FOUR reasons I believe in the sinful nature. (original sin/ancestral sin/total depravity)

[TedT]

Then Adam wasn't pure?

PS thou shall not eat of it does nothing at all to show Adam was a sinner before he ate.

Are there hints in the interpretation of the words about Adam and Eve that they were not pure and innocent, ie, not yet having made a moral choice?

First:
Verse Gen 1:31 refers to everything... which must(?) include the evil angels of the satanic rebellion who were, at that time, being held in chains of darkness in Sheol, 2 Peter 2:4 For if GOD spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to Tartarus and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgement.

It seems to me that this everything somehow includes these evil angels as very good or everything does not refer to some beings who existed and fell into sin before this earthly creation.

Now there is no proof yet that Adam existed before his earthly life and fell into sin before his earthly body but IF HE DID he might not be included in the summation the everything that was very good, just like the evil angels are not included.

Second:
It is not proven that very good refers to a state of being and not to a purpose. If the purpose of God's creation of the earth was as a rehab centre for those addicted to evil, ie, a reform school to chasten, convert and sanctify His fallen sinful Church by teaching them to be righteous, Hebrews 12:5-11, then His creation of the earth for the purpose of the redemption of His church could indeed be called very good even though part of the church was already fallen and not doing so good.

The words of Genesis 2:18 are very familiar to us today: The Lord God said, ‘It is not good (lo tov) for the man to be alone.’” Have you ever considered the implication of this NOT GOODNESS being corrected before everything was judged to be VERY GOOD ( mə·’ōḏ tov), verse 1:31? Does it not imply that GOD created something as not good?

How could Adam be alone when GOD was in full fellowship with him? How does the presence of GOD need to be augmented by someone else for Adam to be not alone?

Did HE make a mistake or did something change within HIS creation so Adam was alone in a bad way, that is, needing to be corrected? Do we not believe that the only thing that can separate us from GOD is the free will choice to be sinful, to rebel against HIM because GOD cannot create evil?

And how does GOD fix this not good? HE brings the animals to Adam to name them and to see if his helpmeet was among them: Gen 2:20 The man gave names to all the livestock, to the birds of the air, and to every beast of the field. But for Adam no SUITABLE HELPER was found.
helper: S5828. ezer
Definition: a help, helper

suitable: S5048: neged:
in front of, in sight of, opposite to
Does anyone have a reason so many, ie, most, commentators of this verse leave out any reference to the word suitable, that is, “in front of, in sight of, opposite to” as to its meaning to the verse or to the English, suitable? It seems like a wild guess as to what it means here...

So Adam did not just need a companion (perhaps a wife as most commentators suggest?) but he needed help with something... and the help was not just a general help such as with his gardening job but hints at a specialized, suitable, helping as by a teacher, mentor or example...

Does this need for a specialized helper impact at all upon the question: "Whose idea was it that Adam look among the animals for a his suitable, ie specialized, helper?" GOD knew HE had Eve in the wings for him so it must have been Adam's idea that an animal might be suitable, right? So why did GOD acquiesce to Adam's wanting to look among the animals for his helper instead of just telling him, "Nope, I got someone special for you!?" It seems like there was some separation between them after all, eh? Some lack of communication between GOD and HIS perfect, faithful, creation? Only a bit of miscommunication?

Or does it imply that Adam was not as he was created, ie perfect and innocent, but was being a little rebellious to GOD, ie, unfaithful in his heart against what GOD wanted for him? Does this story imply that Adam was sinful at this time in the garden? Was this why he and Eve were characterized as `RM, erm, that is, naked, the exact same word also used of the serpent to describe his being cunning in evil in the very next verse? If so, then this cannot have been their creation because they must have had time after their creation to understand GOD's commands and to break at least one of them to become sinful, that is, `rm.

If they were in fact merely unclothed and not sinful, then why when they ate were their eyes opened to their unclothedness, the unclothedness they had before they ate, as their sin and not to their eating as their sin?? What is sinful about being unclothed as GOD created you in the privacy of your own garden? Even if this is a euphemism for sex then how is it sinful when they were ordered to procreate? Nothing about this makes sense since being unclothed cannot be a sign of sinfulness! ??

