PDA

View Full Version : Discussion The Fall of Man



holyrokker
Aug 9th 2010, 02:49 AM
Where does the phrase "the fall of man" come from?

Why is the event of Adam's sin called a "fall"? Doesn't that make it sound accidental?

Wouldn't it more appropriately be called "The Rebellion of Mankind"?

Sirus
Aug 9th 2010, 03:25 AM
Probably being likened to
lucifer cast out of heaven - satan fall like lightening - because of sin. Which is also called the rebellion and a few other phrases. Just words really. They are needed by some to attempt to enforce theological issues scripture does not even imply -sin nature, severed, out of fellowship, completely separated etc....
From a biblical perspective, this is not necessary, much less true. Man's nature did not change and while scripture does not indicate Adam continued his relationship with God we know his descendants did.

MoreMercy
Aug 9th 2010, 03:39 AM
Probably being likened to
lucifer cast out of heaven - satan fall like lightening - because of sin. Which is also called the rebellion and a few other phrases. Just words really. They are needed by some to attempt to enforce theological issues scripture does not even imply -sin nature, severed, out of fellowship, completely separated etc....
From a biblical perspective, this is not necessary, much less true. Man's nature did not change and while scripture does not indicate Adam continued his relationship with God we know his descendants did.

Amen to that ! :pp :pp :pp

percho
Aug 9th 2010, 03:53 AM
I do not think it was a fall at all. I believe it was the plan of God otherwise why was the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world. I do not think this was a backup plan. I believe the Lamb slain is a part of the Creation and I believe 1 Cor. 15 teaches that.

PneumaPsucheSoma
Aug 9th 2010, 04:13 AM
I do not think it was a fall at all. I believe it was the plan of God otherwise why was the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world. I do not think this was a backup plan. I believe the Lamb slain is a part of the Creation and I believe 1 Cor. 15 teaches that.

Hi, Percho-

There's no before or after in eternity. Since time and space comprise the natural cosmos, God's omnipresence means He's everyWHERE and everyWHEN. He's at the foundation of the world right now, and everywhere/everywhen else, too. There is no sequential, linear time for God. Eternity is timelessness, not never-ending time.

Bakes the noodle a bit, eh?!

TexUs
Aug 9th 2010, 06:16 PM
Hi, Percho-

There's no before or after in eternity. Since time and space comprise the natural cosmos, God's omnipresence means He's everyWHERE and everyWHEN. He's at the foundation of the world right now, and everywhere/everywhen else, too. There is no sequential, linear time for God. Eternity is timelessness, not never-ending time.

Bakes the noodle a bit, eh?!
At least that's your hypothesis anyway

HisLeast
Aug 9th 2010, 06:29 PM
Why is the event of Adam's sin called a "fall"? Doesn't that make it sound accidental?

Not really. Even people who commit suicide by purposely jumping off buildings fall. "Fall" merely indicates a descent from a high place.

PneumaPsucheSoma
Aug 9th 2010, 08:05 PM
At least that's your hypothesis anyway

New thread. Come beat on me over there for a minute.

TexUs
Aug 9th 2010, 08:10 PM
New thread. Come beat on me over there for a minute.

Not saying I disagree with it... I just won't say that my opinion might not be flawed due to nothing really spoken of this in the word.

PneumaPsucheSoma
Aug 9th 2010, 08:54 PM
Not saying I disagree with it... I just won't say that my opinion might not be flawed due to nothing really spoken of this in the word.

Very true. But you have the Logos in you, Brother.

PneumaPsucheSoma
Aug 9th 2010, 09:01 PM
Where does the phrase "the fall of man" come from?

Why is the event of Adam's sin called a "fall"? Doesn't that make it sound accidental?

Wouldn't it more appropriately be called "The Rebellion of Mankind"?

