Olde Tymer
Well-known member
~
"Faith is believin' what you know ain't so."
(Mark Twain)
_
"Faith is believin' what you know ain't so."
(Mark Twain)
_
Transmitting The Fallen Nature
- Thread starter Olde Tymer
- Start date
GeneZ
Well-known member
Do you believe Mark Twain said that?
Olde Tymer
Well-known member
~
It ain't what you know that gets you into trouble.
It's what you know for sure that just ain't so.
(Mark Twain)
For example: If something is repeated often enough, widely enough, and loud
enough by people in authority and/or held in high enough esteem; pretty soon it's
accepted by the masses as fact without thought or question. (the Asch Conformity
Phenomenon)
_
It ain't what you know that gets you into trouble.
It's what you know for sure that just ain't so.
(Mark Twain)
For example: If something is repeated often enough, widely enough, and loud
enough by people in authority and/or held in high enough esteem; pretty soon it's
accepted by the masses as fact without thought or question. (the Asch Conformity
Phenomenon)
_
Last edited:
civic
Well-known member
Exactly like original sin from augustine until now in the church. The fallen human nature is unbiblical.
GeneZ
Well-known member
Do you know that for sure?
Olde Tymer
Well-known member
~
FAQ: If Joseph played no active role in baby Jesus' conception, then from
whence did the infant obtain a Y chromosome for his male gender?
REPLY: In the beginning, Eve's entire body-- inside and out, front to back, top to
bottom, and side to side --was constructed with material taken from Adam's body.
(Gen 2:21-22) So if God could construct an entire woman from material taken from
a man's body, then it shouldn't be too difficult for Him to construct a teensy little
chromosome from a woman's body.
Seeing as how Eve is the mother of all women (Gen 3:20 & Acts 17:26) then any
material taken from Mary's body to construct a Y chromosome for baby Jesus would
be owed to Eve's body; and by construction: to Adam's body.
The beauty of it is that a Y chromosome constructed with material taken from
Mary's body wouldn't be an alien substance created ex nihilo; but would be 100%
natural, and easily traceable all the way back to Eve, and from thence to the very
dust that was used to construct Adam's body.
I sincerely believe that what I posit herein actually took place when the power of
the Most High overshadowed Jesus' mom per Luke 1:35; and if my thoughts are
true, then little Jesus was thoroughly a Jew-- biologically descended not only from
David and Abraham as all other Jews, but also from the Man that God created in
the book of Genesis.
FAQ: You say Jesus was David's biological descendant. How is that possible if he
had God's blood in his flesh.
REPLY: According to Lev 17:11, the life of the flesh is in the blood. Well then, had
there been God's life in his flesh instead of David's life, then Jesus would've been
precluded from inheriting David's throne because Jesus would've failed to satisfy
the biological requirement of Ps 132:11 which says:
"The Lord has sworn in truth unto David; and He will not turn from it: "Of the fruit
of your body will I set upon your throne"
Plus: Acts 2:29-30 & Rom 1:3 would be easily proven false statements.
One of the oldest creeds in the church states that Jesus is fully God and fully Man.
Well that creed would be grossly mistaken if something other than David's life was
in Jesus' flesh. Plus: on numerous occasions Jesus referred to himself as "Son of
Man" which, likewise, would be patently false were David's life not in his flesh.
FAQ: Why are a number of Christians insistent upon Jesus having God's blood in his
body?
REPLY: They're overly infatuated with Jesus as the savior per Luke 2:8-11 instead
of including him in their thinking as the Jewish monarch in the same gospel per
Luke 1:30-33. Consequently, they typically discount the chemistry of Jesus' human
genealogy because they sincerely believe human blood isn't pure enough to offer as
an atonement for the sins of the world. Their logic is reasonable, I'll give them that;
but under the microscope of inspired writ, it turns out to be little more than
sophistry.
_
FAQ: If Joseph played no active role in baby Jesus' conception, then from
whence did the infant obtain a Y chromosome for his male gender?
