PDA

View Full Version : The fall of man and inborn sin, or are we born right with God?



Aijalon
Apr 10th 2013, 06:27 PM
It was suggested in another thread (boy these threads seem more like winding county roads ;)) that based on the following verses we are born - as children - innocent, i.e. sinless or in some way righteous in the sight of God. What say you?


Matt 19:14) But Jesus said, "Let the children alone, and do not hinder them from coming to Me; for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these."

Matt18:3) Jesus said, "Truly I say to you, unless you are converted and become like children, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven.
4) "Whoever then humbles himself as this child, he is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven."


Does't such a view violate the doctrine of sin?
(Rom 3:23, Ecc 7:20, Ps 51:5)

What was Jesus really saying if he was not saying children are sinless?

If children are born without "iniquity", as the Psamist would say it, then at what point in life do we become responsible for sin? If we are born without being compelled to sin, being like Adam and Eve in the Garden who sinned out of forgetful disobedence rather than prideful rebellion, please justify your answer with scripture.

Include your opinion of what is "the knowledge of good and evil".
Explain how it is that we are born with the same opportunity of Adam and Eve, i.e. being created without any knowledge of good and evil or desire to sin.
Please further explain the purpose and effect of God's curse in Genesis 3.

Vakeros
Apr 10th 2013, 06:44 PM
It was suggested in another thread (boy these threads seem more like winding county roads ;)) that based on the following verses we are born - as children - innocent, i.e. sinless or in some way righteous in the sight of God. What say you?

Matt 19:14) But Jesus said, "Let the children alone, and do not hinder them from coming to Me; for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these."
Matt18:3) Jesus said, "Truly I say to you, unless you are converted and become like children, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven.
4) "Whoever then humbles himself as this child, he is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven."

Does't such a view violate the doctrine of sin?
(Rom 3:23, Ecc 7:20, Ps 51:5)
What was Jesus really saying if he was not saying children are sinless?
If children are born without "iniquity", as the Psamist would say it, then at what point in life do we become responsible for sin? If we are born without being compelled to sin, being like Adam and Eve in the Garden who sinned out of forgetful disobedence rather than prideful rebellion, please justify your answer with scripture.

Include your opinion of what is "the knowledge of good and evil".
Explain how it is that we are born with the same opportunity of Adam and Eve, i.e. being created without any knowledge of good and evil or desire to sin.
Please further explain the purpose and effect of God's curse in Genesis 3.

I see children being born in a state of sin (which is anther word meaning separated from God.) It is related to the word Death. Note the last enemy to be destroyed is Death - surely that is SIN.
However returning to the question, I see the above verses as showing what kind of attitude we should have. Note "the kingdom belongs to SUCH as these." IOW of like kind. Again "Whoever then humbles himself LIKE these." Though I paraphrase slightly, I hope you can see I have only done so to highlight the point that is being childlike, without being childish which is what God wants.
Child like I understand as NOT boasting in yourself. Notice kids sometimes say, "My Dad is bigger / stronger / richer etc than your Dad" This is boasting in the Father NOT in themselves.
They also are reliant on their parents.
They also trust their parents.
They also don't know what is impossible and have faith in what the parents can do.

Just my take on this.

LookingUp
Apr 11th 2013, 02:17 AM
It was suggested in another thread (boy these threads seem more like winding county roads ;)) that based on the following verses we are born - as children - innocent, i.e. sinless or in some way righteous in the sight of God. What say you?There is a difference between innocent and righteous. Babies are innocent.

Matt 19:14) But Jesus said, "Let the children alone, and do not hinder them from coming to Me; for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these."

Matt18:3) Jesus said, "Truly I say to you, unless you are converted and become like children, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven.
4) "Whoever then humbles himself as this child, he is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven."


Does't such a view violate the doctrine of sin?
(Rom 3:23, Ecc 7:20, Ps 51:5)No, it doesn't violate it because those Scriptures don't say that we come into this world as sinners.


What was Jesus really saying if he was not saying children are sinless?You have to understand the difference between right and wrong in order to choose right over wrong or wrong over right (i.e. transgress the law).


If children are born without "iniquity", as the Psamist would say it, then at what point in life do we become responsible for sin?Paul says that he was once alive and when when the commandment came in (i.e. he comprehended right from wrong), he died (Rom. 7:9)


If we are born without being compelled to sin being like Adam and Eve in the Garden who sinned out of forgetful disobedence rather than prideful rebellion, please justify your answer with scripture. Who says we are compelled to sin any more than Adam and Eve?




Include your opinion of what is "the knowledge of good and evil".

Becoming a judge.

Explain how it is that we are born with the same opportunity of Adam and Eve, i.e. being created without any knowledge of good and evil or desire to sin.Babies have knowledge of good and evil? Babies "desire" to sin?



Please further explain the purpose and effect of God's curse in Genesis 3.

Purpose? Not sure. I'll think about it.

Aijalon
Apr 11th 2013, 02:35 AM
I find your post to be... hmmm. funny almost. Did you actually read Ps 51:5?

So babies are born unselfish and kind, and... good? And if they are sinless, how can they not be righteous?

Furthermore, if all men are born without sin, having done nothing, then it must be possible for some men to make it quite some time without sinning, surely there are a few perfect people other than Jesus Christ? It is an eventuality that someone would make it all the way without sinning. :lol:

Lily
Apr 11th 2013, 02:41 AM
being like Adam and Eve in the Garden who sinned out of forgetful disobedence rather than prideful rebellion

Forgive me, I have never heard it put this way before... You believe Adam and Eve sinned out of forgetful disobedience? What did they forget? Or, how is forgetful disobedience different from willful disobedience? Do you mean like a child who might forget to take out the trash after he was told to? If so, how would that apply to Adam and Eve?

Regarding the OP, I too believe scripture suggests we are born innocent and that Adam and Eve were also innocent until they willfully disobeyed. We will suffer physical death, regardless, but until one understands that something is "wrong" and does it anyway, they are innocent.

Nick
Apr 11th 2013, 02:59 AM
There is a difference between innocent and righteous. Babies are innocent..

Does God kill the innocent? Did He ever command His people to kill babies? Before you answer, read 1 Samuel 15:2-3. Now why would a God of only Love kill infants? Here's a hint...it's called "cleansing". No, babies are innocent if they are born of the wrong seed. They are the collateral damage of God's wrath. God really didn't like the Amalelites.

"This is what the Lord Almighty says: ‘I will punish the Amalekites for what they did to Israel when they waylaid them as they came up from Egypt. 3 Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy[a] all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.’”

Here we have a clear example of where the "innocent" were predestined for destruction, even before they were knit together in their mother's womb.

Noeb
Apr 11th 2013, 03:35 AM
It was suggested in another thread (boy these threads seem more like winding county roads ;)) that based on the following verses we are born - as children - innocent, i.e. sinless or in some way righteous in the sight of God. What say you?


Matt 19:14) But Jesus said, "Let the children alone, and do not hinder them from coming to Me; for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these."

Matt18:3) Jesus said, "Truly I say to you, unless you are converted and become like children, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven.
4) "Whoever then humbles himself as this child, he is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven."


Does't such a view violate the doctrine of sin?
(Rom 3:23, Ecc 7:20, Ps 51:5)

What was Jesus really saying if he was not saying children are sinless?

If children are born without "iniquity", as the Psamist would say it, then at what point in life do we become responsible for sin? If we are born without being compelled to sin, being like Adam and Eve in the Garden who sinned out of forgetful disobedence rather than prideful rebellion, please justify your answer with scripture.

Include your opinion of what is "the knowledge of good and evil".
Explain how it is that we are born with the same opportunity of Adam and Eve, i.e. being created without any knowledge of good and evil or desire to sin.
Please further explain the purpose and effect of God's curse in Genesis 3.

Why did you jump from what we do, back to our state at birth? See your error?

Gadgeteer
Apr 11th 2013, 05:20 AM
There is a difference between innocent and righteous. Babies are innocent. No, it doesn't violate it because those Scriptures don't say that we come into this world as sinners.Exactly what is "sin"? Though rebellion against God is sin, it technically is "falling short of the mark".

The thing about children (and those with damaged/limited intelligence) --- they cannot make moral decisions. No one goes to Hell by accident; conscious willful unbelief is what condemns us --- 1Jn5:10. A child cannot manifest unbelief necessary for condemnation.


You have to understand the difference between right and wrong in order to choose right over wrong or wrong over right (i.e. transgress the law).'Zactly.


Does't such a view violate the doctrine of sin?
(Rom 3:23, Ecc 7:20, Ps 51:5)You quoted Jesus saying "the kingdom of Heaven belongs to children". Do you have some way to dismiss Jesus' words? Can we ignore them or change their meaning?

Jesus said the kingdom of Heaven belongs to these children; and unless one humbles himself as a child he will never see Heaven --- unless one BECOMES LIKE one of these children.

How many meanings could Jesus have intended?

Aijalon
Apr 11th 2013, 08:28 PM
Why did you jump from what we do, back to our state at birth? See your error?

Where does the Bible say only our adult/informed actions condemn us? And where does the Bible say we are right with God at birth? Where does it say we're innocent at birth? It says otherwise!

what is our state at birth? Isn't the doctrine of sin that mankind is a fallen race. Do we not know good and evil even from birth? Please show me where the Bible says otherwise.

Where does the Bible say there is any middle ground between belief and unbelief?

Where does it say we must make a moral decision in order for God to make up his mind about us. Of course willful unbelief is condemning. And before this we're already condmened. How else can Adam's one sin be toward all men condemnation? Why does Romans constantly speak of the condemnation toward all men if all men are not already condemned from birth? And what is Ps 51:5 talking about then?

I see no reason to even go on with this thread, you are so desperatly and willfully overlooking man's sin and separation from God in favor of your own funny docrine. I didn't even realize people could disagree with Calvin's first point. But I guess if you make up enough moral platitudes about sinless babies you can reach any conclusion!

As you contemplate these questions consider the difference between the Hebrew verb for "sinning" chatta'
which means figuratively to "miss the mark" (to err)

and its noun form -
chatta'ath
Which means a state of guilt, or guiltiness, a condition of sin-guilt.

EDIT > There is also the word `avon , meaning iniquity or guilt & consequenses of.... (Ex 20:5 and Ex 34:7)

Before even futhering this discussion with anyone thinking they were born guiltless, for we are all born with sin-guilt on us, otherwise it would not be said by God that he visits the sin of the father upon the third and fourth generation, read up on your definition of sin a little bit more. An individual act of sin, that which you suggest babies are incapable of, is not the subject at hand. The subject at hand is the condition of mankind, its state of sin, and the way in which God regards this sin as an automatic sentence of condemnation.

I'm not going to continue this rediculous discussion about babies incapable of making decisions. Get real. If you want to talk about sinlessness, there is only one human being that ever was, Jesus Christ. Any other view is heresy.

Nick
Apr 11th 2013, 08:43 PM
Jump? Who says our actions condemned us? And where does the Bible say we are right with God at birth? Where does it say we're innocent at birth? It says otherwise!

what is our state at birth? Isn't the doctrine of sin that mankind is a fallen race. Do we not know good and evil even from birth? Please show me where the Bible says otherwise.

It doesn't. In fact we are born to sin. Sinning is our natural state of being. Following Christ is to do the unnatural. One look at today's global society should confirm that. This perfect ideal of loving one another unconditionally is a very foreign concept to most, and if not, certainly one that requires lots of practice.

RogerW
Apr 11th 2013, 08:46 PM
Jump? Who says our actions condemned us? And where does the Bible say we are right with God at birth? Where does it say we're innocent at birth? It says otherwise!

what is our state at birth? Isn't the doctrine of sin that mankind is a fallen race. Do we not know good and evil even from birth? Please show me where the Bible says otherwise.

The state of mankind at physical birth...all are born under the sentence of death. Not according to the sins every human will ultimately commit, but according to or on account of the disobedience of our first parents.

LookingUp
Apr 11th 2013, 09:46 PM
I find your post to be... hmmm. funny almost.Thank you for your transparency. Itís nice to know oneís character from the beginning of a discussion.


Did you actually read Ps 51:5?Yes, I read verse 5. Did you read verses 1 through 4 and verses 6 through 19?


So babies are born unselfish and kind, and... good? Infants are not born as sinners. To become a sinner, one must sin. Sin is transgression of the law. Tell me how an infant transgresses the law.


And if they are sinless, how can they not be righteous?To be "sinless" is to be without sin (i.e. to have never transgressed the law). To behave righteously is to choose right over wrong.

To ďbeĒ righteous is through Christ alone. To ďbehaveĒ righteously requires a conscious awareness of right and wrong.


Furthermore, if all men are born without sin, having done nothing, then it must be possible for some men to make it quite some time without sinning,
Without consciously sinning, yes. Without intentionally sinning, yes. At some point, an infant moves into childhood and may sin in ignorance, but it is not until s/he develops conscious awareness of right and wrong that he/she begins to partake in conscious and/or intentional sin.


surely there are a few perfect people other than Jesus Christ? Not that Iím aware of.


It is an eventuality that someone would make it all the way without sinning. Why is that?

LookingUp
Apr 11th 2013, 10:01 PM
Does God kill the innocent?There have been times.


Did He ever command His people to kill babies? Yes.


Now why would a God of only Love kill infants?What is wrong with God killing innocent infants?


Here we have a clear example of where the "innocent" were predestined for destruction, even before they were knit together in their mother's womb.Scripture doesn’t say they were “predestined.” You made that up.

LookingUp
Apr 11th 2013, 10:02 PM
Why did you jump from what we do, back to our state at birth? See your error?Yep. Nice catch.

LookingUp
Apr 11th 2013, 10:03 PM
Exactly what is "sin"? Though rebellion against God is sin, it technically is "falling short of the mark".

The thing about children (and those with damaged/limited intelligence) --- they cannot make moral decisions. No one goes to Hell by accident; conscious willful unbelief is what condemns us --- 1Jn5:10. A child cannot manifest unbelief necessary for condemnation.

'Zactly.

You quoted Jesus saying "the kingdom of Heaven belongs to children". Do you have some way to dismiss Jesus' words? Can we ignore them or change their meaning?

Jesus said the kingdom of Heaven belongs to these children; and unless one humbles himself as a child he will never see Heaven --- unless one BECOMES LIKE one of these children.

How many meanings could Jesus have intended?Tried to rep, but gotta "spread it around."

Nick
Apr 11th 2013, 10:05 PM
Scripture doesn’t say they were “predestined.” You made that up.

Were the babies given a chance to respond to God or was their fate sealed before they could decide from themselves? That is called "predestined for destruction". I didn't make anything up. Can a baby decide for himself? Can a baby pray or repent? You tell me. You seem to have this idea that God is a benevolent teddy bear. While that is true He is also a God of judgement, wrath and punishment where the "innocent" are condemned with the guilty - the sins of father.....

LookingUp
Apr 11th 2013, 10:18 PM
Where does the Bible say only our adult/informed actions condemn us? Romans 6-7


It says otherwise!Where?


Do we not know good and evil even from birth? Please show me where the Bible says otherwise.Show us where it says ďhumans know evil from birth.Ē Thatís a lie that you made up.


Where does the Bible say there is any middle ground between belief and unbelief?What in the world are you talking about?