Since the rabbis were convinced Adam and Eve were created in the garden, they rejected the idea they were already sinners when they arrived in the garden (GOD cannot create evil people - at least, not until HE needs to do so for some unknown reason, a reference to the inherited sin fiasco ...another blasphemy altogether...) so they interpreted `rm as naked, not cunning in evil though the spelling was exactly the same. The Church Fathers agreed with the Hebrew scholars and ignored the implications of this story. Eisegesis can be fun, eh?

I also have concerns how this story of the fall in the garden and not before fits with Timothy 1:9 We also know that the law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious, etc, etc. which tells us clearly that the law was NOT given to the righteous to steer their decision but to the sinful to convict them of their sin!
Rom 3:20 Therefore no one will be justified in His sight by works of the law. For the law merely brings awareness of sin. also suggests that the command to not eat was given to them as sinners to convict them of their sinfulness as it did, very well.

To sum up the hints that there was sin in the garden (not just in the serpent) before they ate:
1. It was not good that Adam was alone.
2. There is no reason for Adam to be looking amongst the animals for Eve if he was not being rebellious.
3. Adam and Eve are called `rm which is both naked or equally possible, cunning in evil.
4. They were given a command which implies that they were sinners needing to have their eyes opened to their sin to convict them so they could repent and return to Christ.
5. Then there is the small point of Adam being the first to bring sin into the world. In my book the serpent entered the garden with sinful intent to sin and tempted Eve, the first to sin. Then Eve ate, the second to sin and tempted Adam, the third to sin, when he ate.

The only way it makes sense to say Adam brought sin into the world is if Adam was a sinner when he was moved from Sheol and sown into his human body, Matthew 13:36-39, and as the first person in the garden he was the first to bring evil into world.

 

[TedT]

Nakedness in the Bible:

The theology of our Pre-Conception Existence contends that Adam and Eve were already sinners when they were sown into the garden as the word naked, `arm, Gen 2:25 tells us.

The word for being unclothed is an entirely different world used of Noah being naked which has NO connotation of being sinful at all whereas the word `arm has both implications to choose from since the same word is used in the very next verse and translated as cunning: Gen 3:1 Now the serpent was more CRAFTY than any of the wild animals the LORD God had made. a word used to describe the extent of the serpent's evil.

Also, the word naked is in Revelation 3:17 You say, 'I am rich; I have acquired wealth and do not need a thing.' But you do not realize that you are wretched, pitiful, poor, blind and NAKED. which is obviously a metaphor for being spiritually unclothed, that is, sinful before GOD. It is no accident that righteous acts are called fine linen robes, the covering of the holy: Revelation 19:8 Fine linen stands for the righteous acts of God's holy people.

Add the fact that the law (Thou shalt not eat...) is not for the righteous but for the sinner: 1 Timothy 1:9 We also know that the law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels... to open their eyes to their sinfulness, Romans 3:20 Therefore no one will be justified in His sight by works of the Law. For the Law merely brings awareness of sin., an awareness called "opening their eyes" to cause them the shame they should have been feeling all along.

The forbidden tree was to provide the law that would open their eyes to their sin and make them ashamed and to realize their need for a saviour when they failed to be obedient.

The Serpent was allowed to inveigle Eve to prove to them that he was not a mentor nor pastor as he pretended but was in fact their worst enemy, a lesson they learned perfectly even if many later humans do not. It was a dumb move on the serpent's part, almost as bad as Satan allowing himself to be tricked into exposing the great depths of his evil by monstering the most holy old man on earth merely because he was loyal to YHWH.

 

[praise_yeshua]

Believing this while also believing that HE creates us by conception in Adam liable to death for sin is ...what? Illogical to the extreme and full of doublethink!!

Glad you brought this up.

We are the offspring of Adam and Eve. Conception...the joining of two seeds creates life in us after the similitude of Adam. We all must be "born again". Adam needed such too. Adam was never immortal before what some call the "fall". The proof was in his need for sustenance to survive. Adam was consuming life from his first breath to remain living. Consumption is what?

I know most people don't give much thought to this narrative. I see that you are different. You have a view but it is not your own. Don't miss the obvious because you think you've "figured it out" already.....

