Jump to content

Understanding Adam-God


Recommended Posts

12 hours ago, CV75 said:

I'm not seeing this as a Bible-bash. These are good questions and this is a good place to explore and challenge the answers. I'm not asking how both can be true, i am asking how these facts and scriptures play out (or work) in the Adam-God paradigm. So far, I'm hearing "it doesn't matter" and that's OK I guess.

Brigham Young himself answers your questions. And I have offered those answers in previous posts but they generally go ignored. If you are going to go from tree to tree you're not going to get anywhere. You need to be looking at the forest, the bigger picture, and then the details will fall in place. Like I said, you have to know enough for the spirit to work with.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, co-eternal said:

Brigham Young himself answers your questions. And I have offered those answers in previous posts but they generally go ignored. If you are going to go from tree to tree you're not going to get anywhere. You need to be looking at the forest, the bigger picture, and then the details will fall in place. Like I said, you have to know enough for the spirit to work with.

Can you please summarize his answers for the questions I asked? I'm not seeing them elsewhere (unless they are, "It doesn't matter."):

According to Moses 6:52, 59 and 62, which Person is identifying as the Father of the Only Begotten Son, Jesus Christ? From a logistical standpoint, according to the vision in Moses 6, how could the mortal  Adam, as the Father of the Only Begotten Son, have been speaking to Enoch as Adam-God, and relating the history of what he told Enoch's forebearer, the mortal Adam? If the answer is "divine investiture of authority" as I proposed a few days ago, I understand the principle to mean that members of a council of gods may represent one another other to the Father's mortal children, and to reveal, but not lead us to misunderstand, our eternal identity. I've only seen it used in reference to Jesus speaking as the Father. Do you have references showing that Brigham Young used this concept to explain Adam-God?

According to Moses 6:68 can we expect, like Adam, to take on an Adam-God role in some additional, future iteration?

Edited by CV75
Link to comment
On 12/2/2017 at 6:06 PM, co-eternal said:

I would like to know your references on this. Who said it, what words were removed, what words added.

There are other Journals, Diaries, Compilations, Deseret News Pubs with which to compare. and I've not seen anything untoward, but I'm not an expert.

CFR Answered.

"Gerrit Dirkmaat:        By documentary editing standards, working with the Joseph Smith Papers, it was a big deal to us if we had four versions of a revelation and one of them had two words that were different. That was a big deal. Why are these two words that are different? In the Watt shorthand transcriptions, as opposed to what was then published in the Journal of Discourses , there are sometimes hundreds of differences, sometimes thousands of differences. If you’re just talking words, there are some sermons there that have 1,000 words left out. There are some sermons where there’s 400 words included. I don’t mean just articles like “the” and “and.” I mean entire portions of the sermon that were spoken to the congregation that clearly he recorded, but when that same sermon was published were not included."

Glenn

Link to comment
5 hours ago, Glenn101 said:

CFR Answered.

"Gerrit Dirkmaat:        By documentary editing standards, working with the Joseph Smith Papers, it was a big deal to us if we had four versions of a revelation and one of them had two words that were different. That was a big deal. Why are these two words that are different? In the Watt shorthand transcriptions, as opposed to what was then published in the Journal of Discourses , there are sometimes hundreds of differences, sometimes thousands of differences. If you’re just talking words, there are some sermons there that have 1,000 words left out. There are some sermons where there’s 400 words included. I don’t mean just articles like “the” and “and.” I mean entire portions of the sermon that were spoken to the congregation that clearly he recorded, but when that same sermon was published were not included."

Glenn

Glenn,

Thank you very much for that. Anyone who reads the JoD should read that. I was disappointed in one thing, there were very little of the actual differences published, 400 words missing, 1000 words added. And very little on Adam-God. I have been given references by others, strong opponents to Adam-God that have all turned out to be heresy, but peroted all over. I have looked trough my collection of quotes and am pleased to say that quotes from the JoD are in a minority, however I find no significant differences (meaning no changes in doctrine) between the JoD quotes and the non-JoD quotes. And I read nothing in your reference that would cast doubt on what Brigham said of Adam-God specially in light of all said on the topic found in other places. But my testimony of him a a true messenger from the Father has increased, what a truely remarkable man.

Thanks again Glenn.

