The Idols and False Notions have Taken Deep Root

The Lady Kate · Mar 19, 2007

mark kennedy said:
Paul's opinion on Redemptive history carries a lot of weight with Christians.

I'm well aware of that. But how much weight should the words of Paul carry in the subject of Origins?

Then why did I have to tell you I was talking about the resurrection.

because you really weren't?

That's exactly right even when they are using mythical metaphors like the Leviathan.

So, mythical metaphors are not mythology, and the leviathan was a real creature?

That is God's claim in the Bible and furnishes proof of same unlike the pagan gods of antiquity.

God's claim? Surely you mean God's credited claim... unless I'm dealing with someone who believes that God wrote His own press?

Being a descendant of Adam makes you a sinner not a child of perdition.

If Adam is literal... and the facts seem to say not. There must be some other reason why we're not perfect.

No they are not apes, that is absurd.

Actually, we are, that is biology.

Your not interested in doctrine period from what I can tell.

Not when it's so obviously flawed...

shernren · Mar 19, 2007

mark kennedy said:
That's a false assumption, it's not the number of references but the connection to the Gospel as a formal doctrine that is essential. No such assumption is made in hamartiology or soteriology, you are confusing both of them with Hermeneutics which is 'a theoretical backing for various interpretive projects.'

Thus the assertion that a historical, literal Adam is pivotal to our faith is not Scriptural. I have shown from Scripture that nowhere was any such propositional framework about Adam considered pivotal to belief, either in Jesus' words or works or in the early Apostolic mission.

mark kennedy said:
How do you dismiss this without even quoting the text? You did realize that this was going to focus on Creationism as a formal Christian doctrine, I know you did. Now you don't even bother to identify the texts you have dismissed?

I fully trust that all observing have their own Bibles and can refer to them at any point in this discussion. Now, I was specifically discussing a point you made:

mark kennedy said:
There are only two things a person really has to understand in order to make sense of the Bible, Adam sinned and Christ arose, everything hinges on those two defining events.

In the two texts cited above (Luke 3 and Jude 1) Adam is mentioned simply as an ancestor of the person concerned (Jesus Christ and Enoch, respectively). Now a person can have a fictitious or stylized ancestry and still be entirely real, can he not? Furthermore, the points made in those two passages in no way "hinge" upon Adam being the first sinner of the human race and upon Adam passing his sin on biologically. Hence they do not help your point at all.

mark kennedy said:
Ok, since you choose to mock the Apostle Paul I am going to move on before I tell you what I think of this kind of foolishness.

My "foolishness" merely consists of repeating the Bible, nearly verbatim:

A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. But women will be saved through childbearing--if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety.
(1 Timothy 2:11-15 NIV)

Again, this will not show that any propositional framework about Adam and Eve was considered vital to salvation.

mark kennedy said:
Stop right there, I want to talk about this since you are being careless with things you are grossly misinformed about. If you are going to bring up these verses then at least quote them using the book, chapter and verse . If you know anything about Christian theology then you must realize that this is how the authority of the Scriptures is referenced as a proof text for formal doctrine.

Why should I? I won't mince words with you now. You have consistently and repeatedly ignored TE presentations of these verses, as was demonstrated here: http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=29994070#post29994070
and here: http://www.christianforums.com/t4967151&page=2 as well as many other previous times when this has been brought up. You recognize only one ground for the validity of a Scriptural interpretation: it is right whenever it agrees with mark kennedy and wrong everywhere else.

mark kennedy said:
I'm not playing verse tag with you and I'm not playing your theological game of Where's Adam. There will be a serious exegesis of these texts, I strongly suggest you become familiar with them because I Cor. 15 is cited repeatedly in the Nicene Creed.

I'm familiar with the role of Adam in Paul's hamartiological treatises in Romans and 1 Corinthians; I'm familiar with Adam's conspicuous absence everywhere else the NT talks about sin.

mark kennedy · Mar 20, 2007

shernren said:
Thus the assertion that a historical, literal Adam is pivotal to our faith is not Scriptural. I have shown from Scripture that nowhere was any such propositional framework about Adam considered pivotal to belief, either in Jesus' words or works or in the early Apostolic mission.

Are you aware that I Corinthians 15 is cited repeatedly as a foundational proof text in the Nicene Creed?

We believe in (Romans 10: 8-10; 1 John 4: 15)
ONE God, (Deuteronomy 6: 4, Ephesians 4: 6)
Father (Matthew 6: 9)
Almighty, (Exodus 6: 3)
Maker of Heaven and Earth, (Genesis 1: 1)
and of all things visible and invisible. (Colossians 1: 15-16)

And in ONE Lord Jesus Christ, (Acts 11: 17)
Son of God, (Mathew 14: 33; 16: 16)
Only-Begotten, (John 1: 18; 3: 16)
Begotten of the Father before all ages. (John 1: 2)
Light from Light; (Psalm 27: 1; John 8: 12; Matthew 17: 2,5)
True God from True God; (John 17: 1-5)
Begotten, not made; (John 1: 18)
of one essence with the Father (John 10: 30)
through whom all things were made; (Hebrews 1: 1-2)
Who for us men and for our salvation (1 Timothy 2: 4-5)
came down from heaven, (John 6: 33,35)
and was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary (Luke 1: 35)
and became man. (John 1: 14)
And He was crucified for us (Mark 15: 25; 1 Corinthians 15: 3)
under Pontius Pilate, (John 19: 6)
suffered, (Mark 8: 31)
and was buried. (Luke 23: 53; 1 Corinthians 15: 4)
And on the third day He rose again, according to the Scriptures, (Luke 24: 1 1 Corinthians 15: 4)
and ascended into heaven, (Luke 24: 51; Acts 1: 10)
and sits at the right hand of the Father; (Mark 16: 19; Acts 7: 55)
and He shall come again with glory (Matthew 24: 27)
to judge the living and the dead; (Acts 10: 42; 2 Timothy 4: 1)
Whose Kingdom shall have no end. (2 Peter 1: 11)

And in the Holy Spirit, (John 14: 26)
Lord, (Acts 5: 3-4)
Giver of Life, (Genesis 1: 2)
Who proceeds from the Father [and the Son]*; (John 15: 26)
Who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified; (Matthew 3: 16-17)
Who spoke through the prophets. (1 Samuel 19: 20; Ezekiel 11: 5,13)

In one, (Matthew 16: 18)
holy, (1 Peter 2: 5,9)
catholic**, (Mark 16: 15)
and apostolic Church. (Acts 2: 42; Ephesians 2: 19-22)

I acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins***. (Ephesians 4: 5; Acts 2: 38)
I look for the resurrection of the dead, (John 11: 24; 1 Corinthians 15: 12-49; Hebrews 6: 2; Revelation 20: 5)
and the life in the age to come. (Mark 10: 29-30)

AMEN. (Psalm 106: 48)

Do you care?