Freewill and the capacity to sin is a part of innocence. Such places man in a position where he must seek/value power and goodness beyond his own efforts.

Pay attention to me for a minute. Really pay attention.....

In the context of intrinsic or innate value, (having qualities of existence independently of our environment) only come from experience. Experience to learn and consume information. To "LEARN" to do good is essential to a meaningful character. It can not be completely gifted or the price/value/context of that gifting is lost.

At every turn, what was needed for man to excel to learn of God has been gracious set at "arms length" to man that man might actually value God.

Show me a silly Calvinist that believes the nonsense they believe and I'll show you a man devoid of any lasting understand of what He claims to have.

We value what we learn when we make it our own. When we learn it ourselves.. When you LIVE IT to the glory of God. That is when you actually show God you mean what you believe.

Till then, it is nothing but conjecture. Nothing but meaningless claims of actually understanding the value of Eternal Life.

 

[praise_yeshua]

Granted, our bodies do decay and die but that is a consequence of Adam's sin and not because God is in the business of creating sinful nature.

God does not produce sinful anything, let alone a sin nature. He is not a pagan god that creates sinful things. Our human nature came straight from God. Only pagan gods produce sinful things. It is us, as persons, who sin and degrade ourselves.

If human nature is sinful then what does that make Jesus who took up the very same human nature we all have?

Amen. Christ took upon our human innocence in nature. He had to LEARN of us. He had to learn what it was to grow and increase in strength. This is all lost on such simplistic nonsense that is taught in "original sin".

 

[praise_yeshua]

Are there hints in the interpretation of the words about Adam and Eve that they were not pure and innocent, ie, not yet having made a moral choice?

First:
Verse Gen 1:31 refers to everything... which must(?) include the evil angels of the satanic rebellion who were, at that time, being held in chains of darkness in Sheol, 2 Peter 2:4 For if GOD spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to Tartarus and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgement.

It seems to me that this everything somehow includes these evil angels as very good or everything does not refer to some beings who existed and fell into sin before this earthly creation.

Now there is no proof yet that Adam existed before his earthly life and fell into sin before his earthly body but IF HE DID he might not be included in the summation the everything that was very good, just like the evil angels are not included.

Second:
It is not proven that very good refers to a state of being and not to a purpose. If the purpose of God's creation of the earth was as a rehab centre for those addicted to evil, ie, a reform school to chasten, convert and sanctify His fallen sinful Church by teaching them to be righteous, Hebrews 12:5-11, then His creation of the earth for the purpose of the redemption of His church could indeed be called very good even though part of the church was already fallen and not doing so good.

The words of Genesis 2:18 are very familiar to us today: The Lord God said, ‘It is not good (lo tov) for the man to be alone.’” Have you ever considered the implication of this NOT GOODNESS being corrected before everything was judged to be VERY GOOD ( mə·’ōḏ tov), verse 1:31? Does it not imply that GOD created something as not good?

How could Adam be alone when GOD was in full fellowship with him? How does the presence of GOD need to be augmented by someone else for Adam to be not alone?

Did HE make a mistake or did something change within HIS creation so Adam was alone in a bad way, that is, needing to be corrected? Do we not believe that the only thing that can separate us from GOD is the free will choice to be sinful, to rebel against HIM because GOD cannot create evil?

And how does GOD fix this not good? HE brings the animals to Adam to name them and to see if his helpmeet was among them: Gen 2:20 The man gave names to all the livestock, to the birds of the air, and to every beast of the field. But for Adam no SUITABLE HELPER was found.
helper: S5828. ezer
Definition: a help, helper

suitable: S5048: neged:
in front of, in sight of, opposite to
Does anyone have a reason so many, ie, most, commentators of this verse leave out any reference to the word suitable, that is, “in front of, in sight of, opposite to” as to its meaning to the verse or to the English, suitable? It seems like a wild guess as to what it means here...

So Adam did not just need a companion (perhaps a wife as most commentators suggest?) but he needed help with something... and the help was not just a general help such as with his gardening job but hints at a specialized, suitable, helping as by a teacher, mentor or example...