Link to comment
On 11/30/2017 at 10:42 AM, RevTestament said:

I want to commend you on one of the best, most succinct statements I have ever seen on this subject from anyone in the Church. I have a couple of comments to make, and I hope they may add something to your comments.

I agree. See my comments from my post above.

In addition to your comments I would point out that Abraham teaches the eternality of spirits just a few verses above your reference, which clearly conflicts with the idea of spirit babies born in heaven to heavenly parents. I am not opposed to the idea that men are reborn in spirit to heavenly parents however. 

Abraham 3:

18 Howbeit that he made the greater star; as, also, if there be two spirits, and one shall be more intelligent than the other, yet these two spirits, notwithstanding one is more intelligent than the other, have no beginning; they existed before, they shall have no end, they shall exist after, for they are gnolaum, or eternal.

19 And the Lord said unto me: These two facts do exist, that there are two spirits, one being more intelligent than the other; there shall be another more intelligent than they; I am the Lord thy God, I am more intelligent than they all.

Thank you so much for your comments here, and your researched links. I recently commented that I felt the Church got off on the wrong foot with an idea that exaltation is reached through temporal polygamy. I know this is a somewhat sensitive topic, but I would hope that the Church can grow past this idea that one must have polygamous relationships to be exalted. It just is not so, and I believe has led to great harm, although unintentionally. I am not saying polygamous relationships are inherently bad nor that the Lord is not pleased with strides made by the early Church in overcoming human tendencies in such relationships. Nor that the Lord was not trying to teach us something through temporal polygamy. Just that I agree with you that Joseph had something much more important to say that got left behind by the Church in the dust. You do a great job showing this.

A few additional comments - JS' teaching that Adam is God is not incorrect in English parlance, but Adam as Elohim is not El Elyon, the Most High El who is our Heavenly Father. Elohim is better understood as the house of God. Yeshua is Elohim, as even the Children of Israel are Elohim per Psalms 82, and Yeshua per John.

Our Adam is not the Father of Jesus Christ. D&C make it clear that Adam was given the keys of Salvation UNDER THE DIRECTION of the Holy One who is Jesus Christ. However, at some point our Father was an Adam, and became the Father of Yeshua. That is the great secret JS was trying to teach I think. This is from the key of Michael. It is a spiritual teaching which I think became misconstrued as an error.
In the interest of full disclosure, however, I do not believe Adam is the genetic father of all men currently on the earth. He is our earthly spiritual father in the Word. He was the first to receive the priesthood of God after the law of God was introduced and the fall. That makes him the father of all who hold this priesthood on earth. 

I agree that Adam came from another planet - as did we all. Some of us brought our wives to whom we were sealed, and some did not have this sealing. 

A few comments - Making Adam the Holy Spirit is inconsistent with other statements by Joseph Smith that the Holy Spirit had yet to gain a body in this world and would go through a similar process as the Son, unless one believes there was no literal Adam as an earthly man before Christ. This is because Hebrews teaches we only live once on this world. A few who have not died may return to perform certain tasks, but they do not reenter the world as infants in a new body. So I caution you on your use of the word reincarnated. JS never taught reincarnation. No one is incarnated again on this world as a human nor any other creature. MMP is a separate idea. In MMP there is a new beginning, and the gospel restarts on a new world. No one can get a second chance on this world. "Reincarnation" as such is a devilish slight of hand. Don't use that word or concept, because it refers to a totally different idea. Further, I will pose that Yeshua was not an Adam in His immediately prior world, although He apparently was on some prior world. He was a man who followed the Father and became YHWH with the Father. There is no direct scriptural evidence that Adam is YHWH. It is possible but, then you are skating on ice not clearly supported by scripture.

See my comments above about JS making it evident the HS isn't Adam. 

Richards wrote, "Joseph also said that the Holy Ghost is now in a state of Probation which if he should perform in righteousness he may pass through the same or a similar course of things that the Son has"

I also do not see how you can resolve the position with your own link which points to a statement by Laub:

Another George Laub journal entry: "But the holy ghost is yet a Spiritual body and waiting to take to himself a body as the Savior did or as god did or the gods before them took bodies for the Saviour Says the work that my father did do i also & those are the works he took himself a body & then laid down his life that he might take it up again." 