"I fully trust that all observing have their own Bibles and can refer to them at any point in this discussion. Now, I was specifically discussing a point you made:"

There are only two things a person really has to understand in order to make sense of the Bible, Adam sinned and Christ arose, everything hinges on those two defining events.

``who had not yet sinned of their own individual will, as Adam did, but had drawn from him original sin...because in him [Adam] was constituted the form of condemnation to his future progeny'' (Ibid. I.13; Fathers of the Church).

``Our first parents fell into open disobedience because they were already secretly corrupted; for the evil act had never been done had not the evil will preceded it'' (Ibid. XIV.13; Fathers of the Church).

`except inasmuch as this person [his descendant] receives his nature from his first parent, for which reason it is called the `sin of nature'' Since, ``the soul is the form and nature of the body, in respect of its essence and not in respect of its powers...the soul is the subject of original sin chiefly in respect to essence'' (Ibid. IaIIae.83.2; New Advent).

``whoever maintains that human nature at any period required not the second Adam for its physician, because it was not corrupted in the first Adam, is convicted as an enemy to the grace of God'' (On the Grace of Christ and on Original Sin II.34; Fathers of the Church)

`` `By one man,' says he [Paul], ``sin entered into the world, and death by sin.' '' (On the Merits I.10; cf. Romans 5:12; Fathers of the Church). With an eye toward refuting the Pelagians, Augustine goes on to note that, ``This indicates propagation, not imitation; for if imitation were meant, he would have said, `By the devil.' But as no one doubts, he refers to that first man who is called Adam'' (Ibid.; Fathers of Church).

`It follows therefore that through origin from the first man sin entered the world'' (Summa Theologica IaIIae.81.1; New Advent).

``we must explain the matter...by saying that all men born of Adam may be considered as one man, inasmuch as they have one common nature, which they receive from their first patents'' (Ibid.; New Advent).

``Porphyry says that `by sharing the same species, many men are one man.' Accordingly the multitude of men born of Adam, as as so many members of one body'' (Ibid.; New Advent).

``original sin is not the sin of this [any] person, except inasmuch as this person receives his nature from his first parent'' (Ibid.; Fathers of the Church).

``original sin...is transmitted to his [Adam's] posterity, just as, from the soul's will, actual sin is transmitted to the members of the body, through their being moved by the will'' (Ibid. IaIIae.81.3; New Advent).

`in this way...the disorder born of Adam is voluntary...by the will of the first parent, who, by the movement of generation, moves all who originate from him'' (Ibid. IaIIae.81.1; New Advent)

In the two texts cited above (Luke 3 and Jude 1) Adam is mentioned simply as an ancestor of the person concerned (Jesus Christ and Enoch, respectively). Now a person can have a fictitious or stylized ancestry and still be entirely real, can he not? Furthermore, the points made in those two passages in no way "hinge" upon Adam being the first sinner of the human race and upon Adam passing his sin on biologically. Hence they do not help your point at all.

Adam is mentioned as the seventh what from Adam and the son of God why?

My "foolishness" merely consists of repeating the Bible, nearly verbatim:

A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. But women will be saved through childbearing--if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety.
(1 Timothy 2:11-15 NIV)

You nevertheless are mocking the Scriptures in a theology forum for Christians only. Why do you come here if you don't like what Paul has to say?

Again, this will not show that any propositional framework about Adam and Eve was considered vital to salvation.

I didn't say they were vital to salvation, I said they were the first cause of our sin and that we sinned in Adam. Alternative explanations for our fallen state do not exist in Scripture or the traditional doctrine of the Church except in heretical traditions.

Why should I? I won't mince words with you now. You have consistently and repeatedly ignored TE presentations of these verses

I honestly don't care if you do or not, I know I am going to when you get through running me off on these tangents.

as well as many other previous times when this has been brought up. You recognize only one ground for the validity of a Scriptural interpretation: it is right whenever it agrees with mark kennedy and wrong everywhere else.

Nothing in Scripture or sound doctrine agrees with the nebulas quasi christian view the Theistic evolutionists are going on and on about. The only basis for it is that TOE is true, reliable and real while taking the Scriptures literally is false, faulty and delusional. You cannot recognize that historical Adam being specially created and our first parent is Christian doctrine. You either can't or wont.

I'm familiar with the role of Adam in Paul's hamartiological treatises in Romans and 1 Corinthians; I'm familiar with Adam's conspicuous absence everywhere else the NT talks about sin.

So you are familar with Paul's harmartiological discussions in Romans and I Corinthians, what do Paul identify as the efficient cause of man's universal sin and separation from God?

The Lady Kate · Mar 20, 2007

mark kennedy said:
Are you aware that I Corinthians 15 is cited repeatedly as a foundational proof text in the Nicene Creed?

We believe in (Romans 10: 8-10; 1 John 4: 15)

ONE God, (Deuteronomy 6: 4, Ephesians 4: 6)

Father (Matthew 6: 9)

Almighty, (Exodus 6: 3)

Maker of Heaven and Earth, (Genesis 1: 1)

and of all things visible and invisible. (Colossians 1: 15-16)

And in ONE Lord Jesus Christ, (Acts 11: 17)

Son of God, (Mathew 14: 33; 16: 16)

Only-Begotten, (John 1: 18; 3: 16)

Begotten of the Father before all ages. (John 1: 2)

Light from Light; (Psalm 27: 1; John 8: 12; Matthew 17: 2,5)

True God from True God; (John 17: 1-5)

Begotten, not made; (John 1: 18)

of one essence with the Father (John 10: 30)

through whom all things were made; (Hebrews 1: 1-2)

Who for us men and for our salvation (1 Timothy 2: 4-5)

came down from heaven, (John 6: 33,35)

and was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary (Luke 1: 35)

and became man. (John 1: 14)