Where does it say we must make a moral decision in order for God to make up his mind about us. Romans 6-7


And before this we're already condmened. Not biblical.


How else can Adam's one sin be toward all mencondemnation? And in the same verse, it says that Christís obedience is toward all men justification. Are all men saved?


Why does Romans constantly speak of the condemnation toward all men if all men are not already condemned from birth? Because all men are condemned to eternal death when they sin.


And what is Ps 51:5 talking about then?Who wrote it? Who was the Psalm about?


Ö you are so desperatly and willfully overlooking man's sin and separation from God in favor of your own funny docrine.And what doctrine is that?


I didn't even realize people could disagree with Calvin's first point. The Almighty Calvin. Let us all bow down. How dare we disagree with HIM.


But I guess if you make up enough moral platitudes about sinless babies you can reach any conclusion!We are all waiting for you to demonstrate how infants transgress the law.


As you contemplate these questions consider the difference between the Hebrew verb for "sinning" chatta'
which means figuratively to "miss the mark" (to err)

and its noun form -
chatta'ath
Which means a state of guilt, or guiltiness, a condition of sin-guilt.Uh, yeah, because when we miss the mark, we feel guilt.


God that he visits the sin of the father upon the third and fourth generation, Thatís not what that means. It means that sin has long-lasting consequences.


Any other view is heresy.So saith Aijalon!

LookingUp
Apr 11th 2013, 10:22 PM
You seem to have this idea that God is a benevolent teddy bear.And you seem to have this idea that God is a malevolent monster. I pick mine over yours any day.

I gotta run...I'll be back to reply to the rest, because I actually respond to every single post whenever humanly possible.

Nick
Apr 11th 2013, 10:33 PM
And you seem to have this idea that God is a malevolent monster. I pick mine over yours any day.

I gotta run...I'll be back to reply to the rest, because I actually respond to every single post whenever humanly possible.

Cute. You are commanded to love me unconditionally whether you agree me or not. With that in mind, I pick both because both are true. God character's is not mutually exclusive between love and wrath.

LookingUp
Apr 11th 2013, 10:59 PM
Cute.:D


You are commanded to love me unconditionally whether you agree me or not.Ah, dang it! :P


With that in mind, I pick both because both are true.Whoa, hold on there. God is a malevolent monster?


God character's is not mutually exclusive between love and wrath.Godly wrath is not malicious.

Nick
Apr 11th 2013, 11:06 PM
Whoa, hold on there. God is a malevolent monster?.

Yes, when someone or something arises His jealousy they face His malevolent wrath. How many times does God refer to Himself as a Jealous God? One time in particular He says His name is Jealous. Exo 34:14 "Do not worship any other god, for the Lord, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God."



Godly wrath is not malicious.

Can you please help me understand "godly" wrath as it pertains to the OP or babies? Are these babies killed out of love or vindictive judgement? Here is "our" biggest area of disconnect. You seem to believe God operates by human standards of righteousness. He doesn't. God operates in His own realm that none of us, even the smartest of us, will ever fully comprehend.

LookingUp
Apr 11th 2013, 11:11 PM
Were the babies given a chance to respond to God or was their fate sealed before they could decide from themselves? Okay, in response to the rest of your post…because that’s how reciprocal discussions work...

Babies who die are NOT given a chance to accept or reject God.


That is called "predestined for destruction". Where is Scripture that says the premature death of a baby means the baby is “predestined for destruction”? Prove it already!


I didn't make anything up.Did so.


Can a baby decide for himself? Nope.


Can a baby pray or repent?Nope.


You tell me. Just did. See how easy it is to answer questions when you’re sure of what Scripture teaches?


where the "innocent" are condemned with the guilty - the sins of father.....

Deuteronomy 24:16
Fathers shall not be put to death for their sons, nor shall sons be put to death for their fathers; everyone shall be put to death for his OWN sin.

Ezekiel 18:20
The person who sins will die. The son will not bear the punishment for the father's iniquity, nor will the father bear the punishment for the son's iniquity; the righteousness of the righteous will be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked will be upon himself.

LookingUp
Apr 11th 2013, 11:16 PM
Can you please help me understand "godly" wrath as it pertains to the OP or babies? Are these babies killed out of love or vindictive judgement? Here is "our" biggest area of disconnect. You seem to believe God operates by human standards of righteousness. He doesn't. God operates in His own realm that none of us, even the smartest of us, will ever fully comprehend.Oh, I comprehend it. Simply put, others’ sin causes innocent ones to be killed.

LookingUp
Apr 11th 2013, 11:25 PM
Yes, when someone or something arises His jealousy they face His malevolent wrath.Godís wrath is not malevolent/wicked/vindictive. Godís wrath is righteous judgment against wickedness.


Can you please help me understand "godly" wrath as it pertains to the OP or babies? God has wrath against the wicked, not babies! Wow, you do you worship?


Are these babies killed out of love or vindictive judgement?The babies are VICTIMS of their fatherís sin. VICTIMS, not recipients.

Brother Paul
Apr 11th 2013, 11:38 PM
I find your post to be... hmmm. funny almost. Did you actually read Ps 51:5?

So babies are born unselfish and kind, and... good? And if they are sinless, how can they not be righteous?

Furthermore, if all men are born without sin, having done nothing, then it must be possible for some men to make it quite some time without sinning, surely there are a few perfect people other than Jesus Christ? It is an eventuality that someone would make it all the way without sinning. :lol:

Psalm 51:5 only speaks of David's parents iniquity it does not mention David being born iniquitous...

Babies are a the heritage of the Lord....blessed is the man whose quiver is full...their angels behold the face of the Father always...this would all be very curious if they were born little devils already separated from God, don't ya think? Or should we cut out these and the many other scriptures like them to support the unbiblical view of depravity as meaning absolutely incapable?

They have no sin because they have not sinned, and they are not "righteous" because they have not faithed...

Brother Paul

Brother Paul
Apr 11th 2013, 11:41 PM
The Law and the Prophets say the Lord does not hold the sins of the fathers (including Adam's) against the children...the soul that sins...IT must die...(but now by grace we can die in Christ or outside of Christ)

Brother Paul

Nick
Apr 11th 2013, 11:47 PM
Oh, I comprehend it. Simply put, others’ sin causes innocent ones to be killed.

Yes, basically. Are you familiar with Exodus 34:6-7, Deut 5:9, and Exo 20:5? We'll focus on Exo 34:6-7 since that more specifically addresses your statement.

First we have a merciful and gracious God, slow to anger, abounding in love, etc. Next we are shown what happens to those who defy Him. Let's take a look.

"The Lord passed before him and proclaimed, “The Lord, the Lord, a God merciful and gracious, slow to anger, and abounding in steadfast love and faithfulness, 7 keeping steadfast love for thousands,[a] forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, but who will by no means clear the guilty, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children and the children's children, to the third and the fourth generation.”

At face value, we you do (what I do) will have an effect on our children AND the unborn children of our children's children. Pretty strong incentive to "abide in Him", no? Thoughts? God commands us to love Him but we should also fear Him. Scripture is abound with verses that tell us to fear God. Would you like me to post, I don't know, like 20 of them?

LookingUp
Apr 11th 2013, 11:58 PM
Psalm 51:5 only speaks of David's parents iniquity it does not mention David being born iniquitous...

Babies are a the heritage of the Lord....blessed is the man whose quiver is full...their angels behold the face of the Father always...this would all be very curious if they were born little devils already separated from God, don't ya think? Or should we cut out these and the many other scriptures like them to support the unbiblical view of depravity as meaning absolutely incapable?

They have no sin because they have not sinned, and they are not "righteous" because they have not faithed...

Brother PaulI couldn't rep you...had to "spread it around." :-)

Nick
Apr 12th 2013, 12:05 AM
Deuteronomy 24:16
Fathers shall not be put to death for their sons, nor shall sons be put to death for their fathers; everyone shall be put to death for his OWN sin.

Ezekiel 18:20
The person who sins will die. The son will not bear the punishment for the father's iniquity, nor will the father bear the punishment for the son's iniquity; the righteousness of the righteous will be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked will be upon himself.

Looks like we have some more "reconciling" to do with opposing Scripture since it cannot contradict itself.

Duet 24:16 is dealing with legal matters as the context in 24:6-19 clearly shows. Remember, it's ALL about context. Context, context, context. Exekiel 18:20 is merely recounting the Law of the Pentateuch. Again, we're dealing with the legality aspect within the Jewish court system. You are using these verses completely OUT OF CONTEXT.

On the other hand, Exo 20:5 and Deut 5:9, is dealing with the 10 commandments. That is crystal clear. Do you now understand the difference between violating a covenant with God and violating a legal matter in Jewish Law???

LookingUp
Apr 12th 2013, 12:05 AM
Thoughts?I already gave you my thoughts. Innocent children die because of others’ sin. That doesn’t mean these children go to hell. What’s so hard for you to grasp about this concept?

LookingUp
Apr 12th 2013, 12:07 AM
Exo 20:5 and Deut 5:9, is dealing with the 10 commandments. And the 10 commandments aren’t related to “legal” matters? WRONG!

Nick
Apr 12th 2013, 12:37 AM
And the 10 commandments aren’t related to “legal” matters? WRONG!

The Law of the Pentateuch include 613 laws, not 10. The Torah is not written in stone. The 10 commandments define the heart of the covenant relationship between God and Israel. They specifically deal with God punishing the children for the rebellious fathers' sins. Hopefully that clears it up for you.

LookingUp
Apr 12th 2013, 12:47 AM
They specifically deal with God punishing the children for the rebellious fathers' sins. Nick, you will have to prove it.

CandiceL85
Apr 12th 2013, 12:56 AM
I see children being born in a state of sin (which is anther word meaning separated from God.) It is related to the word Death. Note the last enemy to be destroyed is Death - surely that is SIN.

I haven't read the whole thread, but I agree with this.

Nick
Apr 12th 2013, 01:00 AM
Nick, you will have to prove it.

You cited Deut 24:16 as your counterpoint for God not punishing the children for the father's sins. I suggested you simply evaluate the CONTEXT in which that was said and what it referred to - legal matters not God's covenant with Israel, specifically idolatry.

Deut 24:6-19 are common laws, not a violation of the First and Greatest Commandment.

6 “No one shall take a mill or an upper millstone in pledge, for that would be taking a life in pledge.

7 “If a man is found stealing one of his brothers of the people of Israel, and if he treats him as a slave or sells him, then that thief shall die. So you shall purge the evil from your midst.

8 “Take care, in a case of leprous[a] disease, to be very careful to do according to all that the Levitical priests shall direct you. As I commanded them, so you shall be careful to do. 9 Remember what the Lord your God did to Miriam on the way as you came out of Egypt.

10 “When you make your neighbor a loan of any sort, you shall not go into his house to collect his pledge. 11 You shall stand outside, and the man to whom you make the loan shall bring the pledge out to you. 12 And if he is a poor man, you shall not sleep in his pledge. 13 You shall restore to him the pledge as the sun sets, that he may sleep in his cloak and bless you. And it shall be righteousness for you before the Lord your God.

14 “You shall not oppress a hired worker who is poor and needy, whether he is one of your brothers or one of the sojourners who are in your land within your towns. 15 You shall give him his wages on the same day, before the sun sets (for he is poor and counts on it), lest he cry against you to the Lord, and you be guilty of sin.

16 “Fathers shall not be put to death because of their children, nor shall children be put to death because of their fathers. Each one shall be put to death for his own sin.

17 “You shall not pervert the justice due to the sojourner or to the fatherless, or take a widow's garment in pledge, 18 but you shall remember that you were a slave in Egypt and the Lord your God redeemed you from there; therefore I command you to do this.

19 “When you reap your harvest in your field and forget a sheaf in the field, you shall not go back to get it. It shall be for the sojourner, the fatherless, and the widow, that the Lord your God may bless you in all the work of your hands.

LookingUp
Apr 12th 2013, 01:17 AM
I haven't read the whole thread, but I agree with this.You can agree with it, but unless you can prove it with Scripture, your agreement has little value.

LookingUp
Apr 12th 2013, 01:32 AM
You cited Deut 24:16 as your counterpoint for God not punishing the children for the father's sins. I suggested you simply evaluate the CONTEXT in which that was said and what it referred to - legal matters not God's covenant with Israel, specifically idolatry. ...Blah, blah, blah, Nick. We are headed for eternal death because of our OWN sin. Period. You have no case to say that any person is sent to an eternal death because of the sin of another. Period. Next.


Deuteronomy 24:16Fathers shall not be put to death for their sons, nor shall sons be put to death for their fathers; everyone shall be put to death for his OWN sin.


Ezekiel 18:20
The person who sins will die. The son will not bear the punishment for the father's iniquity, nor will the father bear the punishment for the son's iniquity; the righteousness of the righteous will be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked will be upon himself.

Nick
Apr 12th 2013, 01:47 AM
Blah, blah, blah, Nick. We are headed for eternal death because of our OWN sin. Period. You have no case to say that any person is sent to an eternal death because of the sin of another. Period. Next.

Blah, blah, blah?? Really??? You asked me to "prove it", which I did, and you respond with blah, blah, blah? Wow. Is that how you concede when you're proven wrong?

Lily
Apr 12th 2013, 01:49 AM
I'm primarily speaking about when a father misleads his family into rejecting God, the effect of which is often felt for generations. This is because the father is being covenantally unfaithful and God has stipulated that there are punishments to breaking the covenant with God.

Yes, the effect is felt, and the children can suffer for generations (e.g. A mother addicted to pills and an absent father "raise" a child who, as a result, doesn't receive an education, among other things he doesn't receive, so he never learns a skill and he ends up depressed and in debt, he's suicidal and his own children become even worse off than he was, etc. etc.).

But that is different than the child being guilty of and punished for the sins of his parents. He may suffer, but he's not personally being punished by God for their sins.

LookingUp
Apr 12th 2013, 02:28 AM
Blah, blah, blah?? Really??? You asked me to "prove it", which I did, and you respond with blah, blah, blah? Wow. Is that how you concede when you're proven wrong?You didn't prove anything.

Nick
Apr 12th 2013, 04:36 AM
You didn't prove anything.

Actually I did. I clearly showed the difference in the punishment for breaking Jewish law and God's first two commandments.

LookingUp
Apr 12th 2013, 04:46 AM
Yes, the effect is felt, and the children can suffer for generations (e.g. A mother addicted to pills and an absent father "raise" a child who, as a result, doesn't receive an education, among other things he doesn't receive, so he never learns a skill and he ends up depressed and in debt, he's suicidal and his own children become even worse off than he was, etc. etc.).

But that is different than the child being guilty of and punished for the sins of his parents. He may suffer, but he's not personally being punished by God for their sins.Exactly. Pay attention, Nick.