Again it is my contention that Adam is our earthly spiritual Father in that he introduced the word of God into the world, and lived it in order that we may follow it and progress. But to confuse that with Adam being El Elyon, the Most High and our Heavenly Father, would require us to dismiss the YHWH Elohim speaking to Adam in Genesis and in our ceremony.

Thank you for scholarship and opportunity to discuss this important topic. I believe you are doing the Church a great favor in helping it progress beyond a milk understanding of the Godhead and back to an understanding in line with what JS taught.

 

Rev, Thanks for your comments. I think you've made some great points. As far as the Adam = Holy Ghost equation, I think that is possibly what JS believed considering Adam died and became a disembodied spirit. There's no reason that couldn't be how the Holy Ghost became a tabernacle of spirit in JS' mind, and that his "state of probation" would continue until he proved worthy of passing through the same course the son has. Also, if JS subscribed to the Holy Ghost being involved in the conception of Jesus as the BOM seems to indicate ("And it came to pass that I beheld that she was carried away in the Spirit; and after she had been carried away in the Spirit for the space of a time the angel spake unto me, saying: Look! And I looked and beheld the virgin again, bearing a child in her arms. And the angel said unto me: Behold the Lamb of God, yea, even the Son of the Eternal Father!"), and if JS believed Adam was the Holy Ghost, then it follows that he may have taught that Adam was the father of Jesus Christ, at least in the immaculate conception sense. This just occurred to me, and makes a whole lot of sense out of the mess that we get between JS' clear teachings about the order of authority with Jesus > Adam, the endowment godhead, and Brigham's Adam-God.

Edited by Benjamin Seeker
Link to comment
13 minutes ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

Rev, Thanks for your comments. I think you've made some great points. As far as the Adam = Holy Ghost equation, I think that is possibly what JS believe considering that Adam died and became a disembodied spirit. There's no reason that couldn't be how the Holy Ghost became a tabernacle of spirit in JS' mind. Also, if JS subscribed to the Holy Ghost being involved in the conception of Jesus as the BOM seems to indicate ("And it came to pass that I beheld that she was carried away in the Spirit; and after she had been carried away in the Spirit for the space of a time the angel spake unto me, saying: Look! And I looked and beheld the virgin again, bearing a child in her arms. And the angel said unto me: Behold the Lamb of God, yea, even the Son of the Eternal Father!"), and JS believed Adam was the Holy Ghost, then it follows that he may have taught that Adam was the father of Jesus Christ, at least immaculate conception sense.

There is no need for speculation.

Quote

Adam is Michael the Archangel and he is the Father of Jesus Christ and is our God and Joseph taught this principle.” (Brigham Young, December 16, 1867, Wilford Woodruff Journal)

Quote

I tell you, when you see your Father in the Heavens, you will see Adam; when you see your Mother that bore your spirit, you will see Mother Eve.” (Brigham Young Oct.8, 1854 General Conference Report, Church Archives. Also see, The Essential Brigham Young, pg. 99)

Quote

Is there in the heaven of heavens a leader? Yes, and we cannot do without one and that being the case, whoever this is may be called God. Joseph said that Adam was our Father and God” (Brigham Young, Journal History, May 14, 1876, Church Archives)

Quote

While it is in all probability true that the gospels were originally written in Aramaic, it is even more certain that the New Testament is based upon an Old Testament-Hebraic culture and religion. This being the case, it is most significant that in the Hebrew language the word for man is Adam, hence in the some odd 84 passages in the gospels when Jesus referred to himself as the Son of Man, it can be taken quite literally as a claim on Jesus' part that he was the son of Adam.” (The Teachings of President Brigham Young, Volume 3, pg. 327)

And none of these are from the much maligned JoD!

Link to comment
50 minutes ago, co-eternal said:

There is no need for speculation.

And none of these are from the much maligned JoD!

The problem, which I would guess you’re well aware of, is that JS taught that Adam answered to and was under Jesus’ authority. Brigham’s Adam-God does not, and that is an indicator, along with contrasting teachings about the origin of spirits, that BY hadn’t understood what JS taught or gave it his own flavor.

Link to comment
6 hours ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

The problem, which I would guess you’re well aware of, is that JS taught that Adam answered to and was under Jesus’ authority. Brigham’s Adam-God does not, and that is an indicator, along with contrasting teachings about the origin of spirits, that BY hadn’t understood what JS taught or gave it his own flavor.