And He was crucified for us (Mark 15: 25; 1 Corinthians 15: 3)

under Pontius Pilate, (John 19: 6)

suffered, (Mark 8: 31)

and was buried. (Luke 23: 53; 1 Corinthians 15: 4)

And on the third day He rose again, according to the Scriptures, (Luke 24: 1 1 Corinthians 15: 4)

and ascended into heaven, (Luke 24: 51; Acts 1: 10)

and sits at the right hand of the Father; (Mark 16: 19; Acts 7: 55)

and He shall come again with glory (Matthew 24: 27)

to judge the living and the dead; (Acts 10: 42; 2 Timothy 4: 1)

Whose Kingdom shall have no end. (2 Peter 1: 11)

And in the Holy Spirit, (John 14: 26)

Lord, (Acts 5: 3-4)

Giver of Life, (Genesis 1: 2)

Who proceeds from the Father [and the Son]*; (John 15: 26)

Who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified; (Matthew 3: 16-17)

Who spoke through the prophets. (1 Samuel 19: 20; Ezekiel 11: 5,13)

In one, (Matthew 16: 18)

holy, (1 Peter 2: 5,9)

catholic**, (Mark 16: 15)

and apostolic Church. (Acts 2: 42; Ephesians 2: 19-22)

I acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins***. (Ephesians 4: 5; Acts 2: 38)

I look for the resurrection of the dead, (John 11: 24; 1 Corinthians 15: 12-49; Hebrews 6: 2; Revelation 20: 5)

and the life in the age to come. (Mark 10: 29-30)

AMEN. (Psalm 106: 48)
Do you care?

Where's Adam?

"I fully trust that all observing have their own Bibles and can refer to them at any point in this discussion. Now, I was specifically discussing a point you made:"

There are only two things a person really has to understand in order to make sense of the Bible, Adam sinned and Christ arose, everything hinges on those two defining events.

Yes, you've said that already.... but the argument was less than convincing... Christianity simply does not "hinge" on a literal Adam.

shernren · Mar 20, 2007

You're good at citing extrabiblical support for a claim about how Scripture ought to be read! But of course, good commentaries are as much outside the Bible as good science is.

mark kennedy said:
So you are familar with Paul's harmartiological discussions in Romans and I Corinthians, what do Paul identify as the efficient cause of man's universal sin and separation from God?

Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned-- for before the law was given, sin was in the world. But sin is not taken into account when there is no law.
(Romans 5:12-13 NIV)

Death came to all men because all sinned. It's as simple as that.

Assyrian · Mar 20, 2007

mark kennedy said:
Paul preached Adam sinned and that we all sinned in Adam, this has been echoed throughout Church history. In Romans Paul makes a sweeping indictment against Jew and Gentile alike for two and a half chapters that all have sinned and come short of the glory of God. Chapter three begins the revelation of the righteousness of God in Christ, only after establishing that we are all sinners.

Where did Paul ever say we all sinned in Adam?

The first cause of sin is not God's creation but Adam's disobedience, not a population or a parable but a person.

Actually Paul calls him a type or figure. That means Adam is either figurative or Paul is treating him as figurative. Adam may still be a historical individual, but that is not necessary for Paul's discussion of him.

This is a doctrinal issue, not a philosophical one and the authority of the Scriptures is well established.

OK, then establish your doctrine from scripture.

You may feel the bible is simplified and made easier to understand by fitting it into a framework you call 'salvation history' which has a literal Adam eating literal fruit as a foundation. That doesn't mean your explanatory framework is the real meaning of the bible, or that the story of Adam and Eve is literal.

Click to expand...

Do you know the Scriptures you make such broad categorical generalities about because the New Testament is very clear on the Bible being redemptive history. Not just yours but the whole of humanity is included from the very beginning to final judgment. The New Testament does emphatically claim that Adam and Eve were our first parents and Church tradition is in perfect unison with this central fact.

I am not making broad statements about the bible I am making broad statement about the explanatory framework 'redemptive history' you seem to confuse with scripture. But back up your claims from the bible by all means.

The story is an historical narrative and reducing it to myth is a secular practice based on naturalistic assumptions that are unknown in Christian theism.

You just called it 'a hymn of praise'.

Theology is the science of scared doctrine, just as Biology is the science of living systems. Theology includes the divine attributes and eternal Godhead as it's primary focus, something natural science does not have the mental or physical tools to observe or characterize. A supernatural event like the special creation of Adam or resurrection of Jesus Christ is beyond the reach of naturalistic systems. Supernatural works of God known as miracles must be supernaturally revealed. That is why the work of the Holy Spirit in the heart of the believer is essential to graping sound doctrine.

Theology is the study of God and religion, it is not a science like biology, chemistry or physics. Now modern science has shown itself to be very powerful at uncovering how the natural world works, but that is by using the methods of modern science which theology does not use.

But to me it is a mark of disrespect towards theology that you think it needs the worldly glory of the word 'science' to promote it.

The Psalms are hymns and yet make up the bulk of detailed predictive prophecy in Scripture. An historical narrative can be told in highly figurative language and retain it's detailed distinction as a series of sequential events and specific physical locations. The Scriptures are not limited to past events and even give a detailed history of humanity that has yet to occur.

Yes and there are really powerful parallels between the early chapters of Genesis and the book of Revelation. But Revelation describes the future history of the world in very figurative terms, just as the psalms can describe history and future prophecy in very poetic language.

Since when did I get the authority to decide what is and is not the primary cause of original sin? Why don't you read Paul in Romans 5 and II Cor. 15 and ask him why and how all sinned?

But you have decided the primary cause of original sin. My question is, if you are wrong about that would you not still be a sinner?

From what I have read we share in the death because we all sin. That is what Romans 5:12 says. We see it again in 1Cor 15:22 For as in Adam all die, note he is using the present tense, not the past. This did not happen in the past because all humans were 'in Adam' when he sinned. The human race is still 'in Adam', which is hardly talking about a historical human figure. Theologians may have argue, at quite a stretch, that we were 'in Adam' bck in the past in the garden, but to say we are still 'in Adam' tells me Paul is using Adam figuratively, a generic Adam we are all part of.

Paul makes this very personal in Rom 7:9 I was once alive apart from the law, but when the commandment came, sin came alive and I died. Death comes when we sin.

