:7 and the lord god > formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils > the breath of life; and man became a living soul.------- this one of > my favorite passages from the bible-- all of the begining of GEN. > really--- man was made from the dust ect. , how else do you explain > evolution to some one 2.5 million to 10,000 yr ago? ---------- also > the tranformation to a living sole and the consumption of the fruit of > the knowledge of good and evil in relation to shamanism............. > > On 3/15/11, Binah Hochma <[email protected]> wrote: > > I think the original says "coverings of skin" > > If it were animal skin then is not the conclusion that it is a blood > > sacrifice? > > > > Another Q...What is the "nakedness" that they were trying to cover up? > > Which may tell us what kind of coverings we needed. > > > > On sacred writings...Have you looked at Carl Jung and Joseph Campbell? > They > > have similar ideas. Campbell takes a lot from Jung. > > > > Out of time, will have to read Pat's response later. > > Binah > > > > > > > > On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 8:47 PM, the taoist shaman > > <[email protected]>wrote: > > > >> > >> > >> Binah Hochma wrote: > >> > This question (or debate) came up with some friends who are most > >> > decidedly traditional Christians. > >> > > >> > Did G-d make coverings of "Animal" skin, which would be the first > >> > blood sacrifice or did G-d cover Adam and Eve with the "skin" that we > >> > now have: meaning our bodies were something different before we were > >> > "covered"? > >> > > >> > I think I will leave it at that so as not to influence any answers to > >> > much :). > >> > > >> > And here is an interesting website. > >> > > >> > http://www.mechanical-translation.org/ > >> > > >> > I think it would be cool if we could study all the worlds sacred > >> > writings as close to their original language as possible. > >> > > >> > Now I have to go catch up on all your post. You all talk a lot when > >> > I'm gone. > >> > Binah > >> > >> i think it refers to animal skins and was not intended as a blood > >> sacrifice, unless you know something about the original translation of > >> this passage that i dont, if so please reply ...............the study > >> of the worlds sacred writings is , to me , one of the most intresting > >> subjects , if not the most intresting. the more i read the more i see > >> a common origin , which i used to think was some ancient worldwide > >> religion , and perhaps it was , but lately this sort of an idea seems > >> rather absurd .......it is my belief that the common origin is in > >> the fact that there is one god who speeks to all people > > >