Actually it is an indicator that Joseph didn't receive that revelation early on.  In fact the first and probably only indication that Joseph had any ideas related to Adam-God  is in the King Follett teachings, shortly before he died.

Would we really expect him to have had all the information from the beginning?  He had so much more understanding in Nauvoo than in Kirtland or Missouri.  And even more shortly before he died.

Link to comment
3 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Actually it is an indicator that Joseph didn't receive that revelation early on.  In fact the first and probably only indication that Joseph had any ideas related to Adam-God  is in the King Follett teachings, shortly before he died.

Would we really expect him to have had all the information from the beginning?  He had so much more understanding in Nauvoo than in Kirtland or Missouri.  And even more shortly before he died.

His teachings about Adam are in the Nauvoo time period. The two most important quotes are linked to in my post on the first page. This is not an early on teaching.

Edited by Benjamin Seeker
Link to comment
3 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Actually it is an indicator that Joseph didn't receive that revelation early on.  In fact the first and probably only indication that Joseph had any ideas related to Adam-God  is in the King Follett teachings, shortly before he died.

Would we really expect him to have had all the information from the beginning?  He had so much more understanding in Nauvoo than in Kirtland or Missouri.  And even more shortly before he died.

Also, the juiciest portions of the King Follet Sermon can be found more explicitly recorded by Wilford Woodruff in a succinct summary in 1841! I also included that in my first post. JS’s theology was usually ahead of what he taught to the entire church, such as on the KF occasion.

Edited by Benjamin Seeker
Link to comment
3 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Actually it is an indicator that Joseph didn't receive that revelation early on.  In fact the first and probably only indication that Joseph had any ideas related to Adam-God  is in the King Follett teachings, shortly before he died.

Again here we have to be clear about what we mean by Adam/God since again only two main theses are rejected by the contemporary church with the rest of the doctrine being mainstream and accepted. While plurality of Gods and the father having been in mortality clearly was taught by Joseph there are other reasons to think elements are in Nauvoo. One of the doctrines William Law objected to and put in the Nauvoo Expositor was the mysterious possibility that God could fall. Whether that refers to Alma's teaching on that in the Book of Mormon or something more akin to the A/G theory of Brigham is unclear. There are also accounts in Navuoo that describe Adam and Even in very deified terms - although again I'd note that it's only Adam's identification as Father of our spirits and physical immediate Father of Jesus in mortality that's in question. 

Link to comment
12 hours ago, co-eternal said:

Glenn,

Thank you very much for that. Anyone who reads the JoD should read that. I was disappointed in one thing, there were very little of the actual differences published, 400 words missing, 1000 words added. And very little on Adam-God. I have been given references by others, strong opponents to Adam-God that have all turned out to be heresy, but peroted all over. I have looked trough my collection of quotes and am pleased to say that quotes from the JoD are in a minority, however I find no significant differences (meaning no changes in doctrine) between the JoD quotes and the non-JoD quotes. And I read nothing in your reference that would cast doubt on what Brigham said of Adam-God specially in light of all said on the topic found in other places. But my testimony of him a a true messenger from the Father has increased, what a truely remarkable man.

 

I am in agreement about how Brigham Young and his remarkable accomplishments. All of that so often seems to get lost in the focus on the priesthood ban and the Adam-God haggling. Brigham was one heck of a leader. Whether from his own intellect or gleaning from that of others, or from the spirit, the Saints under his leadership did some remarkable things and set the stage for the word-wide growth of the church.

Lajean Purcell Carruth and Gerrit Dirkmaat authored a paper available for download (for $1.29) at BYU Studies (https://byustudies.byu.edu/content/prophets-have-spoken-but-what-did-they-say-examining-differences-between-george-d-watts) delves pretty deeply into the details of some of those sermons.

Unfortunately the Adam-God sermon from June of 1852 which jump started the whole thing is missing from the extant shorthand notes that George D. Watt left behind so that is one we will not be able to have checked. I am hoping that Lajean will publish a book with her transcriptions of the ones she does have access to.