I do not confuse them, they are the same thing as logically defined in Christian theology. Are we to assume that children yet to be born are sinners without some reason to conclude that they were created that way or made that way or their original nature was changed? You seem willing to accept that we are indeed sinners but fail to identify the actual cause. If it is universal then there is a reason it is true of all humanity, rather then certain individuals.

Paul says we all sinned in Adam, what do you say?

I say that Paul did not say any such thing.

Does the bible tells us the cause other than saying our flesh is too weak, to driven by its own desires, to follow the righteous requirement of the law?

That is simple enough, the city upon which the Great Harlot sits is 'liken unto' seven heads. A figure of speech is generally indicated by the use of 'like' or 'as', this is basic Bible exposition.

So where does that leave your slogan 'the bible is evidence'. Evidence that a lot of it is allegorical? You want to equate theology and scripture with science and evidence. The thing about scientific evidence is it does not keep using metaphors.

So you now want to dismiss Theology as science because you characterize it logically as the same as occultism? Surely you are not saying that, you must mean that it is beyond the limits of molecular biology as I am sure Professor Behe would agree.

No I am saying theology was once known as a science but science had quite a different meaning then and included Astrology and Alchemy. You want to resurrect the title but science had a different meaning today. Modern science is quite different from the Medieval science it was once considered part of. If you want to use the term science to describe theology you are going back to an obsolete meaning that included occult arts as 'science'.

I agree theology goes way beyond the limits of science, way beyond the limits of any human experience. The problem for this argument is that the way it brings us beyond our human limits is by communicating to us through metaphor, allegory and symbolism. This is great for learning about God. But it causes problems when you take what the bible says to teach us about God and spiritual truth and try to treat it as a scientific textbook. You end up mistaking the metaphors for a scientific evidence.

By the way I read the transcript, no one was interested in the concept of natural theology in that Court room. Intelligent Design failed the Lemon test because it invoked God as the originator of Irreducibly Complex systems that cannot be explained from exclusively naturalistic causes. It also fails to demonstrate that it is a Christian theology, unlike creationism that focuses on the special creation of Adam and Eve supernaturally revealed in Scripture.

You and Behe come from different directions but both end up redefining science to include astrology. Behe only lumped ID and Astrology in with his relabeled science, you include theology.

mark kennedy · Mar 20, 2007

The Lady Kate said:
I'm well aware of that. But how much weight should the words of Paul carry in the subject of Origins?

When it comes to Origins Theology in the Christians only section I would say, A lot!

because you really weren't?

Opinion noted.

So, mythical metaphors are not mythology, and the leviathan was a real creature?

In the context they are used in, in Job and elsewhere they are definitely not mythical creatures.

God's claim? Surely you mean God's credited claim... unless I'm dealing with someone who believes that God wrote His own press?

The Scriptures as sacred text and divine revelation supernaturally inspired and confirm is not in question. What they actually say is the only issue that need be addressed by Christians in the company of fellow Christians. At least I would think so, perhaps you ideas about what is and is not Christian is different then my own. It is entirely possible that religion itself is very different in the TE worldview.

If Adam is literal... and the facts seem to say not. There must be some other reason why we're not perfect.

So far no 'facts' have been identified only opinions. I have pointed out that as doctrine Adam being literal is essential.

Actually, we are, that is biology.

Biology as a Christian doctrine or an idol of the mind?

Not when it's so obviously flawed...

Taking the Bible literally is flawed huh? Gotcha

mark kennedy · Mar 20, 2007

The Lady Kate said:
Where's Adam?

I Cor 15

Yes, you've said that already.... but the argument was less than convincing... Christianity simply does not "hinge" on a literal Adam.

That is because you don't accept the authority of Scripture.

mark kennedy · Mar 20, 2007

shernren said:
You're good at citing extrabiblical support for a claim about how Scripture ought to be read! But of course, good commentaries are as much outside the Bible as good science is.

Theology is science:

Article 2. Whether sacred doctrine is a science?

Objection 1.; It seems that sacred doctrine is not a science. For every science proceeds from self-evident principles. But sacred doctrine proceeds from articles of faith which are not self-evident, since their truth is not admitted by all: "For all men have not faith" (2 Thessalonians 3:2). Therefore sacred doctrine is not a science.

Objection 2. Further, no science deals with individual facts. But this sacred science treats of individual facts, such as the deeds of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and such like. Therefore sacred doctrine is not a science.

On the contrary, Augustine says (De Trin. xiv, 1) "to this science alone belongs that whereby saving faith is begotten, nourished, protected and strengthened." But this can be said of no science except sacred doctrine. Therefore sacred doctrine is a science.

I answer that, Sacred doctrine is a science. We must bear in mind that there are two kinds of sciences. There are some which proceed from a principle known by the natural light of intelligence, such as arithmetic and geometry and the like. There are some which proceed from principles known by the light of a higher science: thus the science of perspective proceeds from principles established by geometry, and music from principles established by arithmetic. So it is that sacred doctrine is a science because it proceeds from principles established by the light of a higher science, namely, the science of God and the blessed. Hence, just as the musician accepts on authority the principles taught him by the mathematician, so sacred science is established on principles revealed by God.

Reply to Objection 1. The principles of any science are either in themselves self-evident, or reducible to the conclusions of a higher science; and such, as we have said, are the principles of sacred doctrine.

Reply to Objection 2. Individual facts are treated of in sacred doctrine, not because it is concerned with them principally, but they are introduced rather both as examples to be followed in our lives (as in moral sciences) and in order to establish the authority of those men through whom the divine revelation, on which this sacred scripture or doctrine is based, has come down to us.

http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1001.htm

Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned-- for before the law was given, sin was in the world. But sin is not taken into account when there is no law.
(Romans 5:12-13 NIV)

Death came to all men because all sinned. It's as simple as that.

'sin entered the world through one man' it's as simple as that.

mark kennedy · Mar 20, 2007

Assyrian said:
Where did Paul ever say we all sinned in Adam?

I Cor 15, I told you to keep your Bible handy.

Actually Paul calls him a type or figure. That means Adam is either figurative or Paul is treating him as figurative. Adam may still be a historical individual, but that is not necessary for Paul's discussion of him.

He never says Adam is figurative, he says that the literal Adam prefigures Christ.