Adam "fell" to a lower estate of mortality in this "lower heaven". "Fall" indicated directionality in a spiritual sense of position, rather than an action that was inadvertant. Adam didn't say, "Whoops, I accidentally ate a fruit."

percho
Aug 9th 2010, 11:15 PM
Hi, Percho-

There's no before or after in eternity. Since time and space comprise the natural cosmos, God's omnipresence means He's everyWHERE and everyWHEN. He's at the foundation of the world right now, and everywhere/everywhen else, too. There is no sequential, linear time for God. Eternity is timelessness, not never-ending time.

Bakes the noodle a bit, eh?!

I do not understand what you are saying relative to my post.

PneumaPsucheSoma
Aug 10th 2010, 12:11 AM
I do not understand what you are saying relative to my post.

The lamb slain "...since the foundation of the earth..."

Just expanding on your time reference. :-)

BroRog
Aug 10th 2010, 03:25 AM
The lamb slain "...since the foundation of the earth..."

Just expanding on your time reference. :-)It is certainly legitimate to think of that phrase as a time reference, or more accurately a sequence reference. But time isn't the real point. I believe the point of the phrase "since the foundation of the earth" is to highlight the fact that the propitiatory offering of Jesus on the cross was not an after thought but part of the original plan and the raison detre for the creation as it is.

PneumaPsucheSoma
Aug 10th 2010, 05:30 AM
It is certainly legitimate to think of that phrase as a time reference, or more accurately a sequence reference. But time isn't the real point. I believe the point of the phrase "since the foundation of the earth" is to highlight the fact that the propitiatory offering of Jesus on the cross was not an after thought but part of the original plan and the raison detre for the creation as it is.

I certainly don't disagree, especially about the significance of God's preliminary provision for redemption. If anything, I'm indicating how He was literally slain from the foundation of the world. :-)

percho
Aug 10th 2010, 06:10 AM
I certainly don't disagree, especially about the significance of God's preliminary provision for redemption. If anything, I'm indicating how He was literally slain from the foundation of the world. :-)

My point the Lamb was slain before the creation of man. Not if the first Adam fell but because he was going too. The Lamb had to be slain in order to finish the creation of man thru the last Adam.

percho
Aug 10th 2010, 06:13 AM
How can something eternal be slain?

PneumaPsucheSoma
Aug 10th 2010, 06:16 AM
My point the Lamb was slain before the creation of man. Not if the first Adam fell but because he was going too. The Lamb had to be slain in order to finish the creation of man thru the last Adam.

I think I know what you're saying, but give the expanded version so I know for sure what you're relating this to.

PneumaPsucheSoma
Aug 10th 2010, 06:21 AM
How can something eternal be slain?

That's where I thought you were going. The flesh of Jesus wasn't initially eternal; and He wasn't literally slain at that "sequence" in time, though He was slain in pre-existence.

BroRog
Aug 10th 2010, 04:52 PM
I certainly don't disagree, especially about the significance of God's preliminary provision for redemption. If anything, I'm indicating how He was literally slain from the foundation of the world. :-)Since the point of the phrase is meant to indicate a prearranged plan, it doesn't require a literal death at that time.

PneumaPsucheSoma
Aug 10th 2010, 06:24 PM
Since the point of the phrase is meant to indicate a prearranged plan, it doesn't require a literal death at that time.

Agreed. But... there is also a context of time whereby He literally was.

BroRog
Aug 10th 2010, 06:47 PM
Agreed. But... there is also a context of time whereby He literally was.Well, are you saying that he died after he was born? literally?

PneumaPsucheSoma
Aug 10th 2010, 07:49 PM
Well, are you saying that he died after he was born? literally?

No. In time, he was literally slain at His death according to the preliminary ordination from the foundation of the earth. In timelessness, there is more of a similtaneous sense of that and every other event in time.

Percho is a semi-Arianism proponent. I was more referring to establishing the pre-existent nature of Christ in timelessness.

percho
Aug 10th 2010, 11:44 PM
I'll Google semi-Arianism find out what I am and get back to you. Sounds like it might take a little while.

PneumaPsucheSoma
Aug 10th 2010, 11:55 PM
I'll Google semi-Arianism find out what I am and get back to you. Sounds like it might take a little while.

It was descriptive, not openly critical. I was clarifying my reference to timelessness.

(If I remember correctly) Your view is that the Word came into existence at "Let there be light", and was not pre-existent.

percho
Aug 12th 2010, 02:23 AM
It was descriptive, not openly critical. I was clarifying my reference to timelessness.

(If I remember correctly) Your view is that the Word came into existence at "Let there be light", and was not pre-existent.

No that was someone else. My view is that the Word was made flesh for the purpose of death and they called his name Jesus. And this Jesus < than the angels therefore < the Word died.
Also this same Jesus = the Christ was and is the firstborn from the dead. His Psuche was not left in the tomb = grave neither did his Soma see corruption because God the Father gave him quickening Pneuma And the Word who was born of Mary a living soul of the seed of Abraham was made a quickening Spirit being the first born from the dead.

PneumaPsucheSoma
Aug 12th 2010, 03:24 AM
No that was someone else. My view is that the Word was made flesh for the purpose of death and they called his name Jesus. And this Jesus < than the angels therefore < the Word died.
Also this same Jesus = the Christ was and is the firstborn from the dead. His Psuche was not left in the tomb = grave neither did his Soma see corruption because God the Father gave him quickening Pneuma And the Word who was born of Mary a living soul of the seed of Abraham was made a quickening Spirit being the first born from the dead.

Ahhhh... My bad, then. (I thought you were agreeing with ross---- in another thread.)

Nice play on the PneumaPsucheSoma, Brother. This certainly deserves more conversation. It's much more than dead doctrine of men. So.... Can you please express a bit more?

percho
Aug 12th 2010, 01:53 PM
Ahhhh... My bad, then. (I thought you were agreeing with ross---- in another thread.)

Nice play on the PneumaPsucheSoma, Brother. This certainly deserves more conversation. It's much more than dead doctrine of men. So.... Can you please express a bit more?

I don't know how the post worked out that way. I just thought it fit. Looks biblical to me.

PneumaPsucheSoma
Aug 12th 2010, 02:36 PM
I don't know how the post worked out that way. I just thought it fit. Looks biblical to me.

I reread that thread, and I'm not sure how I associated you with that view. You had questions that went unanswered, though:

"What does firstborn of every creature/from the dead mean?"

He was prototokos (G4416), a predicate adjective with anarthrous constructruction; meaning non-articular. He is not "the" firstborn, He is simply firstborn.

Nobody else had ever been born by the Spirit. When ho Logos took on flesh, it was that flesh that became firstborn of the Spirit. Although others were resurrected in physical life (like Lazarus), they all ultimately died a final physical death. No one had conquered death, so He became firstborn from the dead. ...which is what I think you were saying/asking.

BroRog
Aug 12th 2010, 03:23 PM
I reread that thread, and I'm not sure how I associated you with that view. You had questions that went unanswered, though:

"What does firstborn of every creature/from the dead mean?"

He was prototokos (G4416), a predicate adjective with anarthrous constructruction; meaning non-articular. He is not "the" firstborn, He is simply firstborn.

Nobody else had ever been born by the Spirit. When ho Logos took on flesh, it was that flesh that became firstborn of the Spirit. Although others were resurrected in physical life (like Lazarus), they all ultimately died a final physical death. No one had conquered death, so He became firstborn from the dead. ...which is what I think you were saying/asking.The statement "firstborn of every creature" isn't talking about birth order. The term "firstborn" is idiomatic and refers to a position of authority, as in a family. The firstborn of the family was second in command under the father. To say that Jesus is "firstborn of all creation" is to say that there is on other person greater in authority and power than Jesus other than the Father.