Glenn

Link to comment
12 hours ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

The problem, which I would guess you’re well aware of, is that JS taught that Adam answered to and was under Jesus’ authority. Brigham’s Adam-God does not, and that is an indicator, along with contrasting teachings about the origin of spirits, that BY hadn’t understood what JS taught or gave it his own flavor.

And where is that reference.

I am amazed at this forum. It is in the rules to provide references yet no one does.

How about everyone makes no assertion of fact with out references in the very same post as the assertion.

What is the reference.

Link to comment
28 minutes ago, co-eternal said:

And where is that reference.

I am amazed at this forum. It is in the rules to provide references yet no one does.

How about everyone makes no assertion of fact with out references in the very same post as the assertion.

What is the reference.

I already did in my first post on the first page of this thread. They are in the section titled Joseph Smith and Adam-God. They date to 1839 and 1840.

Link to comment
32 minutes ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

I already did in my first post on the first page of this thread. They are in the section titled Joseph Smith and Adam-God. They date to 1839 and 1840.

Which would make it pre-endowment, pre-KFD, and pre-fullness of priesthood restoration.
Joseph was still learning.

Link to comment
47 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Which would make it pre-endowment, pre-KFD, and pre-fullness of priesthood restoration.
Joseph was still learning.

If you read my second post, you would also see that all of the KF content was already known to JS by 1841, just a year later. In fact, JS taught at least part of the KFD, that the “Father took life to himself precisely as Jesus did,” as early as January 5 of 1841, which is a mere 3 months after his last explicit statement on Adam’s authority coming after Christ. My point is that important KFD concepts are developing essentially at the same time, and it’s way more likely that this was all one developing thread and not a 180 degree reversal.

In fact, in the KFD, Joseph teaches that “Adam was created in the very fashion and image of God.” This of course can also be used against some of my speculation, but at any rate, it clearly creates a level of separation between Adam and the Father and supports the idea that JS perceived Elohim and Jehovah in the endowment as Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ with Adam in a secondary authority to them. Though the identity of Jehovah is not made explicit in the endowment, all of JS teachings affirm that Jesus was  primarily responsible for the creation  (see BOM, D&C, JST John, Moses, and Abraham), and so it would appear that JS’ endowment Jehovah is Jesus.

 

Edited by Benjamin Seeker
Link to comment
On 11/29/2017 at 6:30 PM, JLHPROF said:

The fruit and the aprons of fig leaves point to the same meaning.
The same meaning Eve suggests in Moses when praising their transgression.

I am not sure what you are getting at, can you fill me in?

Here is the passage I think you are referring to:

"And Eve, his wife, heard all these things and was glad, saying: Were it not for our transgression we never should have had seed, and never should have known good and evil, and the joy of our redemption, and the eternal life which God giveth unto all the obedient (Moses 5:11)".

Link to comment
On 11/29/2017 at 6:26 PM, mfbukowski said:

No, I think the point is that Father is "AN Adam", not OUR "Adam", if you trust Satan's word for it. ;)

I suppose that is possible with a literal interpretation of the story, but temple ritual suggests that the story of Adam and Eve is allegorical to our own lives.  Otherwise, likening the story to ourselves doesn't make much sense.  So, God could have been another Adam, or he could have been another man, just like us, who partook of "the fruit" in the same way we do. 

Link to comment

"Christ is the Great High priest; Adam next"  This statement either make Adam subordinate to Christ or if makes Adam superior to Christ but it does not say which one. Only that there is an order, but not what the order is.

I, personally, find it much easier to interpret it as looking up rather that down seeing as how Brigham tells us what Joseph taught:

Quote

 

"At meeting of school of the prophets, President Young said Adam was Michael the Archangel and he was the father of Jesus Christ and was our God, and Joseph taught this principle."

- Prophet Wilford Woodruff, Journal of Wilford Woodruff, December 16, 1867

 

To make the claim that the above statement is in conflict or says that Joseph thought or said that Adam is subordinate to Christ is without logic or basis. I keep saying,  Take stock of the forest and the truth of the trees will be shown.