Actually I did. I clearly showed the difference in the punishment for breaking Jewish law and God's first two commandments.Nope.

ewq1938
Apr 12th 2013, 04:57 AM
Eze 18:2 What mean ye, that ye use this proverb concerning the land of Israel, saying, The fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the children's teeth are set on edge?
Eze 18:3 As I live, saith the Lord GOD, ye shall not have occasion any more to use this proverb in Israel.
Eze 18:4 Behold, all souls are mine; as the soul of the father, so also the soul of the son is mine: the soul that sinneth, it shall die.
Eze 18:5 But if a man be just, and do that which is lawful and right,
Eze 18:6 And hath not eaten upon the mountains, neither hath lifted up his eyes to the idols of the house of Israel, neither hath defiled his neighbour's wife, neither hath come near to a menstruous woman,
Eze 18:7 And hath not oppressed any, but hath restored to the debtor his pledge, hath spoiled none by violence, hath given his bread to the hungry, and hath covered the naked with a garment;
Eze 18:8 He that hath not given forth upon usury, neither hath taken any increase, that hath withdrawn his hand from iniquity, hath executed true judgment between man and man,
Eze 18:9 Hath walked in my statutes, and hath kept my judgments, to deal truly; he is just, he shall surely live, saith the Lord GOD.
Eze 18:10 If he beget a son that is a robber, a shedder of blood, and that doeth the like to any one of these things,
Eze 18:11 And that doeth not any of those duties, but even hath eaten upon the mountains, and defiled his neighbour's wife,
Eze 18:12 Hath oppressed the poor and needy, hath spoiled by violence, hath not restored the pledge, and hath lifted up his eyes to the idols, hath committed abomination,
Eze 18:13 Hath given forth upon usury, and hath taken increase: shall he then live? he shall not live: he hath done all these abominations; he shall surely die; his blood shall be upon him.
Eze 18:14 Now, lo, if he beget a son, that seeth all his father's sins which he hath done, and considereth, and doeth not such like,
Eze 18:15 That hath not eaten upon the mountains, neither hath lifted up his eyes to the idols of the house of Israel, hath not defiled his neighbour's wife,
Eze 18:16 Neither hath oppressed any, hath not withholden the pledge, neither hath spoiled by violence, but hath given his bread to the hungry, and hath covered the naked with a garment,
Eze 18:17 That hath taken off his hand from the poor, that hath not received usury nor increase, hath executed my judgments, hath walked in my statutes; he shall not die for the iniquity of his father, he shall surely live.
Eze 18:18 As for his father, because he cruelly oppressed, spoiled his brother by violence, and did that which is not good among his people, lo, even he shall die in his iniquity.
Eze 18:19 Yet say ye, Why? doth not the son bear the iniquity of the father? When the son hath done that which is lawful and right, and hath kept all my statutes, and hath done them, he shall surely live.
Eze 18:20 The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.

Inherited sin, original sin, inherited sin nature, kind after kind meanings the parent's morality is passed on, it's all lies.

Nick
Apr 12th 2013, 05:00 AM
Exactly. Pay attention, Nick.

I like Lily's explanation. The offspring are punished for the sins of the parents. It doesn't mean they are guilty of the sins of the parents but they are certainly punished for them. The examples she gave were spot on too and something I can relate to on a personal level.


Nope.

Then there's no need to further discuss. Just take Exo 20:5, 34:6-7 and Deut 5:9 and rip them right out of your Bible because you won't engage those verses. That must mean they are irrelevant and something different than what God actually said, and more importantly, why He said it (Idolatry). Oh wait, God changed His mind, right?

retro
Apr 12th 2013, 07:47 AM
The sins of the father punishing the son are a natural consequence.in this life Some are more far reaching than others such as race mixing .

Each Israelite when he comes before Yawheh will be judged on his own works. and his relationship to Jesus .

ewq1938
Apr 12th 2013, 07:53 AM
The sins of the father punishing the son are a natural consequence.

No, its not natural nor is it true.

Eze 18:20 The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.

Scripture is clear on this matter.

John146
Apr 12th 2013, 02:03 PM
I find your post to be... hmmm. funny almost. Did you actually read Ps 51:5?

So babies are born unselfish and kind, and... good? And if they are sinless, how can they not be righteous?

Furthermore, if all men are born without sin, having done nothing, then it must be possible for some men to make it quite some time without sinning, surely there are a few perfect people other than Jesus Christ? It is an eventuality that someone would make it all the way without sinning. :lol:
Please tell me what sins a baby is guilty of having committed.

John146
Apr 12th 2013, 02:12 PM
Blah, blah, blah?? Really??? You asked me to "prove it", which I did, and you respond with blah, blah, blah? Wow. Is that how you concede when you're proven wrong?
Nick, you didn't prove anything. You're acting as if you're proving something, but you definitely are not. Just give us a scripture which clearly shows that people can be held responsible for someone else's sin and we can be done with this. Can you do that?

RogerW
Apr 12th 2013, 02:47 PM
No, its not natural nor is it true.

Eze 18:20 The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.

Scripture is clear on this matter.

I agree...we are not condemned for the sins of the first man, but we are ALL born condemned to death because of the sins of the first man. Even the infant in the womb must be saved by grace or suffer the same consquence of death that every man is born under. None are righteousness, but all human kind MAY be saved by grace through Christ, because salvation is of the Lord and He will save His people (all of THEM) from the sentence of death every human is born under.

So it really makes little difference to argue over any particular sin. For the fact remains we are all born condemned already, and we will die unless we are saved by grace!

John146
Apr 12th 2013, 03:10 PM
I agree...we are not condemned for the sins of the first man, but we are ALL born condemned to death because of the sins of the first man.Where does scripture teach this? Wouldn't it be the case that all people are held responsible and are guilty for Adam's sins if we are all condemned to death because of his sins? How does that line up with the scripture which teaches that each person is responsible only for their own sin? What you're saying makes all people responsible for Adam's sins. No. I'm only responsible for my own sins, not Adam's.

Aijalon
Apr 12th 2013, 03:25 PM
Please tell me what sins a baby is guilty of having committed.
I agree completely with RogerW's last. You're missing the point entirely, the committing of sin by the baby is a red herring here, because it has no bearing on the condemnation to all mankind by the one sin of our ancestor, Adam.

If you can explain to me that Adam's sin wasn't condemnation to all men (directly refuting Romans 5) you would be a genious.

12 because of this, even as through one man the sin did enter into the world, and through the sin the death; and thus to all men the death did pass through, for that all did sin;
13 for till law sin was in the world: and sin is not reckoned when there is not law;
14 but the death did reign from Adam till Moses, even upon those not having sinned in the likeness of Adam's transgression, who is a type of him who is coming.

There it is plainly stated, death, caused by SIN came upon all men, even before they ever transgressed any command of God. But now we have seen the law, and though we are freed from the law of Moses, which reigned from Moses to Jesus, we are still not out from under the death caused by sin, which is still in the world. No one is sinless, and nowhere are babies exempted (unless you can show that the verses from Matthew given in the OP are such an exemption).

19 for as through the disobedience of the one man, the many were constituted sinners: so also through the obedience of the one, shall the many be constituted righteous.

Remember that in Romans 5 the "all men" refers to mankind and "the many" refers to all those who believe. Verse 19 says that all of us who believe were previously counted sinners. This was imputed on us by the Sin of Adam, and not by any actions of our own. We are born with wicked hearts that know how to do evil, because this is now embedded in our flesh which is separated from God by its nature. The natural man, and the reborn spritual man are oposed to each other. When we are born again, our spirit is regenerated and is counted righteous, but our born again nature does not change the flesh, we must war against it because it continues to try to corrupt our spirit which is linked to the flesh by the soul.

Jesus Christ was the only man to live in a body of corrupted flesh, with fleshly desires and needs, but had a spirit which was perfect so that it could overcome every sinful lust and temptation. Because he is God of course. And isn't it amazing that God would take on this body of decaying flesh? It is like putting on filthy rags! We are fearfully and wonderfully made, certainly, but we are also disgusting, wicked, and smelly creatures. The idea that a perfect God came among us and lived like us is downright amazing. And for some it is sadly, unbelievable.

Suggestion that other humans were ever born perfect and sinless is a suggestion of heresy because it elevates the human being to the level of another birth of Christ, a perfect spirit. Adam's spirit was born perfect, but it was also born without any knowledge of good or evil. This knowledge was held by God and the angels until after the fruit was eaten, the knowledge was passed on to us, into our nature, through the sinful act of Adam's disobedience. We can never repeat this act because no man ever after Adam can ever say "I did not know good from evil!". You are born with it. I might add that, we're born purely evil, and not good at all, because goodness is to be completely free of evil. And we know that no one is good but God (Luke 18:19). Only God can know evil, and yet never comit evil, because he set the boundaries for the definition of evil, which he is not.

Slug1
Apr 12th 2013, 03:33 PM
Nick, you didn't prove anything. You're acting as if you're proving something, but you definitely are not. Just give us a scripture which clearly shows that people can be held responsible for someone else's sin and we can be done with this. Can you do that?We can be held responsible for the acts of others, acts that are in disobedience to God, rebellion. All of Israel was told not to take anything out of Jericho. Well, something was taken out of Jericho and all of Israel was held responsible for the transgression of one family.

Even church leaders will be held at a stricter judgement. So if they know of sin in their congregation and do nothing... they will be judged for this lack of getting into the trench with that sheep deep in sin. How does that affect a church leader now... well, like with Jericho, there may be a person in rebellion within their church body and thus, when nothing is going good for the church they are responsible for... seek out the rebellion and fix it. Looking at those who hold authority on the altar (pastors, elders, deacons, worship team, etc) is usually a place to start looking. Or.... do as Joshua did and seek God and let God reveal.

Nick
Apr 12th 2013, 03:51 PM
Nick, you didn't prove anything. You're acting as if you're proving something, but you definitely are not. Just give us a scripture which clearly shows that people can be held responsible for someone else's sin and we can be done with this. Can you do that?

I already did with Exodus 34:6-7, Deut 5:9, and Exo 20:5.

Exo 34:6-7

"The Lord passed before him and proclaimed, “The Lord, the Lord, a God merciful and gracious, slow to anger, and abounding in steadfast love and faithfulness, 7 keeping steadfast love for thousands,[a] forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, but who will by no means clear the guilty, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children and the children's children, to the third and the fourth generation.”

These two verses are clear examples of God's wrath for Idolatry: Exo 20:5 and Deut 5:9

"You shall not bow down to them or serve them, for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and the fourth generation of those who hate me," - Pretty clear to me. First and Second commandment violation.

And God repeats Himself here. It mst have been an important point because He repeats Himself 3 times.

"You shall not bow down to them or serve them; for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me," Crystal clear. First and Second commandment violation.

I suppose we're done now? I would surely hope so unless of course there is another plausible explanation to this very self-evident statement made by God on 3 separate occasions.

Gadgeteer
Apr 12th 2013, 04:03 PM
I haven't read the whole thread, but I agree with this.

Hi, Candice, Welcome.

What do you think about Matt19:14? Jesus said the kingdom of Heaven belongs to children.

Does it?

Nick
Apr 12th 2013, 05:18 PM
Hi, Candice, Welcome.

What do you think about Matt19:14? Jesus said the kingdom of Heaven belongs to children.

Does it?

Jesus was speaking of the children metaphorically, not literally. The metaphor using children serves as an example of the humility necessary to enter the kingdom of heaven.

percho
Apr 12th 2013, 05:25 PM
It was suggested in another thread (boy these threads seem more like winding county roads ;)) that based on the following verses we are born - as children - innocent, i.e. sinless or in some way righteous in the sight of God. What say you?


Matt 19:14) But Jesus said, "Let the children alone, and do not hinder them from coming to Me; for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these."

Matt18:3) Jesus said, "Truly I say to you, unless you are converted and become like children, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven.
4) "Whoever then humbles himself as this child, he is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven."


Does't such a view violate the doctrine of sin?
(Rom 3:23, Ecc 7:20, Ps 51:5)

What was Jesus really saying if he was not saying children are sinless?

If children are born without "iniquity", as the Psamist would say it, then at what point in life do we become responsible for sin? If we are born without being compelled to sin, being like Adam and Eve in the Garden who sinned out of forgetful disobedence rather than prideful rebellion, please justify your answer with scripture.

Include your opinion of what is "the knowledge of good and evil".
Explain how it is that we are born with the same opportunity of Adam and Eve, i.e. being created without any knowledge of good and evil or desire to sin.
Please further explain the purpose and effect of God's curse in Genesis 3.




Belongs to, such as; must, become like. In other words you must be born again. You must be as children again of the Spirit.

19:16 begins the story of inheriting eternal life and if you follow the story Jesus equates this with inheriting, entering the kingdom of God of which flesh and blood cannot do, Ye must be born again.

Aijalon
Apr 12th 2013, 05:39 PM
Hi, Candice, Welcome.

What do you think about Matt19:14? Jesus said the kingdom of Heaven belongs to children.

Does it?
Your paraphrase of the verse makes it seem that Jesus was expressly saying that all children go to heaven?

14 But Jesus said, `Suffer the children, and forbid them not, to come unto me, for of such is the reign of the heavens;'

The word Kingdom in this case is basileia which can refer to the territory or kingdom itself, or to the royal dominion and power of a king or ruler over the kingdom. The word such is toioutos and means "of like kind" or "similar".

The meaning of the verse is therefore that the kingdom of God will be given to people who are like little children. For this is how God regards us all - as children. And not just any children, but children who are seeking him and humbly asking his favor. For it was only children who were brought to him so that he might pray over them.

13 Then were brought near to him children that he might put hands on them and pray, and the disciples rebuked them.

This idea of children going straight to heaven is not possible to show in this verse, nor anything at all to do with child sinlessness. But if we need to discern what happens to children if they die, we might serve to look at other passages. The question over aborted babies seems quite relevant to this discussion. Some say they go to hell, some say they all go to heaven, but nowhere do we see any exemption for children of original sin.

Personally I think the spritual condition of the parents is critical for the fate of the child (1 Cor 7:14).

Nick
Apr 12th 2013, 05:47 PM
Where does scripture teach this? Wouldn't it be the case that all people are held responsible and are guilty for Adam's sins if we are all condemned to death because of his sins? How does that line up with the scripture which teaches that each person is responsible only for their own sin? What you're saying makes all people responsible for Adam's sins. No. I'm only responsible for my own sins, not Adam's.

It lines up perfectly with Scripture. Mark 9:42 "Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin,[b] it would be better for him if a great millstone were hung around his neck and he were thrown into the sea." We are responsible for the sins we pass on to our children, not just our own sin.

Deut 6:6-9 "And these words that I command you today shall be on your heart. You shall teach them diligently to your children, and shall talk of them when you sit in your house, and when you walk by the way, and when you lie down, and when you rise. 8 You shall bind them as a sign on your hand, and they shall be as frontlets between your eyes. 9 You shall write them on the doorposts of your house and on your gates."

By following the principles of these commands, we teach our children that worshiping God should be constant, not reserved for Sunday mornings or nightly prayers or in some case, not at all.

Prov 13:24 "Whoever spares the rod hates his son, but he who loves him is diligent to discipline him." Why such strong words here?
Prov 19:18 "Discipline your son, for there is hope; do not set your heart on putting him to death." Hope in what?
Prov 22:6 "Train up a child in the way he should go; even when he is old he will not depart from it." Depart from what?

Children who grow up in undisciplined households feel unwanted and unworthy. They lack direction and self-control, and as they get older they rebel and have little or no respect for any kind of authority, including God's. As parents, this is our responsibility, not the church. Children learn by watching us.

John146
Apr 12th 2013, 06:43 PM
I agree completely with RogerW's last. You're missing the point entirely, the committing of sin by the baby is a red herring here, because it has no bearing on the condemnation to all mankind by the one sin of our ancestor, Adam.

If you can explain to me that Adam's sin wasn't condemnation to all men (directly refuting Romans 5) you would be a genious.I'm not a genius, but I can still explain it. The ones who are condemned are the ones who actually sin. Do you think that John 3:18-20 applies to babies?

John 3:18 “He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. 19 And this is the condemnation, that the light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. 20 For everyone practicing evil hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed.

Notice that this is talking about someone being condemned "because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God". It's talking about people who "loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil". It's talking about someone who is "practicing evil" and "hates the light and does not come to the light". Does that seem like a description of babies to you? Absolutely not. People are responsible for what they do, not what Adam did. What Romans 5 is saying is that the sinful nature or natural tendency to sin is inherited by all people and sin brings condemnation. Everyone will sin eventually if they live long enough, but babies don't sin and are not condemned. If babies are condemned then tell me why. Is it not sin and the rejection of Christ that brings condemnation? How does that apply to babies? The condemnation doesn't come until someone actually sins.



12 because of this, even as through one man the sin did enter into the world, and through the sin the death; and thus to all men the death did pass through, for that all did sin;
13 for till law sin was in the world: and sin is not reckoned when there is not law;
14 but the death did reign from Adam till Moses, even upon those not having sinned in the likeness of Adam's transgression, who is a type of him who is coming.

There it is plainly stated, death, caused by SIN came upon all men, even before they ever transgressed any command of God. But now we have seen the law, and though we are freed from the law of Moses, which reigned from Moses to Jesus, we are still not out from under the death caused by sin, which is still in the world. No one is sinless, and nowhere are babies exempted (unless you can show that the verses from Matthew given in the OP are such an exemption).Nowhere are babies said to be guilty of sin. And if they are, please answer my question instead of avoiding it this time. What sin are babies guilty of committing? You can't be condemned for sin if you haven't committed a sin. If you try to say they are born guilty because of Adam's sin then you are saying they are guilty for another person's sin, which is not biblical.


19 for as through the disobedience of the one man, the many were constituted sinners: so also through the obedience of the one, shall the many be constituted righteous.

Remember that in Romans 5 the "all men" refers to mankind and "the many" refers to all those who believe. Verse 19 says that all of us who believe were previously counted sinners. This was imputed on us by the Sin of Adam, and not by any actions of our own.How does that line up with other scripture that says we are only responsible for our own sin? You are making everyone responsible for Adam's sin.


We are born with wicked hearts that know how to do evil, because this is now embedded in our flesh which is separated from God by its nature. Yes, that is true, but that doesn't mean people start sinning right from birth. I say again that one is not guilty of sin before even sinning. That defies all logic and, more importantly, isn't taught in scripture.


Suggestion that other humans were ever born perfect and sinless is a suggestion of heresy because it elevates the human being to the level of another birth of Christ, a perfect spirit.That is not what I'm saying. Please don't waste your time making straw man arguments. Babies aren't perfect. If they live long enough they will sin. Guaranteed. But that doesn't mean they sin right from birth. Of course they don't. So, they are not guilty of sinning. That does not equate them with Christ who did not sin despite being tempted. Babies can't even be tempted.

John146
Apr 12th 2013, 06:48 PM
We can be held responsible for the acts of others, acts that are in disobedience to God, rebellion. All of Israel was told not to take anything out of Jericho. Well, something was taken out of Jericho and all of Israel was held responsible for the transgression of one family.You're talking in a corporate sense there. I'm talking about individual responsibility and accountability. Two different things.


Even church leaders will be held at a stricter judgement. So if they know of sin in their congregation and do nothing... they will be judged for this lack of getting into the trench with that sheep deep in sin.But for them it is a sin to do nothing. That is what they would be held accountable for (doing nothing), not for the sins of others that they did nothing about.

John146
Apr 12th 2013, 07:12 PM
I already did with Exodus 34:6-7, Deut 5:9, and Exo 20:5.

Exo 34:6-7

"The Lord passed before him and proclaimed, “The Lord, the Lord, a God merciful and gracious, slow to anger, and abounding in steadfast love and faithfulness, 7 keeping steadfast love for thousands,[a] forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, but who will by no means clear the guilty, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children and the children's children, to the third and the fourth generation.”This passage (and the others like it) does not teach that children are held responsible for the sins of their parents. I believe you are misinterpreting this passage if that's what you think it is saying. What "the iniquity of the fathers" refers to is the iniquity their fathers committed, which was idolatry. It's not saying that the children would be punished for their father's sins, but rather is saying that they would be punished for committing the same sins that their fathers committed. God punished their fathers for it and would also punish their "children and the children's children, to the third and the fourth generation" IF they committed idolatry as well. The children would be punished for their own sin of committing idolatry, not for the father's sin of committing idolatry. Scripture teaches that each person is responsible for his or her own sin and not anyone else's. Why are you trying to get around that?

Eze 18:19 “Yet you say, ‘Why should the son not bear the guilt of the father?’ Because the son has done what is lawful and right, and has kept all My statutes and observed them, he shall surely live. 20 The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not bear the guilt of the father, nor the father bear the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself.

Can this be any more clear? I don't believe so. You are trying to say "the son shall bear the guilt of the father" but scripture says "The son shall NOT bear the guilt of the father".

Gadgeteer
Apr 12th 2013, 07:22 PM
Jesus was speaking of the children metaphorically, not literally. The metaphor using children serves as an example of the humility necessary to enter the kingdom of heaven.


Then were there brought unto him little children, that he should put [his] hands on them, and pray: and the disciples rebuked them.

But Jesus said, permit (don't send them away) little children, and do not forbid them to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven.

And you perceive He was not talking about LITERAL children?

Really?

http://www.clicksmilies.com/s1106/fragend/confused-smiley-007.gif

John146
Apr 12th 2013, 07:30 PM
It lines up perfectly with Scripture. Mark 9:42 "Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin,[b] it would be better for him if a great millstone were hung around his neck and he were thrown into the sea." We are responsible for the sins we pass on to our children, not just our own sin.We are not responsible for sins that our children commit, if that's what you're saying.

Eze 18:20 The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not bear the guilt of the father, nor the father bear the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself.

We are held responsible if we do anything to try to lead a child astray, but that doesn't mean we are responsible if they don't believe. They would be responsible for their own unbelief.


Deut 6:6-9 "And these words that I command you today shall be on your heart. You shall teach them diligently to your children, and shall talk of them when you sit in your house, and when you walk by the way, and when you lie down, and when you rise. 8 You shall bind them as a sign on your hand, and they shall be as frontlets between your eyes. 9 You shall write them on the doorposts of your house and on your gates."

By following the principles of these commands, we teach our children that worshiping God should be constant, not reserved for Sunday mornings or nightly prayers or in some case, not at all.

Prov 13:24 "Whoever spares the rod hates his son, but he who loves him is diligent to discipline him." Why such strong words here?
Prov 19:18 "Discipline your son, for there is hope; do not set your heart on putting him to death." Hope in what?
Prov 22:6 "Train up a child in the way he should go; even when he is old he will not depart from it." Depart from what?

Children who grow up in undisciplined households feel unwanted and unworthy. They lack direction and self-control, and as they get older they rebel and have little or no respect for any kind of authority, including God's. As parents, this is our responsibility, not the church. Children learn by watching us.Are you trying to say that people who grow up in undisciplined households have an excuse for their rebellion as if they can't help but to rebel? If so, where does scripture teach that? There are plenty of people who grew up under poor circumstances who still ended up repenting and believing in Christ, so I don't see how that can be used as an excuse.

Gadgeteer
Apr 12th 2013, 07:36 PM
Your paraphrase of the verse makes it seem that Jesus was expressly saying that all children go to heaven? Hi, Aijalon. What else could Jesus have meant?


14 But Jesus said, `Suffer the children, and forbid them not, to come unto me, for of such is the reign of the heavens;'

The word Kingdom in this case is basileia which can refer to the territory or kingdom itself, or to the royal dominion and power of a king or ruler over the kingdom. The word such is toioutos and means "of like kind" or "similar".

The meaning of the verse is therefore that the kingdom of God will be given to people who are like little children. For this is how God regards us all - as children. And not just any children, but children who are seeking him and humbly asking his favor. For it was only children who were brought to him so that he might pray over them.If the context is that "we must become like these children to be saved", then how is He not indicating "children are Heaven-bound"?


13 Then were brought near to him children that he might put hands on them and pray, and the disciples rebuked them.

This idea of children going straight to heaven is not possible to show in this verse, nor anything at all to do with child sinlessness. But if we need to discern what happens to children if they die, we might serve to look at other passages. The question over aborted babies seems quite relevant to this discussion. Some say they go to hell, some say they all go to heaven, but nowhere do we see any exemption for children of original sin.As others have eloquently established, each person is condemned for his OWN sin, not for any other's. Children are not capable of sinning, until the "age of accountability".


Personally I think the spiritual condition of the parents is critical for the fate of the child (1 Cor 7:14).Nevertheless, the son shall not bear the sins of the father (Ezk18:19) and those who are condemned are so because of unbelief (Jn3:18. 1Jn5:10).

Each person is held to his level of understanding (Rom2:14-16), and children to THEIR child-like understanding. Small children are like pet dogs and cats; they don't spend any time thinking about accepting God or rejecting Him.

...at least, no dog or cat has ever TOLD me they do...

ewq1938
Apr 12th 2013, 09:29 PM
but we are ALL born condemned to death because of the sins of the first man.

Are you certain the death is the one of the flesh or is it the spiritual death? All will die that death unless they are saved. Physical death also known as the first death is a natural death, not a punishment for any kind of sin. When Adam sinned and God told him he would die that same day, did he die physically or spiritually?

Does scripture not teach we must die to have the next life? Is that first death not a part of God's plan as opposed to a punishment?

1Co 15:35 Some of you have asked, "How will the dead be raised to life? What kind of bodies will they have?"
1Co 15:36 Don't be foolish. A seed must die before it can sprout from the ground.
1Co 15:37 Wheat seeds and all other seeds look different from the sprouts that come up.
1Co 15:38 This is because God gives everything the kind of body he wants it to have.
1Co 15:39 People, animals, birds, and fish are each made of flesh, but none of them are alike.
1Co 15:40 Everything in the heavens has a body, and so does everything on earth. But each one is very different from all the others.
1Co 15:41 The sun isn't like the moon, the moon isn't like the stars, and each star is different.
1Co 15:42 That's how it will be when our bodies are raised to life. These bodies will die, but the bodies that are raised will live forever.
1Co 15:43 These ugly and weak bodies will become beautiful and strong.


See, death is God's way to bring us into a new life. It's designed that way. Death was always part of the plan!

LookingUp
Apr 12th 2013, 09:51 PM
ewq1938,
Very interesting things you've brought up!

ewq1938
Apr 12th 2013, 10:08 PM
I agree completely with RogerW's last. You're missing the point entirely, the committing of sin by the baby is a red herring here, because it has no bearing on the condemnation to all mankind by the one sin of our ancestor, Adam.

No the baby is important because it is being claimed that even babies have inherited sin. Scripture says no such thing.





12 because of this, even as through one man the sin did enter into the world, and through the sin the death; and thus to all men the death did pass through, for that all did sin;
13 for till law sin was in the world: and sin is not reckoned when there is not law;
14 but the death did reign from Adam till Moses, even upon those not having sinned in the likeness of Adam's transgression, who is a type of him who is coming.

There it is plainly stated, death, caused by SIN came upon all men,

Yes death came upon all men but sin did not come upon all men which is the issue.





I might add that, we're born purely evil, and not good at all,

That is unscriptural. It is a doctrine of man, not of God.

Ecc_7:29 Lo, this only have I found, that God hath made man upright; but they have sought out many inventions.

ewq1938
Apr 12th 2013, 10:11 PM
"You shall not bow down to them or serve them, for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and the fourth generation of those who hate me," - Pretty clear to me. First and Second commandment violation.

And God repeats Himself here. It mst have been an important point because He repeats Himself 3 times.

"You shall not bow down to them or serve them; for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me," Crystal clear. First and Second commandment violation.

I suppose we're done now? I would surely hope so unless of course there is another plausible explanation to this very self-evident statement made by God on 3 separate occasions.

"of those that hate me" means the following generations hated God as well so they were rightly punished. You skipped over that small part which changes everything resulting in a faulty understanding.

Nick
Apr 12th 2013, 10:15 PM
"of those that hate me" means the following generations hated God as well so they were rightly punished. You skipped over that small part which changes everything resulting in a faulty understanding.

Let's say for sake of argument I did on Exo 34:6-7. How do you counter God's clear position in Exo 20:5 and Deut 5:9 where He says the exact same thing for the exact same reason?

ewq1938
Apr 12th 2013, 10:45 PM
ewq1938,
Very interesting things you've brought up!

lol, thanks.......

ewq1938
Apr 12th 2013, 10:47 PM
Let's say for sake of argument I did on Exo 34:6-7. How do you counter God's clear position in Exo 20:5 and Deut 5:9 where He says the exact same thing for the exact same reason?


uh....same thing obviously.

Exo 20:5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;

Deu 5:9 Thou shalt not bow down thyself unto them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me,

He isn't punishing the latter generations for the first gen's sins, it's that the following gen's are just as evil as the previous.

Aijalon
Apr 12th 2013, 11:44 PM
No the baby is important because it is being claimed that even babies have inherited sin. Scripture says no such thing.
It absolutely does, because all men means all mankind, and there is no exemption for children. Let's repeat that. THERE IS NO EXEMPTION FOR CHILDREN.

They do inherit sinfulness. Though they don't inherit the specific sin of their fathers, they still inherit their fallen nature. If children die, under your view, they need no reconciliation with God in heaven. But of course you know they do. If you're right though, children have a perfect spirit that only sins by "accident". Tell me whether it is possible to live life without sin, or even to go past the age of accountability and not sin. If it is possible to make it past the age of accountability without sinning, then it is possible Jesus wasn't the only perfect man.

[/QUOTE]

ewq1938
Apr 12th 2013, 11:55 PM
It absolutely does, because all men means all mankind, and there is no exemption for children. Let's repeat that. THERE IS NO EXEMPTION FOR CHILDREN.


There is no scripture which says human beings are born with sin. What scripture does say is a child does not suffer for the sins of their parents. So your doctrine simply does not come from God nor the bible.




They do inherit sinfulness. Though they don't inherit the specific sin of their fathers, they still inherit their fallen nature.

No scripture says anyone inherits a "fallen nature".




If children die, under your view, they need no reconciliation with God in heaven. But of course you know they do.

If a child dies sinless then there is nothing to pardon from them. When God judges them guess what the obvious decision would be?




If you're right though, children have a perfect spirit that only sins by "accident".

There is no such thing as accidental sinning.




Tell me whether it is possible to live life without sin, or even to go past the age of accountability and not sin.

I believe it is possible to pass the age of accountability for a brief time and not sin. I do not know if this has ever occurred but it is not impossible.



If it is possible to make it past the age of accountability without sinning, then it is possible Jesus wasn't the only perfect man.

Oh no!!!! :o

retro
Apr 13th 2013, 12:01 AM
No, its not natural nor is it true.

Eze 18:20 The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.

Scripture is clear on this matter.

Consequences of the father actions still affect the childs relationship to Yahweh

Deut 23.2
No one born to parents who were forbidden by law to marry may come into the meeting to worship the Lord .
The descendants for ten generations may not come in either

Ezra 10.44
All these had married foreign women and they dismissed them together with their children

ewq1938
Apr 13th 2013, 12:09 AM
Consequences of the father actions still affect the childs relationship to Yahweh

Deut 23.2
No one born to parents who were forbidden by law to marry may come into the meeting to worship the Lord .
The descendants for ten generations may not come in either

Ezra 10.44
All these had married foreign women and they dismissed them together with their children

These are ritualistic matters related to a foreign religion which has nothing to do with the ways of Christianity.

Eze 18:20 The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.

The issue is whether a son bears the iniquity of his father and scripture says no. That means Adam's sin died with him and him alone. Eve's with her. Cain and Abel did not suffer from this nor did they receive a "sin nature" either. If Abel sinned and we have no evidence that he did, he did because he choose to. Same with Cain.

LookingUp
Apr 13th 2013, 12:17 AM
By the way, Jesus died for the entire world's sin. Every year the high priest made an offering for the sins made in ignorance. The blood of the Lord's goat cleansed the holy temple and the people defiled by sin and reconciled the people to God. The scapegoat "took away" the sin of the nation. Our High Priest made an offering for the world's sin made in ignorance. His blood cleanses the people defiled by sin and reconciles them to God. Our Scapegoat took away the sin of the world. IF infants, babies and children have sin, it's totally ignorant sin, which was taken away by Christ's offering.

retro
Apr 13th 2013, 12:57 AM
Eph 2.2

And you did he make alive when you were dead through your trespasses and sins


As the promises are only for the literal descendants of Abraham and Sarah race mixing has plenty to do with Christianity.
Yahweh says plenty about keeping Israel pure

Matt 15.25 God sent me only to the the lost sheep of the house of tsrael

LookingUp
Apr 13th 2013, 01:10 AM
Eph 2.2

And you did he make alive when you were dead through your trespasses and sinsYes, I'm alive just like I was before I transgressed the law. Paul said he was alive before he became aware of the commandment (Rom. 7:9). When I "walked" in trespasses and sin, I was dead (Eph. 2:1). When I put my faith in Christ Jesus, he made me alive together with him (Eph. 2:2).


As the promises are only for the literal descendants of Abraham and Sarah race mixing has plenty to do with Christianity.
Yahweh says plenty about keeping Israel pure

Matt 15.25 God sent me only to the the lost sheep of the house of tsraelAgain, he says, "Rejoice, O Gentiles, with His people." And again, "Praise the Lord all you Gentiles, and let all the peoples praise Him." Again Isaiah says, "There shall come the root of Jessie and He who arises to rule over the Gentiles, in Him shall the Gentiles hope." (Romans 15)

Nick
Apr 13th 2013, 01:11 AM
By the way, Jesus died for the entire world's sin. Every year the high priest made an offering for the sins made in ignorance. The blood of the Lord's goat cleansed the holy temple and the people defiled by sin and reconciled the people to God. The scapegoat "took away" the sin of the nation. Our High Priest made an offering for the world's sin made in ignorance. His blood cleanses the people defiled by sin and reconciles them to God. Our Scapegoat took away the sin of the world. IF infants, babies and children have sin, it's totally ignorant sin, which was taken away by Christ's offering.

Satan was defeated at the cross (Col 2:15). That doesn't mean he still doesn't rule the earth until the anointed time. "In their case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God." (2 Cor 4:4). God, in His infinite wisdom, has allowed Satan to operate in this world within the boundaries God has set for him, but make no mistake, he is free to roam and devour within those boundaries.

LookingUp
Apr 13th 2013, 01:13 AM
Nick,
I don't see how your post above relates to what I wrote.

ewq1938
Apr 13th 2013, 01:14 AM
Eph 2.2

And you did he make alive when you were dead through your trespasses and sins

Note that it DOES NOT SAY, And you did he make alive when you were dead through Adam's trespasses and sins. It says "your trespasses and sins"

Aijalon
Apr 13th 2013, 01:15 AM
Hi, Aijalon. What else could Jesus have meant?

If the context is that "we must become like these children to be saved", then how is He not indicating "children are Heaven-bound"?
We would have to examine what it means to become like a child. Was Jesus saying that we must become un-adults? That we must become literally like children? Of course not. How then are we to become like them? What characteristics of a child should we emulate? Their innocense? If children are innocent because they have not commited any sin, they how can we become like that? We cannot undo the sin we've done, we can only plead forgiveness. If children are sinless they need not forgiveness, so how does it make sense for Jesus to say we should become sinless like a child?

He's saying we should be toward God in attitude as children are to parents. We are to come before God in total dependence and total reliance, and in absolute humility. There is no other way to digest this. Children are not sinless before their parents. They do rebel, they get angry, and anyone who says a 6 month old doesn't disobey is nuts!

Gadgeteer, do you have children? When did your child commit its first sin? When did you? When did you become accountable? (I doubt you can answer that with any precision at all)

But the better question is - if you became like a "sinless child" - when and how did you do this? If you say that you did it by erasing all your sin in the blood of Jesus, I would say you answer well, but if you say you became incapable of committing sin any longer, I would ask: when did you commit your last sin?


As others have eloquently established, eloquence does not establish facts.


each person is condemned for his OWN sin, not for any other's.
Each person is condemned already by the sin in the world, their ongoing sins and incapability to stop doing so only serve to proove their condemnation and need of Jesus.


Children are not capable of sinning, until the "age of accountability".
What age is that? From what I know, the age of accountability was an age applicable under Jewish law, how do you see it?


Nevertheless, the son shall not bear the sins of the father (Ezk18:19) and those who are condemned are so because of unbelief (Jn3:18. 1Jn5:10).
All men start in a state of sin and unbelief. Continued unbelief only continues to condemn. Are you saying we begin life believing? Or are you saying there is an intermediate state between belief and unbelief. If so, what does scripture call this, I don't what to hear your version of it.


Small children are like pet dogs and cats; they don't spend any time thinking about accepting God or rejecting Him.
Where does the Bible say we only become condemned after thinking about God? Don't children grow up and die never hearing of the one true God, or Jesus. When did these children think about God?

If what you say is true, the safest thing we can do for an unreached unpreached people is to avoid telling them about God. That way they don't ever have to consider accepting him or rejecting him. What you don't know can't hurt you. And as you say, no one is born knowing good and evil.

This makes me think. If we took two "perfect children" okay, any children in your universe of sinless children and put them in a house without any other people and raised them using computers and robots or something, would they ever sin? Cuz I mean nobody would be around to teach them sin, so they'd remain perfect, yes?



...at least, no dog or cat has ever TOLD me they do...
I didn't realize the salvation of animals was pertinent to this discussion, I'm really pondering this though. :bounce:

retro
Apr 13th 2013, 01:30 AM
Gentiles is a word meaning nations.

Hebrew word goy or goyim

Also used gen17.5
Your name shall be Abraham for father of many nations have i made you

Israel is currently sifted among the nations yet to be regathered and gentfiles
refers to them

LookingUp
Apr 13th 2013, 01:34 AM
That's getting off-topic. But if you begin a "mid-acts" thread, I'll respond there. :-)

ewq1938
Apr 13th 2013, 01:34 AM
As the promises are only for the literal descendants of Abraham and Sarah race mixing has plenty to do with Christianity.

Oh? I would like to hear what you say about that.

Noeb
Apr 13th 2013, 01:42 AM
Where does the Bible say only our adult/informed actions condemn us? And where does the Bible say we are right with God at birth? Where does it say we're innocent at birth?
Deu 1:32 Yet in this thing ye did not believe the LORD your God,
Deu 1:33 Who went in the way before you, to search you out a place to pitch your tents in, in fire by night, to shew you by what way ye should go, and in a cloud by day.
Deu 1:34 And the LORD heard the voice of your words, and was wroth, and sware, saying,
Deu 1:35 Surely there shall not one of these men of this evil generation see that good land, which I sware to give unto your fathers,
Deu 1:36 Save Caleb the son of Jephunneh; he shall see it, and to him will I give the land that he hath trodden upon, and to his children, because he hath wholly followed the LORD.
Deu 1:37 Also the LORD was angry with me for your sakes, saying, Thou also shalt not go in thither.
Deu 1:38 But Joshua the son of Nun, which standeth before thee, he shall go in thither: encourage him: for he shall cause Israel to inherit it.
Deu 1:39 Moreover your little ones, which ye said should be a prey, and your children, which in that day had no knowledge between good and evil, they shall go in thither, and unto them will I give it, and they shall possess it.




Do we not know good and evil even from birth? Please show me where the Bible says otherwise.Just did, but we also do not know that we are naked as babies and toddlers.



Why does Romans constantly speak of the condemnation toward all men if all men are not already condemned from birth?We are under judgment at birth (but by our own sin we will commit). I could explain it, and my explanation differs from others but you don't want to hear.



I see no reason to even go on with this threadmakes two of us



I didn't even realize people could disagree with Calvin's first point.that explains everything

LookingUp
Apr 13th 2013, 01:46 AM
Noeb,
I'd like to hear your view on why we are condemned from birth. Did you read ewq1938's post suggesting that death is not a condemnation at all but part of God's plan to bring us life?

Noeb
Apr 13th 2013, 01:49 AM
Noeb,
I'd like to hear your view on why we are condemned from birth.k, but I probably won't have time til sunday?


Did you read ewq1938's post suggesting that death is not a condemnation at all but part of God's plan to bring us life?I haven't had time to read very much at all. Can you tell me what post?

LookingUp
Apr 13th 2013, 01:55 AM
k, but I probably won't have time til sunday?Sounds good.


I haven't had time to read very much at all. Can you tell me what post?#65

ewq1938
Apr 13th 2013, 02:12 AM
Noeb,
I'd like to hear your view on why we are condemned from birth. Did you read ewq1938's post suggesting that death is not a condemnation at all but part of God's plan to bring us life?

The first death specifically. The death Adam received the day he sinned was a spiritual death, and the only way to live is to take of the tree of life which is actually Christ and his salvation. So the death that entered the world and we all have is a spiritual death because we sin, not because we have Adam's sin because we don't. We must be saved by Christ to have eternal life but we must die the first death to receive that new life. The only exceptions would be those at Christ's coming who are changed without death....but otherwise we must change through that first death.

Aijalon
Apr 13th 2013, 04:40 AM
Deu 1:39 Moreover your little ones, which ye said should be a prey, and your children, which in that day had no knowledge between good and evil, they shall go in thither, and unto them will I give it, and they shall possess it.
Herein is the perfect example for using the YLT.

First a lesson. No. First, I thank you for bringing up this verse, because I was a bit dismayed by it, thinking this may sink me. But it was not long before was able to understand (discern) that you have mixed up the knowledge (the information) given by the verse.

Now the lesson. *cracks knuckles*

The lesson objective:
You will learn what is the difference between having knowledge by experience, and the ability to judge between two things (the skill of discernment),

The fruit of the TKGE contained the actual skill, the ability to discern right from wrong, it was more than information about good and evil, it was discernment. Asside from Genesis 2, this word - a noun - is used 91 other times in the Old Testament, which is:

דַּעַת / da`ath (H1847)
a) knowledge, perception, skill
b) discernment, understanding, wisdom (Gen 2:9, Gen 2:17)
* It is sometimes used with the modifying adverb - without - and translated as "unwittingly" (without being able to discern)

Therefore Genesis 2:9 says:, and the tree of life in the midst of the garden, and the tree of discernment of good and evil


However, the word "knowledge" in Deuteronomy 1:39 is not the same. It is translated from the word
yada` (3045)
It is a verb, and is a primitive root word used 947 times. It refers close acquaintance or familiarity with something - as in "Yes, now I see/know". It is used in the sense of "to make known" or to "perceive". It is also used in scripture to refer to sexual intercourse, and nakedness and as refering to being "intimiate with, or to know intimately" (Gen 4:1)

It means to be familiar with, and this is the sense in which it is used in Genesis 3:7
7 and the eyes of them both are opened, and they know [yada'] that they [are] naked,

Two verses before, in Genesis 3:5 it is taken to mean to "cause to know" or "surely know":
For God knows [yada'] that in the day you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing [yada'] good and evil."

In each case the familiarity with good and evil is the subject, not the ability to discern it. There is a very sensual element to the word, it is all about the perception and sense of good and evil. It is even possible I think to use words like taste and smell in place of yada'

Therefore Deuteronomy 1:39 says: and your sons who have not perceived to-day [with] good and evil, they go in thither


There are also several other words for knowlege that can trip you up such as:
sakal (used 63 times - meaning to be wise and to consider)

and
tabuwn (meaning intelligence, or skill in understanding such as in craft or education, Ex 31:3)

and
biyn (meaning to distinguish, discern, learn)


Just did, but we also do not know that we are naked as babies and toddlers.
You mean we are not able to discern it, or we are not familiar with the sense of nakedness?

You see, you have completely mis used the Deuteronomy verse. It does not mean the children had no knowledge (information) about good and evil, nor does it mean they were incapable from discerning right from wrong. It means they were sheltered by their parents, and were not familiar with the evildoings of their fathers. They were not yet intimate with the situation before the poeple, which was the seriousness of sin of idol worship taking place at the mountain. As children they followed their parents wishes, and because of this, the sin of the golden calf was not counted against them.


We are under judgment at birth (but by our own sin we will commit). I could explain it, and my explanation differs from others but you don't want to hear.
what do you mean by judgement?



that explains everything
I really don't care about Calvin to be honest with you. I was just being sarcastic. I have never studied calvinism, and I regularly forget what TULIP stands for. As far as depravity I have my own conviction. Calvin had his. I should just leave calvin out of this.

So what say you to these Hebrew variations eh? Are you going to just blow this off? I challenge you to look harder at it.

Noeb
Apr 13th 2013, 05:14 AM
#65Thanks.
I disagree. Adam did not have to eat. The death was physical (that day -separated from the tree of life) and spiritual (second death -if we do not repent and believe), and applied to Adam and his descendants.

You said ewq1938's post said "death is not a condemnation"
Who said "The first death specifically."

Well, here's the verdict

Gen 3:17 And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life;
Gen 3:18 Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field;
Gen 3:19 In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.
Gen 3:20 And Adam called his wife's name Eve; because she was the mother of all living.
Gen 3:21 Unto Adam also and to his wife did the LORD God make coats of skins, and clothed them.
Gen 3:22 And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:
Gen 3:23 Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken.
Gen 3:24 So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life.

Most clearly, if there is anything that can be understood in the verdict, it is physical death.

ewq1938
Apr 13th 2013, 05:22 AM
Thanks.
I disagree. Adam did not have to eat.

Prove it.


The death was physical (that day -separated from the tree of life) and spiritual (second death -if we do not repent and believe), and applied to Adam and his descendants.

Wrong. Adam did not die physically that day because he lives 930 years then he died physically. The ONLY death he could have suffered the day he ate the fruit was NON LITERAL.





You said ewq1938's post said "death is not a condemnation"
Who said "The first death specifically."

Well, here's the verdict

Gen 3:17 And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life;
Gen 3:18 Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field;
Gen 3:19 In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.
Gen 3:20 And Adam called his wife's name Eve; because she was the mother of all living.
Gen 3:21 Unto Adam also and to his wife did the LORD God make coats of skins, and clothed them.
Gen 3:22 And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:
Gen 3:23 Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken.
Gen 3:24 So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life.

Most clearly, if there is anything that can be understood in the verdict, it is physical death.


lol...EVENTUALLY he would die...as we all shall BUT

Gen 2:17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

The death you point out DID NOT OCCUR "in the day" he "eatest thereof" isn't that correct??

The truth is that Adam ate the fruit and died that same day...but not a physical death which is painfully and scripturally obvious.

Noeb
Apr 13th 2013, 05:37 AM
Prove it.



Wrong. Adam did not die physically that day because he lives 930 years then he died physically. The ONLY death he could have suffered the day he ate the fruit was NON LITERAL.






lol...EVENTUALLY he would die...as we all shall BUT

Gen 2:17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

The death you point out DID NOT OCCUR "in the day" he "eatest thereof" isn't that correct??

The truth is that Adam ate the fruit and died that same day...but not a physical death which is painfully and scripturally obvious.Hebrew is die die
you are dying and you will die -not having the tree of life
a dead man
as good as dead

Look up "shalt surely die" and see others not die the very day they broke their word etc....

The Complete Jewish Bible
17 except the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. You are not to eat from it, because on the day that you eat from it, it will become certain that you will die."

YLT
17 and of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, thou dost not eat of it, for in the day of thine eating of it -- dying thou dost die.'

New Living Translation
except the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. If you eat its fruit, you are sure to die."

The verdict again!!!!!!
Gen 3:19 In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground;

lol all you want.....means nothing

ewq1938
Apr 13th 2013, 05:44 AM
Hebrew is die die

That doesn't sound like Hebrew to me.



you are dying and you will die -not having the tree of life
a dead man
as good as dead

Look up "shalt surely die" and see others not die the very day they broke their word etc....

What happened to "in the day"?

"for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die."

Adam DID NOT DIE physically "in the day" he ate!


Your suggestion is full of red herrings.



The Complete Jewish Bible
17 except the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. You are not to eat from it, because on the day that you eat from it, it will become certain that you will die."

YLT
17 and of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, thou dost not eat of it, for in the day of thine eating of it -- dying thou dost die.'

New Living Translation
except the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. If you eat its fruit, you are sure to die."

Great, quote 3 bad translations? That's all you have in your defense?

Genesis 2:17

(ASV) but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

(BBE) But of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you may not take; for on the day when you take of it, death will certainly come to you.

(CEV) except the one that has the power to let you know the difference between right and wrong. If you eat any fruit from that tree, you will die before the day is over!"

(ISV) but you are not to eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, because you will certainly die during the day that you eat from it."

(KJV) But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

(LITV) but of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil you may not eat, for in the day that you eat of it, dying you shall die.

(MKJV) but you shall not eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. For in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.

(YLT) and of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, thou dost not eat of it, for in the day of thine eating of it--dying thou dost die.'




The verdict again!!!!!!
Gen 3:19 In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground;

No, the verdict was you will die the day you eat it....he did not die physically the day he ate. I have proven EASILY that Adam's sin-death was NOT physical.

Noeb
Apr 13th 2013, 06:16 AM
Interesting that Romans 5, in speaking about the verdict passed down to man because of Adam's sin, speaks of physical death that is known and that has happened and not the future second death.

12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:
13 (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.
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.

God always explains himself. He said Adam would die, and when he passed judgment, explained what he meant (return to the ground). He was separated from the tree of life that day. He was created mortal, needing the tree of life to live. Once separated death was certain. You have to ignore this fact and how the phrase is used throughout scripture to continue to hold on to your own spiritual interp and miss the forest for the trees.

Aijalon
Apr 13th 2013, 01:58 PM
Interesting that Romans 5, in speaking about the verdict passed down to man because of Adam's sin, speaks of physical death that is known and that has happened and not the future second death.

12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:
13 (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.
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.

God always explains himself. He said Adam would die, and when he passed judgment, explained what he meant (return to the ground). He was separated from the tree of life that day. He was created mortal, needing the tree of life to live. Once separated death was certain. You have to ignore this fact and how the phrase is used throughout scripture to continue to hold on to your own spiritual interp and miss the forest for the trees.

You have a very odd way of reading things. If physical death is the only death refered to in Romans 5, why does righteousness appear as such an important subject in that chapter? And if physical death is the only death in mind, why did death only reign from Adam to Moses? Did physical death change after the law of Moses? No. It was the spritual condition of Israel that changed in a new relationship with God, allowing for spiritual life.

Death caused by sin is both physical and spiritual. It is you sir, that has entirely missed the forest for the trees. :blush:

Noeb
Apr 13th 2013, 03:02 PM
Noeb,
I'd like to hear your view on why we are condemned from birth.Found a little time. It's really not much. I've already explained most of it. The verdict of Romans 5:16, 18, 8:1, is found in Genesis 3:17-24. It is physical death (it is appointed unto man once to die -no tree of life), but Adam experienced the first part of spiritual death in Genesis 3:7. Everyone has this moment/s. I was five years old. Alive once before I died -Romans 7. Everyone experiences death because everyone sins, and everyone sins because Adam sinned -Rom 5. Not because of a change in nature that is passed down, but because we do not have fellowship and a unveiled relationship with God -Rom 1. It was designated/ordained/appointed (made), that we would be sinners, because of one mans disobedience -Rom 5.

That we are all under the verdict of Genesis 3:17-24 is irrefutable.
Because of Adam's sin, we all experience physical death because we don't have access to the tree of life.
Because of Adam's sin, we all experience spiritual death early in our lives and continue therein until we come to Christ.

Adam's disobedience separated, put a veil, between God and man. This was enough to guarantee (appointed sinners) all would sin. Only the first and second man (1Cor 15) did not have this damaged relationship and the second overcame sin.

Noeb
Apr 13th 2013, 03:17 PM
You have a very odd way of reading things. If physical death is the only death refered to in Romans 5, why does righteousness appear as such an important subject in that chapter?Righteousness is contrasted to disobedience. Physical death is the focus here

Rom 5:6 For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly.
Rom 5:7 For scarcely for a righteous man will one die: yet peradventure for a good man some would even dare to die.
Rom 5:8 But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.
Rom 5:9 Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him.
Rom 5:10 For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life.
Rom 5:11 And not only so, but we also joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have now received the atonement.
Rom 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:
Rom 5:13 (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.
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.




And if physical death is the only death in mind, why did death only reign from Adam to Moses?It didn't only reign from Adam to Moses. The point is all have sinned because all have broken the law so all die.



Did physical death change after the law of Moses?Why would it?



No. It was the spritual condition of Israel that changed in a new relationship with God, allowing for spiritual life.How do ya figure?



Death caused by sin is both physical and spiritual.I said that.

ewq1938
Apr 13th 2013, 03:18 PM
Interesting that Romans 5, in speaking about the verdict passed down to man because of Adam's sin, speaks of physical death that is known and that has happened and not the future second death.

It doesn't say physical death. To understand which death it is, you have to go back to the source, Adam and the death he was promised the day he ate of the tree. Do you really think Christ came to save mankind from physical death? If so he failed! No, Christ came to save man from spiritual death, the death the world received from Adam's sin.

If we remove Centuries of wrong teachings and look at this with new eyes it becomes painfully clear what death scripture is speaking about.



God always explains himself. He said Adam would die, and when he passed judgment, explained what he meant (return to the ground). He was separated from the tree of life that day.

And the tree of life (Christ) is about spiritual life, not keeping this "dust body" from dying. God made our bodies from dust and back to dust they are meant to return. They are temporary.



He was created mortal, needing the tree of life to live. Once separated death was certain.

You still have the wrong death in mind. Think deeper...think more spiritually about all of this.




You have to ignore this fact and how the phrase is used throughout scripture to continue to hold on to your own spiritual interp and miss the forest for the trees.

Facts are certainly being ignored....and context.

ewq1938
Apr 13th 2013, 03:19 PM
Found a little time. It's really not much. I've already explained most of it. The verdict of Romans 5:16, 18, 8:1, is found in Genesis 3:17-24. It is physical death (it is appointed unto man once to die -no tree of life), but Adam experienced the first part of spiritual death in Genesis 3:7. Everyone has this moment/s. I was five years old. Alive once before I died -Romans 7. Everyone experiences death because everyone sins, and everyone sins because Adam sinned -Rom 5. Not because of a change in nature that is passed down, but because we do not have fellowship and a unveiled relationship with God -Rom 1. It was designated/ordained/appointed (made), that we would be sinners, because of one mans disobedience -Rom 5.

That we are all under the verdict of Genesis 3:17-24 is irrefutable.
Because of Adam's sin, we all experience physical death because we don't have access to the tree of life.
Because of Adam's sin, we all experience spiritual death early in our lives and continue therein until we come to Christ.

Adam's disobedience separated, put a veil, between God and man. This was enough to guarantee (appointed sinners) all would sin. Only the first and second man (1Cor 15) did not have this damaged relationship and the second overcame sin.

If you just dropped the physical death part you'd be spot on basically.

ewq1938
Apr 13th 2013, 03:24 PM
Righteousness is contrasted to disobedience. Physical death is the focus here

Rom 5:6 For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly.
Rom 5:7 For scarcely for a righteous man will one die: yet peradventure for a good man some would even dare to die.
Rom 5:8 But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.
Rom 5:9 Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him.
Rom 5:10 For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life.
Rom 5:11 And not only so, but we also joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have now received the atonement.
Rom 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:
Rom 5:13 (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.
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.



It didn't only reign from Adam to Moses.

Says you. The scripture you posted says otherwise. How exactly did physical death suddenly stop reigning at Moses??

Gadgeteer
Apr 13th 2013, 04:19 PM
We would have to examine what it means to become like a child. Was Jesus saying that we must become un-adults? That we must become literally like children? Of course not. How then are we to become like them? What characteristics of a child should we emulate? Their innocence? If children are innocent because they have not committed any sin, they how can we become like that? We cannot undo the sin we've done, we can only plead forgiveness. If children are sinless they need not forgiveness, so how does it make sense for Jesus to say we should become sinless like a child?Hi again, Aijalon. I take this as parallel to 1Cor1; the world through its wisdom did not believe in God, for God's wisdom was seen as foolishness. But God is well pleased, THROUGH the foolishness of the message preached to save those WHO believe --- those who lay aside the so-called wisdom of the world, and embrace the childish simplicity of Jesus' Gospel.


He's saying we should be toward God in attitude as children are to parents. We are to come before God in total dependence and total reliance, and in absolute humility. There is no other way to digest this. Children are not sinless before their parents. They do rebel, they get angry, and anyone who says a 6 month old doesn't disobey is nuts!I agree. Yet, a sixth-month-old cannot manifest unbelief in God sufficient to perish.


Gadgeteer, do you have children? When did your child commit its first sin? When did you? When did you become accountable? (I doubt you can answer that with any precision at all)I have a little girl; of the "feline persuasion".


But the better question is - if you became like a "sinless child" - when and how did you do this? If you say that you did it by erasing all your sin in the blood of Jesus, I would say you answer well, but if you say you became incapable of committing sin any longer, I would ask: when did you commit your last sin?No one said "sinless-child"; instead it is "childish simplicity".


eloquence does not establish facts.It does if the eloquence is in valid Scriptural citation. :-)


Each person is condemned already by the sin in the world, their ongoing sins and incapability to stop doing so only serve to prove their condemnation and need of Jesus.The idea of "cause-and-effect" is the basis of the difference between those who hold to "Sovereign Predestined Salvation", and those who hold to "Responsible Grace". Does a person's actions prove what God sovereignly already wrought (condemnation, or justification)? Or do we really make choices? (I see "choices" in verses like 1Cor10:13...)

Jesus said men are condemned already BECAUSE they DID not believe --- Jn3:18-19. Not because they were born a certain way.

What age is that? From what I know, the age of accountability was an age applicable under Jewish law, how do you see it?"Accountability" varies from person to person; they've always said that girls mature faster than boys --- and some people have mental handicaps that keep them as children forever...


All men start in a state of sin and unbelief. Continued unbelief only continues to condemn. Are you saying we begin life believing? Or are you saying there is an intermediate state between belief and unbelief. If so, what does scripture call this, I don't what to hear your version of it.Clearly Scripture teaches that a person makes a choice


Where does the Bible say we only become condemned after thinking about God? Don't children grow up and die never hearing of the one true God, or Jesus. When did these children think about God? It says we are condemned FOR unbelief. Little children don't have the capacity to disbelieve. If you tell them about Jesus, they'll say "Okay."


If what you say is true, the safest thing we can do for an unreached unpreached people is to avoid telling them about God. That way they don't ever have to consider accepting him or rejecting him. What you don't know can't hurt you. And as you say, no one is born knowing good and evil. Yes, it can; Romans1:19-20 says Jesus can be known by what He has created, so they are without excuse. Rom2;14-16 says that even those who do not have the Law, can show the Law written in their hearts (Jesus is now the Law).


This makes me think. If we took two "perfect children" okay, any children in your universe of sinless children and put them in a house without any other people and raised them using computers and robots or something, would they ever sin? Cuz I mean nobody would be around to teach them sin, so they'd remain perfect, yes?Each will reach an age of "accountability" and will have to make a choice.


"I have SET BEFORE you life and death, the blessing and the curse; so CHOOSE life by loving the Lord your God, by obeying His voice and walking in His statutes, and by holding fast to Him..."


I didn't realize the salvation of animals was pertinent to this discussion, I'm really pondering this though. :bounce:

I really hope my little cat-girl has a soul, and will live forever!

:-)

LookingUp
Apr 13th 2013, 05:01 PM
Interesting that Romans 5, in speaking about the verdict passed down to man because of Adam's sin, speaks of physical death that is known and that has happened and not the future second death.Paul talks about a spiritual death in chapter 7.

Livelystone
Apr 13th 2013, 05:10 PM
We are under judgment at birth (but by our own sin we will commit). I could explain it, and my explanation differs from others but you don't want to hear.




How can a child be judged for a sin that has not yet even entered their minds let alone been carried out?

The only reason way children can legally already carry the curse of death from God is because of the the sin they are already presently saddled with, and that is the sin that is a noun and what they were born with that John speaks of when he says tha no man can say he has no sin.

percho
Apr 13th 2013, 05:26 PM
Found a little time. It's really not much. I've already explained most of it. The verdict of Romans 5:16, 18, 8:1, is found in Genesis 3:17-24. It is physical death (it is appointed unto man once to die -no tree of life), but Adam experienced the first part of spiritual death in Genesis 3:7. Everyone has this moment/s. I was five years old. Alive once before I died -Romans 7. Everyone experiences death because everyone sins, and everyone sins because Adam sinned -Rom 5. Not because of a change in nature that is passed down, but because we do not have fellowship and a unveiled relationship with God -Rom 1. It was designated/ordained/appointed (made), that we would be sinners, because of one mans disobedience -Rom 5.

That we are all under the verdict of Genesis 3:17-24 is irrefutable.
Because of Adam's sin, we all experience physical death because we don't have access to the tree of life.
Because of Adam's sin, we all experience spiritual death early in our lives and continue therein until we come to Christ.

Adam's disobedience separated, put a veil, between God and man. This was enough to guarantee (appointed sinners) all would sin. Only the first and second man (1Cor 15) did not have this damaged relationship and the second overcame sin.

OR

The sin of Adam brought spiritual death to all men who continue to live in the flesh until death to the flesh. Jesus Christ was put to death in the flesh. When he died in the flesh he was dead to his Father because of our sin put on him. His spirit (life) was then in the hands of his Father. Jesus was dead.

Death comes to the man (the soul) through (in) the flesh because of sin. ----- Dying thou shall surely die.

The resurrection of Jesus the Christ, from the dead, by his Father, has begotten us, who in dying in the flesh will be dead, to a living hope.

For ye are dead, and your life is hid with Christ in God. When Christ, [who is] our life, shall appear, then shall ye also appear with him in glory. Col 3:3,4

ewq1938
Apr 13th 2013, 05:40 PM
OR

The sin of Adam brought spiritual death to all men who continue to live in the flesh until death to the flesh. Jesus Christ was put to death in the flesh. When he died in the flesh he was dead to his Father because of our sin put on him.

Good stuff except Jesus was never dead to his Father due to the symbolic sin upon him. It was symbolism, not literal.

percho
Apr 13th 2013, 05:59 PM
Good stuff except Jesus was never dead to his Father due to the symbolic sin upon him. It was symbolism, not literal.


For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; 1 Cor 15:3

Christ died 5 exact phrases shown first.
Jesus died 1 exact phrase shown first

But the truth is; It really doesn't matter so much that he died for our sins as it is that by the grace of God his Father, that he raised Jesus the Christ from the dead.

Because if the Father of Jesus did not raise Jesus from the dead we are still in our sins.

And if Christ be not raised, ye are yet in your sins; your faith vain. 1 Cor 15:17 re-arranged for better understanding.

If God the Father did not raise Jesus from the dead neither then did Jesus die for your sins and he wasn't the Christ.

ewq1938
Apr 13th 2013, 06:10 PM
For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; 1 Cor 15:3

Christ died 5 exact phrases shown first.

So? I know he died. Everyone knows he died lol The issue is whether he was "dead" to his Father as in the Father was angry or upset with him because he "took the sins of the world" upon himself...which isn't literal anyways and is exactly what the Father sent him to do. To imply the Father was ever unhappy with Christ makes no sense.



Because if the Father of Jesus did not raise Jesus from the dead we are still in our sins.

Spiritually dead....which is the whole issue of what kind of death Adam's sin brought into the world BTW.




And if Christ be not raised, ye are yet in your sins; your faith vain. 1 Cor 15:17 re-arranged for better understanding.

If God the Father did not raise Jesus from the dead neither then did Jesus die for your sins and he wasn't the Christ.

Preaching to the choir....and you avoided answering the actually issue. Well done lol

Aijalon
Apr 13th 2013, 06:14 PM
Righteousness is contrasted to disobedience. Physical death is the focus here
Hmmm, I don't understand how righteousness and disobedience contrasted can only be taken to relate with physical death. I am thinking pretty deep here, I assure you. And each time I think I keep coming up with righteiousness being a spiritual thing, and the disobedience, isn't this also spiritual disobedience and rebellion. How is righteousness NOT spiritual?


It didn't only reign from Adam to Moses. The point is all have sinned because all have broken the law so all die.
If that was the only point being made, what then is the purpose of Paul speaking of the reign of sin UNTIL Moses? What changed after Moses? Hopefully you can see that what changed was there was a dispensation of the Law. When Paul says "Moses" what goes along with that is the entire picture of Moses speaking to God and bringing the children of Israel into a covenant relationship with God in the wilderness.


Why would it?
Of course it did not change! My purpose in asking if physical death changed was to hopefully help you grasp that there is a deeper meaning to the passage that does not concern only physical death. It was supposed to make you think. Have you thought about this yet? If physical death remained the same, what else has become different? It is the spiritual condition of man!. If you had ever really taken to heart what Paul taught it is that no one can be righteous under the law, which was intended to bring forth sin and mature sin, showing the need for a better covenant. Righteousness then, was what changed, and it changed through Moses, and again through Christ, through whom we are counted righteous in faith.



How do ya figure?
I figure that the Law was the occasion for the Isrealites to proove their faith. Though upholding the law was impossible, their faith compelled them to try. God was displeased with disobedience because the disobedient did so out of a lack of faith. The law (works) gives evidence of our faith, just as James says.

The whole passge is loaded with spiritual implications!

percho
Apr 13th 2013, 06:21 PM
So? I know he died. Everyone knows he died lol The issue is whether he was "dead" to his Father as in the Father was angry or upset with him because he "took the sins of the world" upon himself...which isn't literal anyways and is exactly what the Father sent him to do. To imply the Father was ever unhappy with Christ makes no sense.




Spiritually dead....which is the whole issue of what kind of death Adam's sin brought into the world BTW.




Preaching to the choir....and you avoided answering the actually issue. Well done lol


But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die. (dying thou shall surely die) Gen 2:17

Whatever that meant is what transpired here:

And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit: and having said thus, he gave up the ghost. Matt 27:46 Luke 23:46


We shall be saved by grace. Grace that was applied to the sinless one who died for you. If he had not been raised from the dead there would be no salvation for anyone.

Dying in the flesh you would surely be dead forever and ever.

You now in Christ have, hope. For we are saved by hope: but hope that is seen is not hope: for what a man seeth, why doth he yet hope for? Romans 8:24

ewq1938
Apr 13th 2013, 06:27 PM
But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die. (dying thou shall surely die) Gen 2:17

You are adding nonsense to the translation.

Genesis 2:17

(ASV) but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

(BBE) But of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you may not take; for on the day when you take of it, death will certainly come to you.

(CEV) except the one that has the power to let you know the difference between right and wrong. If you eat any fruit from that tree, you will die before the day is over!"

(ISV) but you are not to eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, because you will certainly die during the day that you eat from it."

(KJV) But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

(KJV+) But of the treeH4480 H6086 of the knowledgeH1847 of goodH2896 and evil,H7451 thou shalt notH3808 eatH398 ofH4480 it: forH3588 in the dayH3117 that thou eatestH398 thereofH4480 thou shalt surely die.H4191 H4191

(LITV) but of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil you may not eat, for in the day that you eat of it, dying you shall die.

(MKJV) but you shall not eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. For in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.


It is clear that he was to die that same day. He did not die physically. So the death Adam was to die and the death that his sin brought into the world was not physical death. That already existed as a natural part of God's creation. This life and this world were made to be temporary.



Whatever that meant is what transpired here:

And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit: and having said thus, he gave up the ghost. Matt 27:46 Luke 23:46

lol, no. Those are two very different scriptures and events.

LookingUp
Apr 13th 2013, 07:34 PM
I'm getting lost in this discussion. In your opinion, was the tree of life for eternal physical life? Or was the tree of life for eternal spiritual life?

If for spiritual only, was it always the plan that man would physically die (since it's a temporary world), so that man could be raised to an immortal body?

Was the plan that physical death was meant to be temporary?

Was it not the plan that man would spiritually die?

And was the second death "added" into the plan for those who die spiritually?

ewq1938
Apr 13th 2013, 07:45 PM
I'm getting lost in this discussion. In your opinion, was the tree of life for eternal physical life? Or was the tree of life for eternal spiritual life?

I assume this is directed at me. It's possible that it could do both. All we know for certain is after the sin happened this is written:

Gen_3:22 And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:

I believe this is a reference to a future eternal life not preserving his human flesh life.



If for spiritual only, was it always the plan that man would physically die (since it's a temporary world), so that man could be raised to an immortal body?

I see no reason to think otherwise. Could the planet even have held all people through human history at the same time? Are there enough resources? The obvious answer is no. People had to die just for logistic reasons. Then we have the natural design of things, the frailness of the human body, the concept of deadly accidents, plants, animals...physical death was created and planned by God from before the beginning.


Was the plan that physical death was meant to be temporary?

Of course. This life is meant to be temp. This body is meant to be temp.


Was it not the plan that man would spiritually die?

I think the plan was for the good to spiritually live and the wicked to die forever but both would die a physical death regardless of how good or bad they were. Obviously that is exactly what happens.



And was the second death "added" into the plan for those who die spiritually?

No, that is the actual spiritual death in it's completion. To be spiritually dead while physically alive simply means you are on the path to complete and utter death ie: hell.

LookingUp
Apr 13th 2013, 08:07 PM
I assume this is directed at me. It's possible that it could do both. All we know for certain is after the sin happened this is written:

Gen_3:22 And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:

I believe this is a reference to a future eternal life not preserving his human flesh life.You mean that man was removed from the tree of life so he wouldn’t be resurrected to an immortal body?

ewq1938
Apr 13th 2013, 08:28 PM
You mean that man was removed from the tree of life so he wouldn’t be resurrected to an immortal body?

No, removed from the tree so he would have to earn his way back to it or else die in hell.

LookingUp
Apr 13th 2013, 08:38 PM
No, removed from the tree so he would have to earn his way back to it or else die in hell.Was removal from the tree of life, then, symbolic for dying spiritually?

ewq1938
Apr 13th 2013, 08:42 PM
Was removal from the tree of life, then, symbolic for dying spiritually?

Kinda...it's a clear punishment to do so. I'm not sure if Adam knew the severity of what all this meant but he would have realized how much it affected his life compared to the way it had been.

LookingUp
Apr 13th 2013, 09:29 PM
What would eating from the tree of life instead of tree of knowledge of good and evil do, in your opinion? What if Adam had eaten from the tree of life first?

ewq1938
Apr 13th 2013, 10:18 PM
What would eating from the tree of life instead of tree of knowledge of good and evil do, in your opinion?

I believe there is a literal tree and a symbolic one that represents Christ. The literal one is seen here and it explains the benefits:

Rev 22:2 In the midst of the street of it, and on either side of the river, was there the tree of life, which bare twelve manner of fruits, and yielded her fruit every month: and the leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations.

Why healing is needed in the eternity is something I cannot answer.



What if Adam had eaten from the tree of life first?

Dunno but he was free to eat of any of the trees.

percho
Apr 14th 2013, 02:58 AM
You are adding nonsense to the translation.

Genesis 2:17

(ASV) but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

(BBE) But of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you may not take; for on the day when you take of it, death will certainly come to you.

(CEV) except the one that has the power to let you know the difference between right and wrong. If you eat any fruit from that tree, you will die before the day is over!"

(ISV) but you are not to eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, because you will certainly die during the day that you eat from it."

(KJV) But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

(KJV+) But of the treeH4480 H6086 of the knowledgeH1847 of goodH2896 and evil,H7451 thou shalt notH3808 eatH398 ofH4480 it: forH3588 in the dayH3117 that thou eatestH398 thereofH4480 thou shalt surely die.H4191 H4191

(LITV) but of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil you may not eat, for in the day that you eat of it, dying you shall die.

(MKJV) but you shall not eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. For in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.


It is clear that he was to die that same day. He did not die physically. So the death Adam was to die and the death that his sin brought into the world was not physical death. That already existed as a natural part of God's creation. This life and this world were made to be temporary.




lol, no. Those are two very different scriptures and events.

(LITV) but of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil you may not eat, for in the day that you eat of it, dying you shall die.

(YLT) and of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, thou dost not eat of it, for in the day of thine eating of it -- dying thou dost die.'


ת
muth
to-die
תָּ מוּת
thmuth
you-shall-die

Adam lived 930 years after he sinned. After he ate the fruit. The day he died to the flesh he did die forever unless there be a means by which he can be raised to life from the dead.

Before Adam sinned, before Adam was created in the image of God, before it was said, "let there be light." It had been ordained a lamb without blemish or spot would shed his blood, would lay down his life, that is to be, would pour out his soul, being unto death. God at the same moment of close to the same moment, before or after, this was ordained God made a promise of the hope of eternal life.

Before it was said, "Let there be light." If there was anyone or anything to have hope;

What would be hoped for?

Did Jesus of Nazareth, the man child brought forth into this world by the virgin Mary, Jesus who had been generated in her by Spirit the God, Jesus the Holy One and Just One have this promise of hope from God his Father? From Gal. 3:19

The only hope from, "dying thou dost die." The law was added to show you that you are a sinner and the reason for dying thou dost die.

Wherefore then [serveth] the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; The Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.

Before the faith came all mankind was under this law of sin and death.<Gal.3:23 But the Lamb came and the Lamb gave his being, his life and God the Father of the Lamb gave the Lamb the promise of God.
The dead Lamb receiving the promised hope of eternal life became, the substance of things hoped for the evidence of things not seen. Faith
After the faith came we are no longer under the law of sin and death, <Gal. 3:25 dying thou dost die has been replaced by grace, the life of the Lamb from the dead.

ewq1938
Apr 14th 2013, 03:06 AM
(LITV) but of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil you may not eat, for in the day that you eat of it, dying you shall die.

(YLT) and of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, thou dost not eat of it, for in the day of thine eating of it -- dying thou dost die.'


Terrible translations. Far far more translate it differently and better.

Nick
Apr 14th 2013, 04:55 AM
God recognizes the evil of man's heart from his youth even after He cleansed the earth with the flood.

ďI will never again curse[a] the ground because of man, for the intention of man's heart is evil from his youth. Neither will I ever again strike down every living creature as I have done."

ewq1938
Apr 14th 2013, 04:57 AM
God recognizes the evil of man's heart from his youth even after He cleansed the earth with the flood.

“I will never again curse[a] the ground because of man, for the intention of man's heart is evil from his youth. Neither will I ever again strike down every living creature as I have done."

Youth is not birth etc.

Scripture says basically the same thing....created "upright" but later this changes:

Ecc_7:29 Lo, this only have I found, that God hath made man upright; but they have sought out many inventions.

Noeb
Apr 14th 2013, 02:37 PM
Prove it.calvinism is dead. God's not a calvinist. There.

Noeb
Apr 14th 2013, 02:48 PM
It doesn't say physical death.Then you have never read it.

Rom 5:6 For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly.
Rom 5:7 For scarcely for a righteous man will one die: yet peradventure for a good man some would even dare to die.
Rom 5:8 But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.
Rom 5:9 Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him.
Rom 5:10 For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life.
Rom 5:11 And not only so, but we also joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have now received the atonement.
Rom 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:
Rom 5:13 (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.
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.



To understand which death it is, you have to go back to the source,I did, and I showed you God said 'you shall die' and after Adam ate God said 'til you return to the ground'.



Adam and the death he was promised the day he ate of the tree. Do you really think Christ came to save mankind from physical death?Uh....yea! Jesus was physically resurrected and is still a man and physical to this day. Heaven and earth are and always will be physical. The tree of life is physical. The original plan from the beginning was and still is physical. He did not change it. It's absurd to think he didn't save us from physical death.

Heb 2:14 Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil;
Heb 2:15 And deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage.




If so he failed!How do ya figure? ^^^^^^



No, Christ came to save man from spiritual death,Yep!



If we remove Centuries of wrong teachings and look at this with new eyes it becomes painfully clear what death scripture is speaking about.All you got to do is read.