OK, then establish your doctrine from scripture.

I am not making broad statements about the bible I am making broad statement about the explanatory framework 'redemptive history' you seem to confuse with scripture. But back up your claims from the bible by all means.

Don't worry about that, Scriptural authority will be right at the heart of the emphsis.

You just called it 'a hymn of praise'.p

Psalms are often highly detailed predictive prophecy, Paul teaches some of his most important doctrines in this style of verse.

Theology is the study of God and religion, it is not a science like biology, chemistry or physics. Now modern science has shown itself to be very powerful at uncovering how the natural world works, but that is by using the methods of modern science which theology does not use.

Theology is literally the study of God, it has the same suffix as Biology for a reason. God is rejected in natural science because of the supernatural elements, not because it is any less a science.

But to me it is a mark of disrespect towards theology that you think it needs the worldly glory of the word 'science' to promote it.

Science is a word that means knowledge, if knowledge of God can be known with a reasonable degree of certainty then it is science. You have mistaken your naturalistic assumptions for science, that's not natural.

Yes and there are really powerful parallels between the early chapters of Genesis and the book of Revelation. But Revelation describes the future history of the world in very figurative terms, just as the psalms can describe history and future prophecy in very poetic language.

So a hymn of praise can be an historical narrative, I'm glad we cleared that up.

But you have decided the primary cause of original sin. My question is, if you are wrong about that would you not still be a sinner?

Define sin.

From what I have read we share in the death because we all sin. That is what Romans 5:12 says. We see it again in 1Cor 15:22 For as in Adam all die, note he is using the present tense, not the past. This did not happen in the past because all humans were 'in Adam' when he sinned. The human race is still 'in Adam', which is hardly talking about a historical human figure. Theologians may have argue, at quite a stretch, that we were 'in Adam' bck in the past in the garden, but to say we are still 'in Adam' tells me Paul is using Adam figuratively, a generic Adam we are all part of.

Paul makes this very personal in Rom 7:9 I was once alive apart from the law, but when the commandment came, sin came alive and I died. Death comes when we sin.

Would you like to see an exegetical treatment of the text?

I say that Paul did not say any such thing.

You would be proven wrong.

Does the bible tells us the cause other than saying our flesh is too weak, to driven by its own desires, to follow the righteous requirement of the law?

Where does it say that the weakness of the flesh is the cause of sin?

So where does that leave your slogan 'the bible is evidence'. Evidence that a lot of it is allegorical? You want to equate theology and scripture with science and evidence. The thing about scientific evidence is it does not keep using metaphors.

That is not a slogan, it's a sound Christian doctrine and one of the few things Christians either agree on or they are not considered Christian.

No I am saying theology was once known as a science but science had quite a different meaning then and included Astrology and Alchemy. You want to resurrect the title but science had a different meaning today. Modern science is quite different from the Medieval science it was once considered part of. If you want to use the term science to describe theology you are going back to an obsolete meaning that included occult arts as 'science'.

Then define science.

I agree theology goes way beyond the limits of science, way beyond the limits of any human experience. The problem for this argument is that the way it brings us beyond our human limits is by communicating to us through metaphor, allegory and symbolism. This is great for learning about God. But it causes problems when you take what the bible says to teach us about God and spiritual truth and try to treat it as a scientific textbook. You end up mistaking the metaphors for a scientific evidence.

What is the difference between something spiritual and something scientific. Do you believe in an immortal soul and an afterlife?

You and Behe come from different directions but both end up redefining science to include astrology. Behe only lumped ID and Astrology in with his relabeled science, you include theology.

You are the one redefining my theology, ID is not Creationism because it's not a Christian doctrine. Behe was and is a molecular biologist and professional educator. He knows the difference between a scientific argument and a religious one.

Evolutionists don't.

Assyrian · Mar 20, 2007

mark kennedy said:
Then simply vote neither and suggest an alternative. Your not tied into the polls choices I just want to know who I'm talking to in this thread.

Unfortunately the poll actually says
Neither yes or not
And I really don't know what that means. As near as I can understand it is a typo for 'Neither yes or no' and that certainly does not describe me. I am clearly 'no' it is just the term myth I have problems with.

mark kennedy to GratiaCorpusChristi said:
Adam is either our first parent specially created, a highly figurative mythical character , both or neither. That covers just about every alternative and you claim I am being unfair, How so GratiaCorpusChristi?

It's not my fault that Theistic evolutionists do not have a theological premise for rejecting Adam as our specially created first parent. I never told them to define their Origins Theology based on a secular theory that rejects any reference to God as creator.

So you write your own conclusions into the choice of survey questions TEs can choose from. Way to go Mark.

Are you aware that I Corinthians 15 is cited repeatedly as a foundational proof text in the Nicene Creed?

We believe in (Romans 10: 8-10; 1 John 4: 15)
ONE God, (Deuteronomy 6: 4, Ephesians 4: 6)
Father (Matthew 6: 9)
Almighty, (Exodus 6: 3)
Maker of Heaven and Earth, (Genesis 1: 1)
and of all things visible and invisible. (Colossians 1: 15-16)
And in ONE Lord Jesus Christ, (Acts 11: 17)
Son of God, (Mathew 14: 33; 16: 16)
Only-Begotten, (John 1: 18; 3: 16)
Begotten of the Father before all ages. (John 1: 2)
Light from Light; (Psalm 27: 1; John 8: 12; Matthew 17: 2,5)
True God from True God; (John 17: 1-5)
Begotten, not made; (John 1: 18)
of one essence with the Father (John 10: 30)
through whom all things were made; (Hebrews 1: 1-2)
Who for us men and for our salvation (1 Timothy 2: 4-5)
came down from heaven, (John 6: 33,35)
and was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary (Luke 1: 35)
and became man. (John 1: 14)
And He was crucified for us (Mark 15: 25; 1 Corinthians 15: 3)
under Pontius Pilate, (John 19: 6)
suffered, (Mark 8: 31)
and was buried. (Luke 23: 53; 1 Corinthians 15: 4)
And on the third day He rose again, according to the Scriptures,