Link to comment
16 hours ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

Rev, Thanks for your comments. I think you've made some great points. As far as the Adam = Holy Ghost equation, I think that is possibly what JS believed considering Adam died and became a disembodied spirit. There's no reason that couldn't be how the Holy Ghost became a tabernacle of spirit in JS' mind, and that his "state of probation" would continue until he proved worthy of passing through the same course the son has. Also, if JS subscribed to the Holy Ghost being involved in the conception of Jesus as the BOM seems to indicate ("And it came to pass that I beheld that she was carried away in the Spirit; and after she had been carried away in the Spirit for the space of a time the angel spake unto me, saying: Look! And I looked and beheld the virgin again, bearing a child in her arms. And the angel said unto me: Behold the Lamb of God, yea, even the Son of the Eternal Father!"), and if JS believed Adam was the Holy Ghost, then it follows that he may have taught that Adam was the father of Jesus Christ, at least in the immaculate conception sense. This just occurred to me, and makes a whole lot of sense out of the mess that we get between JS' clear teachings about the order of authority with Jesus > Adam, the endowment godhead, and Brigham's Adam-God.

I do see a point there. I have wondered if the Angel of the Lord is essentially OT parlance for the Holy Spirit - and I believe there is a chapter in Isaiah which infers this.

Isa 6:9 In all their affliction he was afflicted, and the angel of his presence saved them: in his love and in his pity he redeemed them; and he bare them, and carried them all the days of old.

10 ¶ But they rebelled, and vexed his holy Spirit: therefore he was turned to be their enemy, and he fought against them.

11 Then he remembered the days of old, Moses, and his people, saying, Where is he that brought them up out of the sea with the shepherd of his flock? where is he that put his holy Spirit within him?

The problem I see with Adam being the Holy Spirit is that Yeshua seems to infer that the Holy Spirit may not only be sent in spirit form but will come to teach all things, and thus gain a body. If this is what Yeshua is saying, then it cannot be Adam for the reasons I have already given. TBH none of us really knows much about the HS. I believe it is an office of the priesthood. If the HS is to come to this earth and gain a body, then it seems another would need to be called to take His place, but this is a bit suppositional. I think we simply do not have scripture on point.

Link to comment
12 minutes ago, co-eternal said:

"Christ is the Great High priest; Adam next"  This statement either make Adam subordinate to Christ or if makes Adam superior to Christ but it does not say which one. Only that there is an order, but not what the order is.

I, personally, find it much easier to interpret it as looking up rather that down seeing as how Brigham tells us what Joseph taught:

To make the claim that the above statement is in conflict or says that Joseph thought or said that Adam is subordinate to Christ is without logic or basis. I keep saying,  Take stock of the forest and the truth of the trees will be shown.

You've missed a couple important trees. JS' later October 5th 1839 statement about Adam clarifies: "These angels are under the direction of Michael or Adam who acts under the direction of Christ."

Also, all the stuff I wrote to JHL just earlier today is relevant: 

Quote

In the King Follet Discourse, Joseph teaches that “Adam was created in the very fashion and image of God.” This of course can also be used against some of my speculation, but at any rate, it clearly creates a level of separation between Adam and the Father and supports the idea that JS perceived Elohim and Jehovah in the endowment as Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ with Adam in a secondary authority to them. Though the identity of Jehovah is not made explicit in the endowment, all of JS teachings affirm that Jesus was  primarily responsible for the creation  (see BOM, D&C, JST John, Moses, and Abraham), and so it would appear that JS’ endowment Jehovah is Jesus.

 

Link to comment
1 hour ago, pogi said:

I am not sure what you are getting at, can you fill me in?

Here is the passage I think you are referring to:

"And Eve, his wife, heard all these things and was glad, saying: Were it not for our transgression we never should have had seed, and never should have known good and evil, and the joy of our redemption, and the eternal life which God giveth unto all the obedient (Moses 5:11)".

Yes, that is the passage.
To say much more would violate temple content rules.  But the placement of the aprons/fig leaves, the usage of figs instead of other fruit, and the description of fruit necessary to have seed are all related.
I don't think I can be any more direct.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, pogi said:

I suppose that is possible with a literal interpretation of the story, but temple ritual suggests that the story of Adam and Eve is allegorical to our own lives.  Otherwise, likening the story to ourselves doesn't make much sense.  So, God could have been another Adam, or he could have been another man, just like us, who partook of "the fruit" in the same way we do. 

This is important.

I think I will do a thread on it.

This relates directly to the atonement.

But all is metaphor if allegedly "literal" or not ;)

 

Edited by mfbukowski
Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...