REPLY: In the beginning, Eve's entire body-- inside and out, front to back, top to
bottom, and side to side --was constructed with material taken from Adam's body.
(Gen 2:21-22) So if God could construct an entire woman from material taken from
a man's body, then it shouldn't be too difficult for Him to construct a teensy little
chromosome from a woman's body.
Seeing as how Eve is the mother of all women (Gen 3:20 & Acts 17:26) then any
material taken from Mary's body to construct a Y chromosome for baby Jesus would
be owed to Eve's body; and by construction: to Adam's body.
The beauty of it is that a Y chromosome constructed with material taken from
Mary's body wouldn't be an alien substance created ex nihilo; but would be 100%
natural, and easily traceable all the way back to Eve, and from thence to the very
dust that was used to construct Adam's body.
I sincerely believe that what I posit herein actually took place when the power of
the Most High overshadowed Jesus' mom per Luke 1:35; and if my thoughts are
true, then little Jesus was thoroughly a Jew-- biologically descended not only from
David and Abraham as all other Jews, but also from the Man that God created in
the book of Genesis.
FAQ: You say Jesus was David's biological descendant. How is that possible if he
had God's blood in his flesh.
REPLY: According to Lev 17:11, the life of the flesh is in the blood. Well then, had
there been God's life in his flesh instead of David's life, then Jesus would've been
precluded from inheriting David's throne because Jesus would've failed to satisfy
the biological requirement of Ps 132:11 which says:
"The Lord has sworn in truth unto David; and He will not turn from it: "Of the fruit
of your body will I set upon your throne"
Plus: Acts 2:29-30 & Rom 1:3 would be easily proven false statements.
One of the oldest creeds in the church states that Jesus is fully God and fully Man.
Well that creed would be grossly mistaken if something other than David's life was
in Jesus' flesh. Plus: on numerous occasions Jesus referred to himself as "Son of
Man" which, likewise, would be patently false were David's life not in his flesh.
FAQ: Why are a number of Christians insistent upon Jesus having God's blood in his
body?
REPLY: They're overly infatuated with Jesus as the savior per Luke 2:8-11 instead
of including him in their thinking as the Jewish monarch in the same gospel per
Luke 1:30-33. Consequently, they typically discount the chemistry of Jesus' human
genealogy because they sincerely believe human blood isn't pure enough to offer as
an atonement for the sins of the world. Their logic is reasonable, I'll give them that;
but under the microscope of inspired writ, it turns out to be little more than
sophistry.
_
Olde Tymer
Well-known member
~
FAQ: Did Jesus' virgin conception isolate him from the original sin?
REPLY: No.
FAQ: Why not?
REPLY: According to Rom 5:12-21 the original sin isn't inherited, rather, complicity
in Adam's mistake was imputed; and it was imputed in Adam's time rather than in
everyone's own time; viz: everybody, from first to last, all together, all at once.
FAQ: But isn't Adam's mistake a Hell-worthy sin?
REPLY: No; the primary consequence for the original sin is mortality. So our
individual deaths are adequate for that one. The sins we commit on our own are a
horse of another color, so to speak.
FAQ: So you posit that had Jesus not been crucified, he would've eventually died of
some other cause?
REPLY: Yes, and in point of fact Jesus didn't obtain immortality till his resurrection.
(Rom 6:9 & Rev 1:18)
FAQ: But if Jesus was imputed complicity in Adam's mistake, then how can it be
honestly said that he was a lamb without spot or blemish? (1Pet 1:18-19)
REPLY: Jesus committed no sins of his own to answer for. (John 8:29, 2Cor 5:21,
Heb 4:15, 1Pet 2:22, 1John 3:9)
** There is a popular denomination that depicts the original sin as if it were a stain.
But we dare not accept their depiction because it conflicts with Rom 5:12-21
wherein the results of Adam's disobedience are juxtaposed with the results of Jesus'
full compliance.
_
FAQ: Did Jesus' virgin conception isolate him from the original sin?
REPLY: No.
FAQ: Why not?
