Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uwm.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!linac!att!news.cs.indiana.edu!mips!dimacs.rutgers.edu!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!christian From: jmgreen@pilot.njin.net (Jim Green) Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Subject: Re: Shame Message-ID: Date: 17 Apr 91 05:25:25 GMT Sender: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu Organization: NJ InterCampus Network, New Brunswick, N.J. Lines: 33 Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu [You get two for one here. This includes a comment by B.Rea@cantva.canterbury.ac.nz which was sent to Jim via email (and is posted by permission). --clh] > >He [Chuck Hedricks] continues... > >|I thought the change from being unashamed of nakedness >|(Gen 2:25) to covering themselves with fig leaves and hiding from God >|because they were naked (Gen 3:7ff) was pretty obviously a reference >|to sexual relations. > >Obvious??? It was a *Dark Ages* INVENTION. Ok Ok Ok It wasn't >the protege of Thomas Aquinas as I claimed previously, it blossomed >in the perverted mind of Augustine c 400 ad. Just a point of fact in pre-Christian Judaism some Rabbis had to deal with the same issue. They then taught that Adam and Eve had normal marital sexual relations in the graden before they ate of the fruit. This was to counter teaching by other Rabbis that the sin was sexual in nature and to say that sexual activity between husband and wife had no sinful connotations in any shape or form. The sexual interpretation is older than Christianity is. It has some very big problems with it though. Bill Rea ========================================================================== I am facinated by his comment. After all the issue is not clearly understood today nor in the post apostolic church. Why should it be understood by the BCE rabbis any better. He promises a reference soon. In the meantime can anyone expound a bit? Jim Green