(Luke 24: 1 1 Corinthians 15: 4)
and ascended into heaven, (Luke 24: 51; Acts 1: 10)
and sits at the right hand of the Father; (Mark 16: 19; Acts 7: 55)
and He shall come again with glory (Matthew 24: 27)
to judge the living and the dead; (Acts 10: 42; 2 Timothy 4: 1)
Whose Kingdom shall have no end. (2 Peter 1: 11)
And in the Holy Spirit, (John 14: 26)
Lord, (Acts 5: 3-4)
Giver of Life, (Genesis 1: 2)
Who proceeds from the Father [and the Son]*; (John 15: 26)
Who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified; (Matthew 3: 16-17)
Who spoke through the prophets. (1 Samuel 19: 20; Ezekiel 11: 5,13)
In one, (Matthew 16: 18)
holy, (1 Peter 2: 5,9)
catholic**, (Mark 16: 15)
and apostolic Church. (Acts 2: 42; Ephesians 2: 19-22)
I acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins***. (Ephesians 4: 5; Acts 2: 38)
I look for the resurrection of the dead, (John 11: 24; 1 Corinthians 15: 12-49; Hebrews 6: 2; Revelation 20: 5)
and the life in the age to come. (Mark 10: 29-30)
AMEN. (Psalm 106: 48)
Do you care?

Where's Adam?
Oh there he is behind the

mark kennedy · Mar 20, 2007

Assyrian said:
Unfortunately the poll actually says
Neither yes or not
And I really don't know what that means.

So this is how Theistic evolution addresses the question of original sin, mock satire.

As near as I can understand it is a typo for 'Neither yes or no' and that certainly does not describe me. I am clearly 'no' it is just the term myth I have problems with.

Funny, most of the people who voted had no problem with it.

So you write your own conclusions into the choice of survey questions TEs can choose from. Way to go Mark.

I never have any idea what Theistic evolution bases it's theology on and I'm pretty sure they don't have one except that they don't like the one for YEC.

Where's Adam?
Oh there he is behind the

Read I Corinthians 15, he's in there.

In other words, once the premise of evolution is granted that matter interacts with itself under the guidance of the process of natural selection, there is no need of God. Theistic evolutionists of course deny this. In effect they would attempt to baptize the theory and to make it Christian. After two decades of reading evolutionary literature, both philosophical and scientific, I am of the opinion that this baptizing cannot be effected. The theory is based on the interaction of matter with matter. It is based on the changes which are produced by chance and which are then developed by natural selection. If one places God’s guidance into the process, he violates one of the basic tenets of the theory (Paul Zimmerman “The Word of God Today,” Creation, Evolution, and God’s Word, 1972, p. 121, emp. added).http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2576

Does what Paul has to say about this have any bearing on this?

Melethiel · Mar 20, 2007

That's because there is no single "TE theology." TEs tend to adopt the theology of their church. My theology, for example, is confessional Lutheran. I'm sure Assyrian's is different.

Assyrian · Mar 20, 2007

mark kennedy said:
I Cor 15, I told you to keep your Bible handy.

No. Sorry. Can't find it. Can you tell me the verse where Paul says we all sinned in Adam? You seem to be basing a lot of heavy theology on a verse that isn't there.

He never says Adam is figurative, he says that the literal Adam prefigures Christ.

No he doesn't. He says Adam is a type of Christ, not 'the literal Adam' is a type of Christ. The whole of this section is a comparison of Adam and Christ and Paul tells us that he is interpreting Adam figuratively. You should read what Paul says when he is explaining how he is interpreting Genesis.

OK, then establish your doctrine from scripture.

What particular doctrine are you asking about?

Don't worry about that, Scriptural authority will be right at the heart of the emphsis.

Look forward to hearing it.

Psalms are often highly detailed predictive prophecy, Paul teaches some of his most important doctrines in this style of verse.

And they can be poetic and figurative.

Theology is literally the study of God, it has the same suffix as Biology for a reason. God is rejected in natural science because of the supernatural elements, not because it is any less a science.

The root of 'ology' is probably even older than 'science' and is shared with phrenology and astrology. It still does not make theology a science in any modern sense of the word.

Science is a word that means knowledge, if knowledge of God can be known with a reasonable degree of certainty then it is science. You have mistaken your naturalistic assumptions for science, that's not natural.

You are still stuck in etymology. The word science originally meant knowledge, but it now refers to modern sciences using modern scientific method. You use of science to refer to theology is anachronism misleading and deceptive.

So a hymn of praise can be an historical narrative, I'm glad we cleared that up.

You are getting your genres mixed up there.

But you have decided the primary cause of original sin. My question is, if you are wrong about that would you not still be a sinner?

Click to expand...

Define sin.

I'll leave it to the Holy spirit to convict you there. I presume as a Christian you have experienced that. Now can you answer the question?

From what I have read we share in the death because we all sin. That is what Romans 5:12 says. We see it again in 1Cor 15:22 For as in Adam all die, note he is using the present tense, not the past. This did not happen in the past because all humans were 'in Adam' when he sinned. The human race is still 'in Adam', which is hardly talking about a historical human figure. Theologians may have argue, at quite a stretch, that we were 'in Adam' back in the past in the garden, but to say we are still 'in Adam' tells me Paul is using Adam figuratively, a generic Adam we are all part of.

Paul makes this very personal in Rom 7:9 I was once alive apart from the law, but when the commandment came, sin came alive and I died. Death comes when we sin.

Click to expand...

Would you like to see an exegetical treatment of the text?

I would prefer to hear what you have to say than some book if that is what you mean.

I say that Paul did not say any such thing.

Click to expand...

You would be proven wrong.

I am still waiting for a reference.

Where does it say that the weakness of the flesh is the cause of sin?

It depends on what angle you look at it from. As Jesus put it, the spirit is willing but the flesh is weak. Paul's approach is more that our desire to follow the law is weakened by the flesh, Romans 7 & 8.

So where does that leave your slogan 'the bible is evidence'. Evidence that a lot of it is allegorical? You want to equate theology and scripture with science and evidence. The thing about scientific evidence is it does not keep using metaphors.

Click to expand...

That is not a slogan, it's a sound Christian doctrine and one of the few things Christians either agree on or they are not considered Christian.

Now if people don't agree with you, you say they aren't Christians? Please deal with what I said rather than getting all cultic on me.

Then define science.

Ask a philosopher of science. But you want to reinstate theology as a science after all these centuries. You need to come up with a convincing definition of science that describes what modern science is and how it works and distinguishes it from pseudosciences.