Does this need for a specialized helper impact at all upon the question: "Whose idea was it that Adam look among the animals for a his suitable, ie specialized, helper?" GOD knew HE had Eve in the wings for him so it must have been Adam's idea that an animal might be suitable, right? So why did GOD acquiesce to Adam's wanting to look among the animals for his helper instead of just telling him, "Nope, I got someone special for you!?" It seems like there was some separation between them after all, eh? Some lack of communication between GOD and HIS perfect, faithful, creation? Only a bit of miscommunication?

Or does it imply that Adam was not as he was created, ie perfect and innocent, but was being a little rebellious to GOD, ie, unfaithful in his heart against what GOD wanted for him? Does this story imply that Adam was sinful at this time in the garden? Was this why he and Eve were characterized as `RM, erm, that is, naked, the exact same word also used of the serpent to describe his being cunning in evil in the very next verse? If so, then this cannot have been their creation because they must have had time after their creation to understand GOD's commands and to break at least one of them to become sinful, that is, `rm.

If they were in fact merely unclothed and not sinful, then why when they ate were their eyes opened to their unclothedness, the unclothedness they had before they ate, as their sin and not to their eating as their sin?? What is sinful about being unclothed as GOD created you in the privacy of your own garden? Even if this is a euphemism for sex then how is it sinful when they were ordered to procreate? Nothing about this makes sense since being unclothed cannot be a sign of sinfulness! ??

Since the rabbis were convinced Adam and Eve were created in the garden, they rejected the idea they were already sinners when they arrived in the garden (GOD cannot create evil people - at least, not until HE needs to do so for some unknown reason, a reference to the inherited sin fiasco ...another blasphemy altogether...) so they interpreted `rm as naked, not cunning in evil though the spelling was exactly the same. The Church Fathers agreed with the Hebrew scholars and ignored the implications of this story. Eisegesis can be fun, eh?

I also have concerns how this story of the fall in the garden and not before fits with Timothy 1:9 We also know that the law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious, etc, etc. which tells us clearly that the law was NOT given to the righteous to steer their decision but to the sinful to convict them of their sin!
Rom 3:20 Therefore no one will be justified in His sight by works of the law. For the law merely brings awareness of sin. also suggests that the command to not eat was given to them as sinners to convict them of their sinfulness as it did, very well.

To sum up the hints that there was sin in the garden (not just in the serpent) before they ate:
1. It was not good that Adam was alone.
2. There is no reason for Adam to be looking amongst the animals for Eve if he was not being rebellious.
3. Adam and Eve are called `rm which is both naked or equally possible, cunning in evil.
4. They were given a command which implies that they were sinners needing to have their eyes opened to their sin to convict them so they could repent and return to Christ.
5. Then there is the small point of Adam being the first to bring sin into the world. In my book the serpent entered the garden with sinful intent to sin and tempted Eve, the first to sin. Then Eve ate, the second to sin and tempted Adam, the third to sin, when he ate.

The only way it makes sense to say Adam brought sin into the world is if Adam was a sinner when he was moved from Sheol and sown into his human body, Matthew 13:36-39, and as the first person in the garden he was the first to bring evil into world.

You misunderstand why I said what I said....

Innocence is lacking knowledge. In fact, God told Israel that they were destroyed for "lack of knowledge". Paul said he obtained mercy because he committed sin in the ignorance of unbelief.

How Adam sinned is more important that just eating a fruit from some tree in the Garden. We don't condemn our own children because they did something we told them not to do.

 

[TedT]

Eating as metaphor:

Preamble:
Have you ever considered a word study of the word to eat ?
Jn 6:47 Truly, truly, I tell you, he who believes has eternal life. 48 I am the bread of life. 49 Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, yet they died. 50 This is the bread that comes down from heaven, so that anyone may eat of it and not die. 51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. And this bread, which I will give for the life of the world, is My flesh.” In Matthew 26, Jesus used the same figurative language in referring once again to eating His flesh and drinking His blood.

Since Gen 3:15 On your belly you shall go, And you shall eat dust all the days of your life. eating has been a metaphor for experiencing especially knowledge and understanding. Do we believe that snakes eat dust? Nothing eats dust so this must be a metaphor for the serpent's life.