REPLY: According to Rom 5:12-21 the original sin isn't inherited, rather, complicity
in Adam's mistake was imputed; and it was imputed in Adam's time rather than in
everyone's own time; viz: everybody, from first to last, all together, all at once.
FAQ: But isn't Adam's mistake a Hell-worthy sin?
REPLY: No; the primary consequence for the original sin is mortality. So our
individual deaths are adequate for that one. The sins we commit on our own are a
horse of another color, so to speak.
FAQ: So you posit that had Jesus not been crucified, he would've eventually died of
some other cause?
REPLY: Yes, and in point of fact Jesus didn't obtain immortality till his resurrection.
(Rom 6:9 & Rev 1:18)
FAQ: But if Jesus was imputed complicity in Adam's mistake, then how can it be
honestly said that he was a lamb without spot or blemish? (1Pet 1:18-19)
REPLY: Jesus committed no sins of his own to answer for. (John 8:29, 2Cor 5:21,
Heb 4:15, 1Pet 2:22, 1John 3:9)
** There is a popular denomination that depicts the original sin as if it were a stain.
But we dare not accept their depiction because it conflicts with Rom 5:12-21
wherein the results of Adam's disobedience are juxtaposed with the results of Jesus'
full compliance.
_
Let's see who is the real heretic here.A heretic is known by the company he keeps.
That one was not too bad...
And, its nice to know that you never had a sin nature.
Adam's fall was Adam's Nothing to do with you. Right?
I think you have a few heretical views of you own...........
God created human nature, right?
So the question for you is: Did God create a "sin nature"?
In other words, does sin/evil come from God?
Only if you believe in pagan gods.
All the above does not mean that we donnot have a disposition towards sin.
IOW, where does sin come from? Do you understand the concept of Free Will?
What about our desires? Are they all automatically sinful as Calvinists/Manicheans promote through their Total Depravity heretical view?
Manicheans stipulate that nature sins/ is evil.
Newsflash! Nature doesn't sin. People sin.
Conclusion: You need to forsake all pagan and manichean heretical thoughts.
civic
Well-known member
Yes it’s all paganism/ platonism / Gnosticism and Greek philosophy that was married with Christianity from Augustine
What an absolute disaster that Augustine was! Christianity has a big job ahead of itself to detoxify all those people who have bought into those paganistic lies that manifest themselves in Propitiation (PSA) and Total Depravity Heresies.
Olde Tymer
Well-known member
~
The so-called sin nature (a.k.a. fallen nature) isn't a creation, rather, it's a
modification; sort of like back in the day when hot rod enthusiasts tampered with
carburetion, ignition timing, compression ratios, and cam shafts to make factory
cars go faster.
The obvious grease monkey in the modification of human nature was the Serpent
a.k.a. the Devil (Rev 20:2) He has the power of death (Heb 2:14) and the ability to
tamper with the human body and the human mind in ways not easily detected; e.g.
Luke 13:16, Mark 5:1-5, and Eph 2:2. When Jesus told his opponents that they
were of their father the Devil; he wasn't being rhetorical, rather, simply stating a
fact of life.
FAQ: The woman was first to taste the forbidden fruit, but when she did, nothing
happened. She went right on in the buff as usual sans any feelings of shame. Why
were modifications to the woman's nature delayed until the man tasted the fruit?
REPLY: It was apparently God's decision that if sin and death were to come into the
world, they would come via a lone male's actions just as life and righteousness
would later be offered to the world via a lone male's actions. (Rom 5:12-21)
The Serpent was apparently all set and ready to wield his power the moment that
Adam crossed the line and ate that fruit. It amazes me how quickly it takes effect.
Not long after Adam tasted the fruit, he and his wife both immediately set to work
cobbling together some rudimentary aprons to cover up their pelvic areas;
indicating that their sense of decency relative to sex and the human body had been
altered, i.e. its settings were no longer "factory" so to speak.
_
The so-called sin nature (a.k.a. fallen nature) isn't a creation, rather, it's a
modification; sort of like back in the day when hot rod enthusiasts tampered with
carburetion, ignition timing, compression ratios, and cam shafts to make factory
cars go faster.
The obvious grease monkey in the modification of human nature was the Serpent
a.k.a. the Devil (Rev 20:2) He has the power of death (Heb 2:14) and the ability to
tamper with the human body and the human mind in ways not easily detected; e.g.
Luke 13:16, Mark 5:1-5, and Eph 2:2. When Jesus told his opponents that they
were of their father the Devil; he wasn't being rhetorical, rather, simply stating a
fact of life.
FAQ: The woman was first to taste the forbidden fruit, but when she did, nothing
happened. She went right on in the buff as usual sans any feelings of shame. Why
were modifications to the woman's nature delayed until the man tasted the fruit?
REPLY: It was apparently God's decision that if sin and death were to come into the
world, they would come via a lone male's actions just as life and righteousness
would later be offered to the world via a lone male's actions. (Rom 5:12-21)
The Serpent was apparently all set and ready to wield his power the moment that
Adam crossed the line and ate that fruit. It amazes me how quickly it takes effect.
Not long after Adam tasted the fruit, he and his wife both immediately set to work
cobbling together some rudimentary aprons to cover up their pelvic areas;
indicating that their sense of decency relative to sex and the human body had been
altered, i.e. its settings were no longer "factory" so to speak.
_
Last edited:
Olde Tymer
Well-known member
~
FAQ: Seeing as how the so-called original sin is universal in its application, then is
the so-called fallen nature universal too?
REPLY: The application of the forbidden fruit incident was in God's hands, so
everyone was slapped with it all at once, all at the same time; whereas application
of the so-called fallen nature was, and still is, in the Serpent's hands and it's not
within the scope of his abilities to do everyone all at once all at the same time.
Culpability relative to the forbidden fruit incident was an accounting procedure, i.e.
it was done on the books so to speak; whereas the fallen nature is quite a bit more
hands-on, i.e. invasive.
FAQ: When does the Serpent go about tampering with people's human nature.
REPLY: Well, we know from Genesis that he can work with adults, but I'm guessing
with many of us the Serpent is a bit more subtle, i.e. goes about his business
covertly, viz: in the womb; for example:
● Gen 8:21 . . Man's thoughts and actions are bent toward evil from childhood
● Ps 58:3 . . Even from birth the wicked go astray; from the womb they are
wayward and speaking lies.
● Ps 51:5 . . Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived
me.
Apparently the Devil's handiwork is irreversible, and so binding that only the
crucifixion of Christ makes it possible for God to correct it.
● John 12:31-32 . .The time of judgment for the world has come, when the prince
of this world will be cast out. And when I am lifted up on the cross, I will draw
everyone to myself.
● Col 2:11 . . In him you were also circumcised, in the putting off of the sinful
nature: not with a circumcision done by the hands of men but with the circumcision
done by Christ.
Adam's posterity was made culpable in the forbidden fruit incident without their
consent; whereas they have a say in the application of Christ's crucifixion by means
of a proactive response, i.e. an RSVP.
"Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest. Take
my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and
you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy and my burden is light." (Matt
11:28-30)
The alternative is most unpleasant. Those who ignore Jesus' invitation will leave
this life permanently controlled by the fallen nature whereas those who've
undergone the circumcision done via God's hands will be permanently free of it.
When all is said and done, this will be announced:
"Let him who does wrong continue to do wrong; let him who is vile continue to be
vile; let him who does right continue to do right; and let him who is holy continue
to be holy." (Rev 22:10-11)
_
FAQ: Seeing as how the so-called original sin is universal in its application, then is
the so-called fallen nature universal too?
REPLY: The application of the forbidden fruit incident was in God's hands, so
everyone was slapped with it all at once, all at the same time; whereas application
of the so-called fallen nature was, and still is, in the Serpent's hands and it's not
within the scope of his abilities to do everyone all at once all at the same time.
Culpability relative to the forbidden fruit incident was an accounting procedure, i.e.
it was done on the books so to speak; whereas the fallen nature is quite a bit more
hands-on, i.e. invasive.
FAQ: When does the Serpent go about tampering with people's human nature.
REPLY: Well, we know from Genesis that he can work with adults, but I'm guessing
with many of us the Serpent is a bit more subtle, i.e. goes about his business
covertly, viz: in the womb; for example:
● Gen 8:21 . . Man's thoughts and actions are bent toward evil from childhood
● Ps 58:3 . . Even from birth the wicked go astray; from the womb they are
wayward and speaking lies.
● Ps 51:5 . . Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived
me.
Apparently the Devil's handiwork is irreversible, and so binding that only the
crucifixion of Christ makes it possible for God to correct it.
● John 12:31-32 . .The time of judgment for the world has come, when the prince
of this world will be cast out. And when I am lifted up on the cross, I will draw
everyone to myself.
● Col 2:11 . . In him you were also circumcised, in the putting off of the sinful
nature: not with a circumcision done by the hands of men but with the circumcision
done by Christ.
Adam's posterity was made culpable in the forbidden fruit incident without their
consent; whereas they have a say in the application of Christ's crucifixion by means
of a proactive response, i.e. an RSVP.
"Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest. Take
my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and
you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy and my burden is light." (Matt
11:28-30)
The alternative is most unpleasant. Those who ignore Jesus' invitation will leave
this life permanently controlled by the fallen nature whereas those who've
undergone the circumcision done via God's hands will be permanently free of it.
When all is said and done, this will be announced:
"Let him who does wrong continue to do wrong; let him who is vile continue to be
vile; let him who does right continue to do right; and let him who is holy continue
to be holy." (Rev 22:10-11)
_
Last edited:
Bob Carabbio
Well-known member
There's no such thing as a "Fallen nature", and NOTHING to "Transmit". What we ALL HAVE, including Adam, and Jesus, is a HUMAN NATURE that's subject to "Temptation" as described in James 1.
"Fallen nature" is nothing but a "Theological fantasy". Man's nature never changed, and we don't "Inherit" any "SIN" (original or otherwise) from Adam or anybody else. We're fully capable of producing OUR OWN SIN, and we all will. Adam SINNED BEFORE he supposedly developed a "Fallen nature" to "Transmit".
Jesus, when tempted AS WE ARE, never allowed HIS lust to conceive and become SINFUL ACTIONS, and so remained PERFECT as HE HAD TO BE in order to be our SIN OFFERING (Isa 53:10). His Ressurection PROVES that his Offering was accepted, and we can be Born Again.
WHAT DID CHANGE when Adam sinned was the ENVIRONMENT. God cursed THE GROUND for Adam's sake, and that's the environment we all live in today. Adam now had to WORK to survive - his "Free lunch" was gone, and the "Law of the jungle" prevails.
civic
Well-known member
ditto
Olde Tymer
Well-known member
~
I was on a forum some years ago that disabled bolding to stop people from
yelling at each other.
_
I was on a forum some years ago that disabled bolding to stop people from
yelling at each other.
_
Bob Carabbio
Well-known member
My first didn't last more than 6 hours. But "Physical death" isn't related to "Fallen nature". that's just "Theology". All God's Chilluns gots "theologies".
Remember that Adam and Eve didn't have "Eternal physical life" - they'd never eaten from the "Tree of life", and after Adam sinned and gave satan his authority (when he threw God under the bus), that's one reason God tossed 'em out of the garden, so they WOULDN'T eat of that tree, and live physically forever spiritually DEAD. God already had the plan in place to bring humanity back to spiritual LIFE, but it would be a while -
Last edited:
civic
Well-known member
God has no needs remember.
God has no need for the law, atonement, man, creation etc......
civic
Well-known member
Amazing how many hold to a human philosophy over scripture when confronted with the biblical truth. Cognitive dissonance.
Diserner
Well-known member
There must be some kind of a glitch because that's not my post
Diserner
Well-known member
Did something happen when they updated the program? Because there's a lot of posts that have my name on it that I didn't write. Can this be fixed somehow?