What is the difference between something spiritual and something scientific. Do you believe in an immortal soul and an afterlife?

Yes.

Science studies the material world, matter, space, time, energy and everything made up of them. The spirit is different. That is why we need metaphors to understand it.

You are the one redefining my theology,

Not as far as I am aware. Saying it is wrong, yes. Redefining it? No.

ID is not Creationism because it's not a Christian doctrine. Behe was and is a molecular biologist and professional educator. He knows the difference between a scientific argument and a religious one.

Evolutionists don't.

Yet you both want to redefine science to include your pet subject, and you both end up with a 'science' broad enough to include astrology. You do it by going back to a meaning of science when theology was included, but so was alchemy and the four humours. But when people use the word science, they mean the modern science, not some ancient wisdom that was once called science. No unless they are discussing history anyway.

The Lady Kate · Mar 20, 2007

mark kennedy said:
When it comes to Origins Theology in the Christians only section I would say, A lot!

You would say a lot... opinion noted.

Opinion noted.

deja vu all over again, Mr. Kennedy.

In the context they are used in, in Job and elsewhere they are definitely not mythical creatures.

And would this context be "unless it's clearly and specifically stated to be non-literal, it's literal"? I've heard that tune before.

The Scriptures as sacred text and divine revelation supernaturally inspired and confirm is not in question. What they actually say is the only issue that need be addressed by Christians in the company of fellow Christians.

I prefer to address the question of that they mean. "What they say" makes for a short, simple, and dreadfully dull discussion.

At least I would think so, perhaps you ideas about what is and is not Christian is different then my own. It is entirely possible that religion itself is very different in the TE worldview.

Why not just come out and say I'm not a True Christian? You know it's on the tip of your tongue...

So far no 'facts' have been identified only opinions. I have pointed out that as doctrine Adam being literal is essential.

As you say, no facts, just opinions.

Biology as a Christian doctrine or an idol of the mind?

Biology as a tool for understanding God's creation.

Taking the Bible literally is flawed huh? Gotcha

Taking anything literally when it's not literal is flawed. I'm not sure you "got" that.

Assyrian · Mar 20, 2007

mark kennedy said:
So this is how Theistic evolution addresses the question of original sin, mock satire.

What satire? I found your option difficult to understand, not helped by a typo. Now the normal response to a typo being pointed out is an 'oops sorry about that', and clarification. You choose instead to respond with accusations of mockery and satire.

Funny, most of the people who voted had no problem with it.

Presumably they are the ones who are happy with the label myth. Some TEs are. But not everyone who thinks Adam is a symbol for the human race will also say God used myth in giving us the book of Genesis. They are two quite different questions.

I never have any idea what Theistic evolution bases it's theology on and I'm pretty sure they don't have one except that they don't like the one for YEC.

You have been around long enough to come across the federal head view. It is mentioned often enough and GratiaCorpusChristi even explained it to you in your last thread.

Read I Corinthians 15, he's in there.

You were quoting the Nicene Creed for some reason, quoting it in full, but there was no sign of Adam.

In other words, once the premise of evolution is granted that matter interacts with itself under the guidance of the process of natural selection, there is no need of God. Theistic evolutionists of course deny this. In effect they would attempt to baptize the theory and to make it Christian. After two decades of reading evolutionary literature, both philosophical and scientific, I am of the opinion that this baptizing cannot be effected. The theory is based on the interaction of matter with matter. It is based on the changes which are produced by chance and which are then developed by natural selection. If one places Gods guidance into the process, he violates one of the basic tenets of the theory (Paul Zimmerman The Word of God Today, Creation, Evolution, and Gods Word, 1972, p. 121, emp. added).http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2576

Does what Paul has to say about this have any bearing on this?

Yes I think so. Paul had a deep grasp on the idea of the creator God working in and through natural processes.

Acts 14:15 "Men, why are you doing these things? We also are men, of like nature with you, and we bring you good news, that you should turn from these vain things to a living God, who made the heaven and the earth and the sea and all that is in them.
16 In past generations he allowed all the nations to walk in their own ways.
17 Yet he did not leave himself without witness, for he did good by giving you rains from heaven and fruitful seasons, satisfying your hearts with food and gladness."

Col 1:16 For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities--all things were created through him and for him. 17 And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together.

The Lady Kate · Mar 20, 2007

Double Post

shernren · Mar 20, 2007

mark kennedy said:
'sin entered the world through one man' it's as simple as that.

And precisely how did it spread? The Bible does not state that "death came to all men because Adam sinned". It states that "death came to all men because all sinned". There is a pivotal difference there.

Our sin and our death is our own responsibility no matter what we may have or have not inherited from Adam. Nowhere in the Gospels or the Epistles is the concept of salvation introduced apart from individual or communal responsibility for individual or communal sin. We do not need Adam's sin to show us that we have sinned, and the Bible has never needed it either.

mark kennedy · Mar 21, 2007

shernren said:
And precisely how did it spread? The Bible does not state that "death came to all men because Adam sinned". It states that "death came to all men because all sinned". There is a pivotal difference there.

For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.(I Cor. 15:22)

There is only one way to do this, it's going to have to be an actual study of the texts involved. You don't understand the theology or just how many Christians embrace the literal, historical Adam as specially created by divine fiat. I did not pull this out of my hat, this is the doctrine (teaching) of Christians on the topic of Adam and sins entrance into humanity.

1Co 15:21 - For since by man came death,.... The first man, by sin, was the cause of death; of its coming into the world, and upon all men, by which corporeal death is here meant; though the first man also by sin brought a moral death, or a death in sin on all his posterity; and rendered them liable to an eternal death, which is the just wages of sin; but since the apostle is treating of the resurrection of the body, a bodily death seems only intended: (Gill Commentary, ESword)

1Co 15:21 - For since by man came death - Mortality came by Adam, immortality by Christ; so sure as all have been subjected to natural death by Adam, so sure shall all be raised again by Christ Jesus. Mortality and immortality, on a general ground, are the subject of the apostle’s reasoning here; and for the explanation of the transgression of Adam, and the redemption by Christ (Clarke Commentary ESword)