This metaphor is applied to the law: Psalm 119:103 How sweet are thy words unto my taste! yea, sweeter than honey to my mouth! in which we see eating to refer to his understanding of the great moral strength of the law and its benefits for law keepers.

In Proverbs 9 the call of Wisdom and the seductive lure of Folly's illicit pleasures are both couched in terms of eating:
Wisdom calls:
4 “Whoever is simple, let him turn in here!”
To him who lacks judgment she says:
5 “Come, eat my bread,
and drink the wine I have mixed.
6 Leave your folly behind, and you will live;
walk in the way of understanding.”

Folly calls:
17 “Stolen water is sweet,
and bread eaten in secret is tasty!”
and idea that equates eating with experiencing sin or, if you will, you eat sin and ingest it to become a sinner.

But not just sin.
Jesus refers to our coming to (experiencing) redemption in the same metaphor of eating: John 6:27 Do not work for food that perishes, but for food that endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give you.

Isaiah 55:1 "Come, all of you who thirst, come to the waters; and you without money, come, buy, and eat! Come, buy wine and milk, without money and without cost! The metaphor also includes ideas of learning and understanding doctrine (as well as the idea of experiencing something) as seen in Ezekiel 2:8 But you, son of man, listen to what I tell you. Do not be rebellious like that rebellious house. Open your mouth and eat what I give you.” 9 Then I looked and saw a hand reaching out to me, and in it was a scroll, 10 which He unrolled before me. And written on the front and back of it were words of lamentation, mourning, and woe.

3:1-4 "Son of man," He said to me, "eat and fill your stomach with this scroll I am giving you." So I ate, and it was as sweet as honey in my mouth.
and
Revelation 10:10 I took the little scroll from the angel's hand and ate it. It tasted as sweet as honey in my mouth, but when I had eaten it, my stomach turned sour.

Revelation 3:20 Here I am! I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in and eat with that person, and they with me. probably refers to more than sharing food and hints at both learning a new understanding of GOD's unity of faith and experiencing HIS heavenly communion.

Conclusion:
In keeping with standard biblical usage of the metaphor of eating to express experiencing something to understand it, it wasn't the knowing the difference between good and evil that caused any problem as such knowledge was necessary to live with GOD but the eating of that knowledge, the experiencing of the knowledge of evil by ingesting and proving it by choosing to sin.

There was no apple tree, there was only the knowledge of good and evil and the decision of which to choose.

 

[praise_yeshua]

Eating as metaphor:

Preamble:
Have you ever considered a word study of the word to eat ?
Jn 6:47 Truly, truly, I tell you, he who believes has eternal life. 48 I am the bread of life. 49 Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, yet they died. 50 This is the bread that comes down from heaven, so that anyone may eat of it and not die. 51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. And this bread, which I will give for the life of the world, is My flesh.” In Matthew 26, Jesus used the same figurative language in referring once again to eating His flesh and drinking His blood.

Since Gen 3:15 On your belly you shall go, And you shall eat dust all the days of your life. eating has been a metaphor for experiencing especially knowledge and understanding. Do we believe that snakes eat dust? Nothing eats dust so this must be a metaphor for the serpent's life.

This metaphor is applied to the law: Psalm 119:103 How sweet are thy words unto my taste! yea, sweeter than honey to my mouth! in which we see eating to refer to his understanding of the great moral strength of the law and its benefits for law keepers.

In Proverbs 9 the call of Wisdom and the seductive lure of Folly's illicit pleasures are both couched in terms of eating:
Wisdom calls:
4 “Whoever is simple, let him turn in here!”
To him who lacks judgment she says:
5 “Come, eat my bread,
and drink the wine I have mixed.
6 Leave your folly behind, and you will live;
walk in the way of understanding.”

Folly calls:
17 “Stolen water is sweet,
and bread eaten in secret is tasty!”
and idea that equates eating with experiencing sin or, if you will, you eat sin and ingest it to become a sinner.

But not just sin.
Jesus refers to our coming to (experiencing) redemption in the same metaphor of eating: John 6:27 Do not work for food that perishes, but for food that endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give you.

Isaiah 55:1 "Come, all of you who thirst, come to the waters; and you without money, come, buy, and eat! Come, buy wine and milk, without money and without cost! The metaphor also includes ideas of learning and understanding doctrine (as well as the idea of experiencing something) as seen in Ezekiel 2:8 But you, son of man, listen to what I tell you. Do not be rebellious like that rebellious house. Open your mouth and eat what I give you.” 9 Then I looked and saw a hand reaching out to me, and in it was a scroll, 10 which He unrolled before me. And written on the front and back of it were words of lamentation, mourning, and woe.

3:1-4 "Son of man," He said to me, "eat and fill your stomach with this scroll I am giving you." So I ate, and it was as sweet as honey in my mouth.
and
Revelation 10:10 I took the little scroll from the angel's hand and ate it. It tasted as sweet as honey in my mouth, but when I had eaten it, my stomach turned sour.

Revelation 3:20 Here I am! I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in and eat with that person, and they with me. probably refers to more than sharing food and hints at both learning a new understanding of GOD's unity of faith and experiencing HIS heavenly communion.

Conclusion:
In keeping with standard biblical usage of the metaphor of eating to express experiencing something to understand it, it wasn't the knowing the difference between good and evil that caused any problem as such knowledge was necessary to live with GOD but the eating of that knowledge, the experiencing of the knowledge of evil by ingesting and proving it by choosing to sin.

There was no apple tree, there was only the knowledge of good and evil and the decision of which to choose.

You're close but you're not there yet.

You're leaving Eve out of this.... Why?

When God created Adam, Adam needed Eve. He didn't know that he needed Eve. He had to learn that the things God gave him were not enough. They were good but they were not enough. God was leading Adam to a self discovery. God was leading Adam to make his own choices.

 

[TedT]

Granted, our bodies do decay and die but that is a consequence of Adam's sin and not because God is in the business of creating sinful nature.

This contradicts the well established doctrine of death only for the sinful:

Ezek 18:20 The soul who sins is the one who will die. A son will not bear the iniquity of his father, and a father will not bear the iniquity of his son.

Deuteronomy 24:16
Fathers shall not be put to death for their children, nor children for their fathers; each is to die for his own sin.

Jeremiah 31:29-30
“In those days, it will no longer be said: ‘The fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the teeth of the children are set on edge.’ / Instead, each will die for his own iniquity. If anyone eats the sour grapes, his own teeth will be set on edge.

Numbers 16:22
But Moses and Aaron fell facedown and said, “O God, the God of the spirits of all flesh, when one man sins, will You be angry with the whole congregation?”

 

[TedT]

If human nature is sinful then what does that make Jesus who took up the very same human nature we all have?

If men were not sinful by their self chosen sinful nature, He had no need to be separated from our sinfulness by the virgin birth.

 

[praise_yeshua]

If men were not sinful by their self chosen sinful nature, He had no need to be separated from our sinfulness by the virgin birth.

Again. You're leaving out Eve in Mary. It takes two seeds.....

Expand your thoughts. You're leaving out essential circumstances.

Are you a former Mormon? I've see a few unique views from former Mormons lately.

 

[TedT]

Are you a former Mormon?

Are you a former Mormon, I see some similarities to some of their doctrine in your pov?

I have never been a Mormon and never will be. Also, they have cursed me for my acceptance of pce as being from the Holy Spirit..

 

[synergy]

This contradicts the well established doctrine of death only for the sinful:

So you're ok with Jesus adopting a sinful human nature and you see no problem with that. Fascinating.....

Ezek 18:20 The soul who sins is the one who will die. A son will not bear the iniquity of his father, and a father will not bear the iniquity of his son.

What about him who does not sin, like Jesus? Why did he die?

Deuteronomy 24:16
Fathers shall not be put to death for their children, nor children for their fathers; each is to die for his own sin.

That falls in line perfectly with the fact that we do not inherit sin. That's a vote against those who believe we all inherit a sinful nature.

Jeremiah 31:29-30
“In those days, it will no longer be said: ‘The fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the teeth of the children are set on edge.’ / Instead, each will die for his own iniquity. If anyone eats the sour grapes, his own teeth will be set on edge.

Same comment as above.

Numbers 16:22
But Moses and Aaron fell facedown and said, “O God, the God of the spirits of all flesh, when one man sins, will You be angry with the whole congregation?”

That was a tribal stipulation. Since that does not align with the "each person is responsible for his own sins" verses you mentioned earlier, then I take it that the tribal stipulation was temporary.

 

[praise_yeshua]

Are you a former Mormon, I see some similarities to some of their doctrine in your pov?

I have never been a Mormon and never will be. Also, they have cursed me for my acceptance of pce as being from the Holy Spirit..

Pray tell. Name them.....

So you're a closet Calvinist? PCE is a farce. Looks like you prefer to see value in how bad your sin is..... right?

So. Are you actually going to consider Eve at all?

 

[TedT]

You're leaving Eve out of this.... Why?

She was not pertinent to a discussion of our supposed sinfulness in Adam.

She is not just the mother of all living but is the type for those who after they chose to put their faith in YHWH as their Saviour GOD and became HIS elect but who later rebelled against HIS call for the damnation of those who rejected putting their faith in HIM as their GOD and saviour but instead put their faith in HIM being a liar and a false god, unable ever to be forgiven and unfit to ever fulfill HIS purpose in their creation as HIS bride.

 

[praise_yeshua]

She was not pertinent to a discussion of our supposed sinfulness in Adam.

Sure she is. She is why Adam committed the sin that brought about death in Adam's lineage.

She is not just the mother of all living but is the type for those who after they chose to put their faith in YHWH as their Saviour GOD and became HIS elect but who later rebelled against HIS call for the damnation of those who rejected putting their faith in HIM as their GOD and saviour but instead put their faith in HIM being a liar and a false god, unable ever to be forgiven and unfit to ever fulfill HIS purpose in their creation as HIS bride.

I see. You don't value women. Which is why I asked about Mormonism. They only see women as servants to their sexual needs.

You treat women the same in your theology.

Interestingly.... you appeal to the "bride of Christ" without any thought that only women are brides......

Are you gay/homosexual?

 

[TedT]

So you're ok with Jesus adopting a sinful human nature and you see no problem with that. Fascinating.....

The death of Christ was to remediate our sins, not to prove He joined us in sin as is suggested for our sin and death by Adam's sin. Your misuse of my words points out your lack of doctrinal truth.

 

[synergy]

The death of Christ was to remediate our sins, not to prove He joined us in sin as is suggested for our sin and death by Adam's sin. Your misuse of my words points out your lack of doctrinal truth.

If Jesus inherits sin then he is no longer sinless. That alone points to your lack of doctrinal truth.

 

[TedT]

That falls in line perfectly with the fact that we do not inherit sin. That's a vote against those who believe we all inherit a sinful nature.

I should write the following in ALL CAPS so it will be remembered:

I abhor the doctrine that we inherit sin and death from anyone by any means...

Sin and sinfulness aka being enslaved to sin and liable to death, accrues only to those who chose by their free will decision to rebel agains GOD's call to them! Not to anything Adam did!

We existed and chose to be sinners BEFORE our conception as humans which is the proof of our sinfulness, NOT the cause of our sinfulness.

 

[praise_yeshua]

The death of Christ was to remediate our sins, not to prove He joined us in sin as is suggested for our sin and death by Adam's sin. Your misuse of my words points out your lack of doctrinal truth.

Ah... so Christ didn't suffer being confined to womb of Mary? Did Christ suffer during child birth? You do know that both mother and infant come to the very point of death in the experience.... right?

If you considered women more, you would know this.

Eve's judgement was the suffering every infant experiences in birth.

 

[praise_yeshua]

I should write the following in ALL CAPS so it will be remembered:

I abhor the doctrine that we inherit sin and death from anyone by any means...

Sin and sinfulness aka being enslaved to sin and liable to death, accrues only to those who chose by their free will decision to rebel agains GOD's call to them! Not to anything Adam did!

We existed and chose to be sinners BEFORE our conception as humans which is the proof of our sinfulness, NOT the cause of our sinfulness.

I know you believe this but I certainly would like to know why......... "reincarnation"? The idea that the soul comes from an preexistent state?

Also, how lovely it is to see you so easily contradict yourself. You say there is no sin relative to birth yet insist "conception" is proof of sinfulness.

How can you sincerely make this contradictory statement?