Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?
Jesus keeps it simple:
John 8:34 Jesus answered them,
Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin.
Although it's true that 'desire followeth the eye', it's clear from the narrative in Genesis 3 that Eve hadn't even noticed the fruit before the serpent spoke to her.
The 'law' which was in action during that conversation was that words communicate to our hearts, just as what we speak, communicates our hearts. This is a very simple symmetry which God has placed in creation.
When Paul said, 'Faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God', Romans 10:17, he was talking about the dunamis of the word of God being the power to create faith where there may have been none before - 1 Corinthians 1:28b and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are: 29 That no flesh should glory in his presence.
Although we see from Genesis that God had commanded Adam about the trees before Eve was formed, it seems unlikely that Eve was left out of the walks which God took with Adam in the garden.
Nevertheless, the responsibility for the obedience of both of them, rested with Adam as Eve's head. Scripture in Leviticus 18 makes clear that the woman becomes one flesh with the man, and it's the man that other men have to deal with. The woman is not expected to take care of herself if she has a husband. (And if she doesn't have a husband, she is still 'one flesh' with her father and mother, while they live.) Hi Charisma...when the woman is one flesh with the man, they have one Head...Christ...and they learn of that Head through MUTUAL submission to one another. The "becoming one flesh" means ONE in agreement or double witness. It is a type and shadow of the ONE Christ (who are "two"...Bride and Bridegroom)
I disagree strongly with the way (note my choice of words) you explain what you believe, even though I can see it's a carefully thought out thesis by the people from whom you are hearing it. It supports the 'dual nature' theory, even (it seems), implying that 'Wisdom' is an entity separate from God, and that the 'Serpent' represents it - divided between the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, and .... what ...? the tree of life? I haven't heard this from anyone Charisma, except my heart/mind as I have been going along with this. I took a course in Levitical Law...and learned much from that...otherwise I have been taught entirely on my own. It has only been the past two years that I have began to communicate these things in any depth on the forum...and only the last year that I have found others of like mind. In discussing these things with them, my understanding has grown in leaps and bounds. I understand why you are feeling this way...but again...both you and Rick need to show me in scripture where you are disagreeing with me. Please show me scripturally...who the serpent is...and how it relates to satan.
The problem with what you put forth (if I have 'heard' correctly what you wrote back to Rick), is that it doesn't accord with scripture's declaration about God, or about the serpent, or about their natures and relationship with each other. You frequently ask for us to 'see' things 'in the Law', which may well be there, as far as the Law goes. But, God has revealed far more than the Law, in Jesus Christ, or, put another way, He has revealed the Law fully, in Jesus Christ.Well..if that was the case...Jesus would not have had to OPEN the disciples eyes, after the resurrection, and take them BACK into the Law of Moses, to show how He was revealed. We are no different. If anything..it is MUCH more vital that the Holy Spirit do the same with us because at least they were familiar with the Law in the 1st century. The church has tossed it out the window because they think that it is no longer applicable being that we're in the age of Grace. The problem is...the Law CONSUMMATES with Grace...and we have to know "WHO" we are consummating with.
Hebrews 10:1 For the law having a shadow of good things to come, [and] not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect. If we can't SEE the shadow, we're certainly not going to see the Entity casting the shadow.
The other thing I want to express to you, is that any idea that there is a division within God Himself, is a lie. Please show me where I ever said there was any division within God .
I can't figure out if this is partly what you're saying, because much of (what you say) is resting on negative images - the opposite of God -what are you seeing as negative images Charisma? the strong implication being that somehow God is the other side of something. Whereas, God is totally pure, holy, undivided, uncreated, light without darkenss or shadow, living water without death (and so on). If there is any thought in your mind that this is otherwise, please be aware that Jung put forth that the divine and the profane exist as poles of the same entity. There is nothing in the Bible which accords with that view.No...again...God ..the ONE...is a completely integrated WHOLE.
Likewise, 'the virgin subconscious mind' is also a lie.
I need to have 2 witnesses to that in typology Charisma. What is the Holy of Holies in your mind? If you want to seriously study this...we have to use the biblical criteria for determining Truth. You will also have to give a corresponding witness in His creation to back it up.
When Adam disobeyed God, he knew immediately that he felt different about both himself, and God. Adam had experienced both being in fellowship with God, and, being out of fellowship with God.
And your point was?
Adam's immediate descendants did not have this advantage. Their only relief from their sense of separation was in peace offerings, and a certain kind of obedience to God's ongoing spoken word to them - for many centuries before the Law had been given.You don't think they were able to hear from God? How did Abraham hear Him?
Today, we, too, are born separated from fellowship with God. What gives you this idea? It is not one's 'virgin subconscious mind' which is aware of Him; we sense our separation from Him because He cannot come to us, because of our sin, and, He has given us 'conscience', regardless of not having the law of love written on our hearts - until we are in a fit state (through a new relationship with God through Jesus Christ), spiritually, to receive the Holy Spirit.Scripture please
Yes, in God there are emotions and the outworking of those in His actions. But in Him, they are pure.Yes they are...but it is YOU who is providing for the definition of Pure...not Him. His anger is never unrighteous.Never His grief is never tinged or absorbed with self-pity. His sorrow is a perfect expression of sorrow, sorrowing for only right reasons in proper circumstances with genuine cause. This is not a flaw in God. These emotions are dark in unregenerate humans because they are usually entirely selfish. The one nearly redeeming power in mankind, is to love another more than self - sometimes - but it falls very short of the love of God in Christ Jesus.I agree...but we need to understand what "self" is, using the scriptural definition
Our capacity to 'know' God, is reserved in a profound part of our beings. Yes....the virgin subconcious. This depth is always seeking to 'know' something, and it can be filled in very many ways apart from God. No...again...only the High Priest could enter "her". These can seem deeply satisfying - and they are for a season - but they may be far from the template given in the New Testament by the apostles.The template or plummet was Laid in the small beginning...in the Law. It goes down in the MOTHER/Bride...the New Jerusalem. The New Testament expands on it.
Not only does John say we 'are cleansed from all unrighteousness' (1:1:7), but he says in 1:3:6 Whosoever abideth in him sinneth not: whosoever sinneth hath not seen him, neither known him. Please give us your scriptural definition of sin and righteousness.
You don't have to agree with John, but I have found his words true, and, I find them at quite a variance with the ideas you put forward. I agree with John 100 percent...and I've never found myself at variance with anything he has said.