1Co 15:21 -
For since by man came death - By Adam, or by means of his transgression; see 1Co_15:22. The sense is, evidently, that in consequence of the sin of Adam all people die, or are subjected to temporal death. Or, in other words, man would not have died had it not been for the crime of the first man; see the note on Rom_5:12. This passage may be regarded as proof that death would not have entered the world had it not been for transgression; or, in other words, if man had not sinned, he would have remained immortal on the earth, or would have been translated to heaven, as Enoch and Elijah were, without seeing death. The apostle here, by “man,” undoubtedly refers to Adam; but the particular and specific idea which he intends to insist on is, that, as death came by human nature, or by a human being, by a man, so it was important and proper that immortality, or freedom from death, should come in the same way, by one who was a man. Man introduced death; man also would recover from death. The evil was introduced by one man; the recovery would be by another man. (Barnes Commentary ESword)

ICor. 15:21-Adam, who through his sin brought death on the whole human race was human. So was Christi, who by His resurrection brought life to the race. (John McArthur Study Bible)

That's just the tip of the iceberg, the only alternative interpretations I can find are based on Liberal Theology which is Atheistic/Agnostic philosophy put in theological language. So if you are wondering why I am being so harsh about this it's because it sounds like what I'm hearing is not a Christian theology but a worldly philosophy put in Christian language.

Our sin and our death is our own responsibility no matter what we may have or have not inherited from Adam. Nowhere in the Gospels or the Epistles is the concept of salvation introduced apart from individual or communal responsibility for individual or communal sin. We do not need Adam's sin to show us that we have sinned, and the Bible has never needed it either.

Why am I a sinner, why are you and how is it that everyone is. Take a good look at the first couple of chapters in Romans, who do you think Paul is talking about because he concludes that all have sinned.

Unless you have some kind of an explanation for the origin of sin or some exegetical insight traditional and mainstream Christians don't you will or should accept Adam as our first parent, specially created and the reason we are all guilty of sin.

shernren · Mar 21, 2007

mark kennedy said:
There is only one way to do this, it's going to have to be an actual study of the texts involved. You don't understand the theology or just how many Christians embrace the literal, historical Adam as specially created by divine fiat. I did not pull this out of my hat, this is the doctrine (teaching) of Christians on the topic of Adam and sins entrance into humanity.

And then you lapse into quoting commentaries.

mark kennedy said:
1Co 15:21 - For since by man came death,.... The first man, by sin, was the cause of death; of its coming into the world, and upon all men, by which corporeal death is here meant; though the first man also by sin brought a moral death, or a death in sin on all his posterity; and rendered them liable to an eternal death, which is the just wages of sin; but since the apostle is treating of the resurrection of the body, a bodily death seems only intended: (Gill Commentary, ESword)

And how was the first man the cause of death? How did sin spread from this first man to all man?

mark kennedy said:
1Co 15:21 - For since by man came death - Mortality came by Adam, immortality by Christ; so sure as all have been subjected to natural death by Adam, so sure shall all be raised again by Christ Jesus. Mortality and immortality, on a general ground, are the subject of the apostles reasoning here; and for the explanation of the transgression of Adam, and the redemption by Christ (Clarke Commentary ESword)

How are all raised in Christ Jesus? In light of that, how are all sinners in Adam?

mark kennedy said:
1Co 15:21 -
For since by man came death - By Adam, or by means of his transgression; see 1Co_15:22. The sense is, evidently, that in consequence of the sin of Adam all people die, or are subjected to temporal death. Or, in other words, man would not have died had it not been for the crime of the first man; see the note on Rom_5:12. This passage may be regarded as proof that death would not have entered the world had it not been for transgression; or, in other words, if man had not sinned, he would have remained immortal on the earth, or would have been translated to heaven, as Enoch and Elijah were, without seeing death. The apostle here, by man, undoubtedly refers to Adam; but the particular and specific idea which he intends to insist on is, that, as death came by human nature, or by a human being, by a man, so it was important and proper that immortality, or freedom from death, should come in the same way, by one who was a man. Man introduced death; man also would recover from death. The evil was introduced by one man; the recovery would be by another man. (Barnes Commentary ESword)

How does Adam's sin become our sin?

mark kennedy said:
ICor. 15:21-Adam, who through his sin brought death on the whole human race was human. So was Christi, who by His resurrection brought life to the race. (John McArthur Study Bible)

How did Christ's resurrection bring life to the race? In comparison with that, how did Adam's sin bring death to the race?

mark kennedy said:
That's just the tip of the iceberg, the only alternative interpretations I can find are based on Liberal Theology which is Atheistic/Agnostic philosophy put in theological language. So if you are wondering why I am being so harsh about this it's because it sounds like what I'm hearing is not a Christian theology but a worldly philosophy put in Christian language.

Am I now an atheist in sheepskin for the mere crime of disagreeing with you? The fact of the matter is that even given that Scripture tells us that we are all sinners in Adam - something no TE denies - Scripture is ambiguous how and why we are all sinners in Adam.

mark kennedy said:
Why am I a sinner, why are you and how is it that everyone is. Take a good look at the first couple of chapters in Romans, who do you think Paul is talking about because he concludes that all have sinned.

Unless you have some kind of an explanation for the origin of sin or some exegetical insight traditional and mainstream Christians don't you will or should accept Adam as our first parent, specially created and the reason we are all guilty of sin.

Even if one accepts Adam as our first parent and the reason we are all guilty of sin, that in no way logically necessitates Adam's being specially created. Adam could well enough have been an evolved ape without ceasing to be our first parent and the reason we are all guilty of sin. The objection to his evolvedness is based on materialist ideology, not theology.

The Idols and False Notions have Taken Deep Root

Is Adam being specially created and our first parent essential doctrine?

Yes, directly tied to the Gospel and original sin.

No, Adam is just a mythical symbol for humanity

Yes and No (elaborate at will)

Neither yes or not (suggest another alternative)

The Lady Kate

Guest

you are not reading this.

Natura non facit saltum

The Lady Kate

Guest

you are not reading this.

Basically pulling an Obama (Thanks Calminian!)

Natura non facit saltum

Natura non facit saltum

Natura non facit saltum

Natura non facit saltum

Basically pulling an Obama (Thanks Calminian!)

Natura non facit saltum

Miserere mei, Domine

Basically pulling an Obama (Thanks Calminian!)

The Lady Kate

Guest

Basically pulling an Obama (Thanks Calminian!)

The Lady Kate

Guest

you are not reading this.

Natura non facit saltum

you are not reading this.

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency