It's called anticdotal evidence. Look it up
Jacob and Esau
- Thread starter The Rogue Tomato
- Start date
civic
Well-known member
its called facts- no one begins a calvinist. they must be taught it.
Anticdotal evidence. Look it up
civic
Well-known member
talk to a calvinist and learn something.
But the serpent was in the world with evil intent before Adam ate and Eve sinned at least once if not twice before Adam ate but Adam is credited with bringing sin into this world by his eating???
And when their eyes were opened to their shame they did not see their eating, they saw their nakedness, (a typical Bible metaphor for being sinful), the nakedness they had before they ate!
And if you rest this doctrine on Rom 5:12,
Berean Standard Bible
Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, so also death was passed on to all men, because all sinned.
it does not say that his sin spread to all other people but that death was passed on to all men because all men had (already) sinned.
All are sinners in their own right by their own free will to be sinful in HIS sight but they came into Adam's DEATH so Christ need not die for every sinful person of the kingdom but only once at the same time for all His sheep gone astray into evil.
IF Adam was already sinful when he was sown into his body of dust, then as the first sinners to be in the garden, indeed, the whole world, he would have brought sin into the world no matter how many sinners followed and then sinned here before he did, as the serpent and Eve were suggested to have done.
Brainwashing
Brainwashing, also known as mind control, menticide, coercive persuasion, thought control, thought reform, and forced re-education, is the concept that the human mind can be altered or controlled by certain psychological techniques.
The only thing that freeing us from our addiction to evil so we can finally accept the truth of the gospel (unlike those poor sods in Romans 1 who hold the truth in unrighteousness) has in common with brainwashing is that it is against our sinful will.
And because I think that we do not like the painful, harsh discipline that teaches the sinful people of His kingdom righteousness, Heb 12:5-11, this hint that it is against our will proves to me, at least, that we must have given HIM permission by our free (unenslaved) will to so engage with us and to sanctify us to be heaven ready before we needed it, ie, before we became enslaved to sin by choosing to be sinful in HIS sight...otherwise it would be mind rape, and brainwashing.
Anecdotal evidence is not accepted as PROOF unless you trust the person implicitly but it is still EVIDENCE! You may enjoy looking into the history of the Black Swan fallacy...
praise_yeshua
Well-known member
Correct. Because she was taken from man. She was bone of his bone. Flesh of his flesh.
Being naked isn't sinful. I take a shower/bath and never have issues. It is who sees you that makes it sinful.
The verse clearly states that sinfulness is tied to commiting sin. (already sinned)
Abel died without personal sin. Abel was confined to an environment where he was assaulted by his brother and was murdered. Abel was subjected to death even though He pleased God. Death entered this world through sin but even those who didn't sin still die.
Rom 5:14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come
I didn't say Adam was already sinful. I'm choosing what I say and the terms very carefully. You're conflating sinfulness.
I said He was already weak. Peccable. Capable of sin. He proved that he was weak through his sin. Adam was innocent but capable of sin.
I find it not sinful in the least to be unclothed as GOD made you in the privacy of your own garden...therefore, for their nakedness to have a SHAMEFUL disvalue, it must be a metaphor for sin as per:
Rev 3:17
Berean Literal Bible
For you say, 'I am rich, and I have grown rich, and I have need of nothing.' And you do not realize that you are wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, AND NAKED. And it is instructive that being naked, sinful, is related to being blind and so not knowing you are sinful until your eyes are opened by the law...in that commandments are given to prove our sin by the inability of any to obey the law... Romans 7:7 ...Nevertheless, I would not have known what sin was had it not been for the law. The command to not eat was given to prove that as a sinner he could not keep that command and therefore a sinner needing a saviour.
Last edited:
...but I certainly did!!! Read it from that pov, ok?
praise_yeshua
Well-known member
I know when I'm naked and when I'm not. She didn't know she was naked. It came as surprise to here. She saw herself differently. She realized the intimacy associated with being naked.
praise_yeshua
Well-known member
I didn't realize that you were making an argument by assumption.
I see no reason to believe that Adam was already sinful. Can you elaborate?
My reasons for thinking he was will be easily rejected by the thinking patterns that the theory of our being created on earth set up for us. I interpret things differently from a different pov.
5 hints (not proofs) that Adam and Eve were sinners in the garden...
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 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, 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 Adame 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 a specialized, suitable, helping as by a teacher, mentor or example, maybe.
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 faithful, 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? Two words with one meaning...
If so, then this cannot have been their creation because they had 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. which 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 into his human body, Matthew 13:36-39, and as the first person in the garden was the first to bring evil into world.
My words:
I believe he is referring to a situation where one believes and then get saved and is then introduced to Calvinism
Not my words:
praise_yeshua
Well-known member
I see your point and these are good questions. I remind people that the book of Genesis is a retelling of what had already happened long before Moses. You must consume the words of Genesis from the POV of retelling the events of humanity to a people that had knew certain aspects of creation through oral traditions.
Moses is detailing a process that was planned by God. You're reading about the execution of that plan. As such, "it is good" is relative to the step currently being process in the narrative. The plan wasn't completed. It was in process. As such "it is NOT good" for man to be alone is a statement of process. Not a statement relative to condition.
Mankind has always found help in the animals. We get advanced fibers from studying spiders. Glues from studying insects. We have learned to win conflicts with evil through hunting.
What Adam couldn't find was a meaningful intimate relationship relative to a continuation of the species in the animals. The women was literally "keyed" to Adam.
Also, much of this is allegorical to the redemption of mankind found in Christ. A battle over sin definitely began long before man but I still don't see any indication that Adam preexisted and was sinful.
Johann
Well-known member
Not really--I believe there is more of an intense hatred TO Messiah by many Liberals and Democrats-and globally.
What is the Mishnah?
The Mishnah is a key Jewish text that compiles oral traditions and interpretations of the Torah. It was redacted around 200 CE by Rabbi Judah the Prince (Yehudah HaNasi) and other rabbinic scholars. It forms the first part of the Talmud, which is a central text in Rabbinic Judaism.
Historical Context:
Rabbinic Judaism: The Mishnah was developed within the context of Rabbinic Judaism, which emerged and solidified after the destruction of the Second Temple in 70 CE. Rabbinic Judaism focused on the interpretation and application of the Torah in a time when temple-based worship was no longer possible.
Jewish-Christian Relations: During the time the Mishnah was compiled, there were significant tensions between the early Christian movement and the Jewish community. Early Christians, who believed Jesus (Yeshua) was the Messiah, were increasingly distinguishing themselves from mainstream Jewish practices and beliefs.
Perspective on Jesus: The rabbis who compiled the Mishnah did not accept Jesus as the Messiah. The concept of the Messiah in Rabbinic Judaism differs significantly from the Christian understanding. The rabbis were focused on preserving and interpreting Jewish law and tradition in a period of great upheaval.
Attitudes Toward Jesus:
Diverse Attitudes: It's an oversimplification to say that all the rabbis "hated" Jesus. The relationship was complex, and while there was certainly opposition and conflict, the rabbis were primarily concerned with their own community's religious and legal traditions.
Focus of the Mishnah: The Mishnah does not directly address Jesus or Christianity. It is a legal and ethical text concerned with Jewish law (Halacha). The editors of the Mishnah were engaged in codifying oral traditions to ensure the survival and coherence of Jewish life and practice.
Summary:
While it is true that the rabbis who compiled the Mishnah did not recognize Jesus as the Messiah, describing them as "unbelieving Jews that hated Messiah" is a simplistic and pejorative characterization. The rabbis were focused on their religious and communal priorities, and the Mishnah is a product of this context, aimed at preserving Jewish tradition and law.
A more nuanced understanding acknowledges the complex historical and religious dynamics of the period, recognizing that the Mishnah is a foundational Jewish text that played a crucial role in the development of Rabbinic Judaism.
Should you wish I get you more info.
Johann.
praise_yeshua
Well-known member
Abandoning the claim I made for "sake of argument".
If these men were nothing more than men without any Spiritual guidance among them, then why would you accept their redaction as being valuable?
Last edited:
Johann
Well-known member
I don't brother but do love ancient rabbinical writings and watch how THEY debate as opposed to what is going on here-you are a intelligent man, so no need for me to explain.
Just between you and me, I hate clichés and hypocrisy.
I also noticed you are maturing in our Lord Jesus Christ by reading what you post-how you respond and how you react.
Keep this up since none of us has "arrived" to full epignosis/Da'as yet.
Php 3:12 Not that I have already received this , [*Here the direct object is supplied from context in the English translation] or have already been made perfect, but I press on if indeed I may lay hold of that for which also I was laid hold of by Christ. [Some manuscripts have “Christ Jesus”]
Php 3:13 Brothers, I do not consider myself to have laid hold of it . [*Here the direct object is supplied from context in the English translation] But I do one thing , forgetting the things behind and straining toward the things ahead,
Php 3:14 I press on toward the goal for the prize of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus.
Love this-thought I'd share it with you.
a New Year's sermon
FORGET
1) We need to forget our Failures (David, Peter, etc)
2) We need to forget our Hurts - Eph. 4:26
3) We need to forget past success -
REMEMBER
Precious memories
2Pe_1:9 We have been purged from our old sins
The purpose of the Genesis rainbow
How good God has been (is being) to us
RESOLVE
Resolutions for the New Year
1) Read, study, meditate upon God's Word (have a reading plan)
2) Be more supportive of the Lord's work
3) Be faithful in attendance at assemblies of the church
4) Preaching the Word
5) Bible teachers to teach better lessons, true and practical
6) Pray for shepherds, servants, missions and missionaries
- - - - - -
1) Dissatisfaction -
Most Christians are satisfied because they compare self with other Christians who are not making much progress.
2) Devotion
"One thing I do"
3) Direction -
4) Determination - v.14
5) Discipline - .15-16
Shalom to you and family.
J.
Similar threads