TexUs
Aug 12th 2010, 03:25 PM
The statement "firstborn of every creature" isn't talking about birth order. The term "firstborn" is idiomatic and refers to a position of authority, as in a family. The firstborn of the family was second in command under the father. To say that Jesus is "firstborn of all creation" is to say that there is on other person greater in authority and power than Jesus other than the Father.
Huh? I really disagree with that... Taking it that way the best you could come up with IMO is that the Father pre-existed the Son and the Son was the first before creation. I don't think you can conclude at all (taking it in such a way) that there is one greater than the Father.

BroRog
Aug 12th 2010, 03:37 PM
Huh? I really disagree with that... Taking it that way the best you could come up with IMO is that the Father pre-existed the Son and the Son was the first before creation. I don't think you can conclude at all (taking it in such a way) that there is one greater than the Father.I didn't say that anyone was greater than the father. If that is what it sounded like, then I apologize. But I think a review of how the term is used in the Bible will bear me out. The significance of being born first is the issue. To say that Jesus is the "firstborn" isn't saying that he was literally born first.

PneumaPsucheSoma
Aug 12th 2010, 03:55 PM
I didn't say that anyone was greater than the father. If that is what it sounded like, then I apologize. But I think a review of how the term is used in the Bible will bear me out. The significance of being born first is the issue. To say that Jesus is the "firstborn" isn't saying that he was literally born first.

That's what I indicated with the reference to the anarthrous construction: He is "firstborn", not "the firstborn". He is still ALSO the first one "born" by the Spirit. (This isn't about natural physical birth order.)

The Son hath inherited. We have therefore inherited.

BroRog
Aug 12th 2010, 04:47 PM
That's what I indicated with the reference to the anarthrous construction: He is "firstborn", not "the firstborn". He is still ALSO the first one "born" by the Spirit. (This isn't about natural physical birth order.)

The Son hath inherited. We have therefore inherited.Where do you get the idea that he was the first "born by the spirit?"

PneumaPsucheSoma
Aug 12th 2010, 05:48 PM
Where do you get the idea that he was the first "born by the spirit?"

ho Logos took on flesh; that is the man part of Jesus, which was born of the Spirit. His positional preeminence is as Creator.

BroRog
Aug 12th 2010, 05:54 PM
ho Logos took on flesh; that is the man part of Jesus, which was born of the Spirit. His positional preeminence is as Creator.When Luke records the supernatural conception of Jesus, but it doesn't necessarily indicate that Jesus was born of the Spirit in the same sense that we are born of the spirit.

PneumaPsucheSoma
Aug 12th 2010, 06:03 PM
When Luke records the supernatural conception of Jesus, but it doesn't necessarily indicate that Jesus was born of the Spirit in the same sense that we are born of the spirit.

I'm not referring to His natural birth as a man; I'm referring to His flesh being born of the Spirit. I'm evidently not very forum-functional in my expression today.

TexUs
Aug 12th 2010, 06:13 PM
I'm not referring to His natural birth as a man; I'm referring to His flesh being born of the Spirit.
Aren't these the same thing here?

BroRog
Aug 12th 2010, 07:25 PM
I'm not referring to His natural birth as a man; I'm referring to His flesh being born of the Spirit. I'm evidently not very forum-functional in my expression today.

I don't see how this is relavent to the term "firstborn", unless you are suggesting that Jesus was the first to come into existence supernaturally.

percho
Aug 12th 2010, 09:32 PM
Isn't the resurrection of Jesus spoken of as a birth?

PneumaPsucheSoma
Aug 13th 2010, 04:34 AM
Aren't these the same thing here?

No.


I don't see how this is relavent to the term "firstborn", unless you are suggesting that Jesus was the first to come into existence supernaturally.

I'm not suggesting that.


Isn't the resurrection of Jesus spoken of as a birth?

That's the firstborn from the dead, but I think I now understand what you're saying.