And the tree of life (Christ)Wrong! You made that up.



is about spiritual life, not keeping this "dust body" from dying.That's what the tree of life was and always will be for.



God made our bodies from dust and back to dust they are meant to return. They are temporary.Not if you have the tree of life. The righteous mortals in the millennium will not return to dust.



You still have the wrong death in mind. Think deeper...think more spiritually about all of this.When you force 'deep' it gets dark.

Noeb
Apr 14th 2013, 02:55 PM
Paul talks about a spiritual death in chapter 7.Yes he does. (15 characters)

Noeb
Apr 14th 2013, 03:03 PM
How can a child be judged for a sin that has not yet even entered their minds let alone been carried out?They can't.



The only reason way children can legally already carry the curse of death from God is because of the the sin they are already presently saddled with, and that is the sin that is a nounYou keep saying this but a noun is a concept or idea. That's how scripture uses it as a noun. They physically die because they don't have the tree of life, and they don't because of Adam's sin.



and what they were born with that John speaks of when he says tha no man can say he has no sin.John was talking about the concept/idea Paul was.

Noeb
Apr 14th 2013, 03:26 PM
Hmmm, I don't understand how righteousness and disobedience contrasted can only be taken to relate with physical death.It's not.



I am thinking pretty deep here, I assure you. And each time I think I keep coming up with righteiousness being a spiritual thing,Don't go too deep. Righteousness happens when the spirit exercises power of the physical. The spirit is willing but the flesh is weak.



If that was the only point being made,Again, "all have sinned because all have broken the law so all die"
Rom 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:



what then is the purpose of Paul speaking of the reign of sin UNTIL Moses?It doesn't say this.



What changed after Moses?Nothing. That's Paul's point.



Hopefully you can see that what changed was there was a dispensation of the Law.Everyone was always under and condemned by The Law -not Moses.

Rom 2:15 Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else

Rom 3:9 What then? are we better than they? No, in no wise: for we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin;


Rom 3:19 Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God.


Rom 3:23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;


Rom 5:13 (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.
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.

It was counted they sinned before Moses because there was Law. Sin is not counted if there is no law, and there was sin, so there was law. You are doing what Israel did and focusing on the law of Moses instead of focusing on The Law the law of Moses reflected.

Noeb
Apr 14th 2013, 03:28 PM
I'm getting lost in this discussion. In your opinion, was the tree of life for eternal physical life? Or was the tree of life for eternal spiritual life? Physical only, obviously. After Adam sin it is said he could live forever if he had access to it. Eternal spiritual life is by faith, not fruit.

Nick
Apr 14th 2013, 04:05 PM
Youth is not birth etc.

Scripture says basically the same thing....created "upright" but later this changes:

Ecc_7:29 Lo, this only have I found, that God hath made man upright; but they have sought out many inventions.

If you put 3 two year babies in an room alone with only one toy you will see evil at work. Infants and babies are completely dependent on someone else (a human being) for survival. They don't learn how to be God dependent until later. As Paul says, "When I was a child, I spoke like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I gave up childish ways."

ewq1938
Apr 14th 2013, 08:58 PM
calvinism is dead. God's not a calvinist. There.

That isn't an answer to what I asked for:

You said, "Adam did not have to eat." and I said "Prove it."


So prove it or your statement is wrong and unsupported.

ewq1938
Apr 14th 2013, 09:18 PM
Then you have never read it.

Rom 5:6 For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly.
Rom 5:7 For scarcely for a righteous man will one die: yet peradventure for a good man some would even dare to die.
Rom 5:8 But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.
Rom 5:9 Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him.
Rom 5:10 For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life.
Rom 5:11 And not only so, but we also joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have now received the atonement.
Rom 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:
Rom 5:13 (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.
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.

Of course I have read it. Proof this death is not physical is teh fact that death reigned from Adam until Moses then stopped reigning. Physical death still reigns today so obviously the death that lost it's reign was spiritual death at the time of Moses and that is clearly because of sin atonement that came with the law.





I did, and I showed you God said 'you shall die' and after Adam ate God said 'til you return to the ground'.

God said "in the day you eat you shall surely die" but Adam DID NOT die physically "in that day". That's a fact. Many of which that contradict your doctrines.





Uh....yea!

Then Jesus failed because he did not save man from the first death, death of the human body.





Jesus was physically resurrected and is still a man and physical to this day. Heaven and earth are and always will be physical. The tree of life is physical. The original plan from the beginning was and still is physical. He did not change it. It's absurd to think he didn't save us from physical death.

More absurd you think he did when everyone has been dying a physical death since man was created. It's been some 2k years since Christ and he hasn't prevented man from dying. *rolls eyes* Your doctrines are getting weirder and weirder...and further and further from the actual scriptures.




Heb 2:14 Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil;
Heb 2:15 And deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage.

Rightly dividing scripture means to understand it properly and since physical death continues to reign, the death satan has the power over is spiritual death by influencing the world to sin therefore causing a great many to be judged to the lake of fire by God. satan doesn't have the power to kill us all physically. Clearly that is not what this verse is addressing.



When you force 'deep' it gets dark.

Not when you have the right light.

LookingUp
Apr 14th 2013, 09:50 PM
Proof this death is not physical is teh fact that death reigned from Adam until Moses then stopped reigning.Where does it say “death stopped reigning”?


God said "in the day you eat you shall surely die" but Adam DID NOT die physically "in that day". That's a fact. Many of which that contradict your doctrines.You said previously (I think) that he died spiritually and this was on a path to the second death. So, why can’t it be that he began to die physically and on a path to physical death?


Then Jesus failed because he did not save man from the first death, death of the human body.He saved us from the second death. One must pass through the first death to get to the second death.

ewq1938
Apr 14th 2013, 10:09 PM
Where does it say “death stopped reigning”?

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.

Or if it said, the first king of the world reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses. That would indicate and end of that reign. Clearly this occurred due to the law of Moses and sin atonement.



You said previously (I think) that he died spiritually and this was on a path to the second death. So, why can’t it be that he began to die physically and on a path to physical death?

Because a death had to occur that same day according to scripture and he did not die physically that day but he did die spiritually. It was a complete and full spiritual death. He was dead in that sense. To die the second death you must have died the first death, receive a new body and then have soul and body die in the lake of fire:

Mat_10:28 And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.



He saved us from the second death. One must pass through the first death to get to the second death.

But I asked Noeb, Do you really think Christ came to save mankind from physical death? and they answered, "Uh....yea!"

But clearly with Christians dying everyday we know Jesus did NOT come to save us from the first death, physical death of this mortal human body.

LookingUp
Apr 14th 2013, 10:35 PM
Or if it said, the first king of the world reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses. That would indicate and end of that reign.Not necessarily. And, in this case, I don’t think it does. Paul says, “For until the law, sin was in the world but sin is not imputed when there is no law. Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses.” Death, which comes by sin, reigned even though Mosaic Law was not yet in force. Why did death reign if there was no Mosaic Law to impute sin? Because there had always been a type of law in place since Adam that says if you sin, you must die (i.e. wages of sin is death). Paul is not saying that death stopped reigning after Moses; he’s saying that even without imputation of sin through Mosaic Law, death had been reigning.


Because a death had to occur that same day according to scripture and he did not die physically that day but he did die spiritually.He began to die spiritually. The death of his soul/spirit would not take place until the second death.


To die the second death you must have died the first death, receive a new body and then have soul and body die in the lake of fire:By the way, I don’t think they receive a “new” body, since Scripture doesn’t say that. Most likely, their old body is resurrected.


But clearly with Christians dying everyday we know Jesus did NOT come to save us from the first death, physical death of this mortal human body.I agree. He saved us from the second death.

ewq1938
Apr 14th 2013, 10:44 PM
Not necessarily. And, in this case, I don’t think it does. Paul says, “For until the law, sin was in the world but sin is not imputed when there is no law. Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses.” Death, which comes by sin, reigned even though Mosaic Law was not yet in force. Why did death reign if there was no Mosaic Law to impute sin? Because there had always been a type of law in place since Adam that says if you sin, you must die (i.e. wages of sin is death). Paul is not saying that death stopped reigning after Moses; he’s saying that even without imputation of sin through Mosaic Law, death had been reigning.

I disagree. He gives the starting point, Adam, and then there is another point, Moses, which greatly affected death. It must be spiritual death that was affected because that is what started to occur. If you had sins, and you atoned for them then immediately died you would have died with no sins just the same as today if you are in Christ, repent of your sins then suddenly die you die without sins. Spiritual death is avoided since you will be judged to life in judgment day.




He began to die spiritually.

No, death was promised to him that same day:

Gen 2:17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

No "begin to die" and die another day is in that verse.






By the way, I don’t think they receive a “new” body, since Scripture doesn’t say that. Most likely, their old body is resurrected.

What of Moses? When he appeared to Christ he was in a body yet his old body was buried somewhere.

percho
Apr 15th 2013, 02:05 AM
Terrible translations. Far far more translate it differently and better.

How would you translate? muth thmuth

Why is the word relative to death, twice in the text?

I believe the more accurate would be, dying thou shall surely die.

ewq1938
Apr 15th 2013, 02:10 AM
How would you translate? muth thmuth

I am not a translator but I side with the overwhelming amount of translators that render it as or near the wording the KJV uses.

Clarke translated it as "a death thou shalt die"


Why is the word relative to death, twice in the text?

See above.



I believe the more accurate would be, dying thou shall surely die.

If God spoke like Yoda from Star Wars maybe...


No.....that doesn't line up with having to die that same day. God didn't say, "You will begin dying on the day you eat it." God said, "You will die on the day that you eat it"

Noeb
Apr 15th 2013, 04:39 AM
Then Jesus failed because he did not save man from the first death, death of the human body.

He saved us from the second death. One must pass through the first death to get to the second death.Boy, ya'll missed that one. The second death has no power over those that are part of the first, physical, flesh and bone, resurrection! So how exactly does Jesus fail? and how does Jesus not save us from the first death? Since when is it the doctrine of Christ to remain physically dead? I thought the resurrection from the dead was part of the doctrine of Christ. :B

Noeb
Apr 15th 2013, 04:43 AM
But clearly with Christians dying everyday we know Jesus did NOT come to save us from the first death, physical death of this mortal human body.
I agree. He saved us from the second death.What does Christians dying everyday have to do with the future resurrection from the first death?

ewq1938
Apr 15th 2013, 04:45 AM
Boy, ya'll missed that one. The second death has no power over those that are part of the first, physical, flesh and bone, resurrection! So how exactly does Jesus fail? and how does Jesus not save us from the first death?


If we experience a physical death in the flesh, we haven't been saved from it. We all will die (as long as Christ doesn't return in our lifetimes).

Christ didn't come to save us from the first death....we HAVE TO DIE that death in order to receive the next life. (only some are the exception to this)

ewq1938
Apr 15th 2013, 04:46 AM
What does Christians dying everyday have to do with the future resurrection from the first death?

Being saved means we are spared the second death...not die then are resurrected from it.

Being saved also means we are NOT SPARED from dying the first death. We shall die...being resurrected later does not affect that we suffer that first death.

Noeb
Apr 15th 2013, 04:52 AM
If we experience a physical death in the flesh, we haven't been saved from it. We all will die (as long as Christ doesn't return in our lifetimes).

Christ didn't come to save us from the first death....we HAVE TO DIE that death in order to receive the next life. (only some are the exception to this)You need to learn about hope -the resurrection. We have been saved from physical death. Just because it hasn't happened yet doesn't make the word of God void. The "next life" is physical resurrected bodies. Note you said "as long as Christ doesn't return in our lifetimes". This truth destroys your teaching. We don't have to physically die. We have been saved from physical death. If Christ didn't come to save us from physical death he would not have been physically resurrected as the first of many.

Noeb
Apr 15th 2013, 04:55 AM
Being saved means we are spared the second death...not die then are resurrected from it.

Being saved also means we are NOT SPARED from dying the first death. We shall die...being resurrected later does not affect that we suffer that first death.As shown, this is not a proper understanding of being delivered. Again, starting on a false premise causes problems.

ewq1938
Apr 15th 2013, 05:01 AM
You need to learn about hope -the resurrection.


I know of that and even know of a GREATER hope....everlasting life.



We have been saved from physical death.

Nope. Scripture says we shall die. We are NOT saved from physical death.

Watch how I prove what I say rather than just say it:


Ecc 12:6 Or ever the silver cord be loosed, or the golden bowl be broken, or the pitcher be broken at the fountain, or the wheel broken at the cistern.
Ecc 12:7 Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it.


1Co 15:35 Some of you have asked, "How will the dead be raised to life? What kind of bodies will they have?"
1Co 15:36 Don't be foolish. A seed must die before it can sprout from the ground.
1Co 15:37 Wheat seeds and all other seeds look different from the sprouts that come up.
1Co 15:38 This is because God gives everything the kind of body he wants it to have.
1Co 15:39 People, animals, birds, and fish are each made of flesh, but none of them are alike.
1Co 15:40 Everything in the heavens has a body, and so does everything on earth. But each one is very different from all the others.
1Co 15:41 The sun isn't like the moon, the moon isn't like the stars, and each star is different.
1Co 15:42 That's how it will be when our bodies are raised to life. These bodies will die, but the bodies that are raised will live forever.
1Co 15:43 These ugly and weak bodies will become beautiful and strong.






Just because it hasn't happened yet doesn't make the word of God void. The "next life" is physical resurrected bodies.

After a first physical death we are not saved from.



Note you said "as long as Christ doesn't return in our lifetimes". This truth destroys your teaching. We don't have to physically die. We have been saved from physical death. If Christ didn't come to save us from physical death he would not have been physically resurrected as the first of many.

Only *some* will be changed without death but the overwhelming majority will have lived and died despite what you believe.

ewq1938
Apr 15th 2013, 05:02 AM
Again, starting on a false premise causes problems.

And they have all been yours...

LookingUp
Apr 15th 2013, 07:08 AM
Boy, ya'll missed that one. The second death has no power over those that are part of the first, physical, flesh and bone, resurrection! So how exactly does Jesus fail? and how does Jesus not save us from the first death? Since when is it the doctrine of Christ to remain physically dead? I thought the resurrection from the dead was part of the doctrine of Christ. :BThe second death has no power over those who are part of the resurrection to immortal life. Jesus doesn't fail. Jesus doesn't "save" us from the first death--we ALL die. Jesus saves us from the second death.

LookingUp
Apr 15th 2013, 07:09 AM
What does Christians dying everyday have to do with the future resurrection from the first death?
Huh? All die the first death.

LookingUp
Apr 15th 2013, 07:11 AM
You need to learn about hope -the resurrection. We have been saved from physical death. Just because it hasn't happened yet doesn't make the word of God void. The "next life" is physical resurrected bodies. Note you said "as long as Christ doesn't return in our lifetimes". This truth destroys your teaching. We don't have to physically die. We have been saved from physical death. If Christ didn't come to save us from physical death he would not have been physically resurrected as the first of many.He was immortally resurrected as the first of many.

Noeb
Apr 15th 2013, 04:30 PM
Mortal body is changed. The resurrection is deliverance from physical death. To say physical death is not spoken of in Genesis 1-4 is indefensible.

percho
Apr 15th 2013, 04:33 PM
I am not a translator but I side with the overwhelming amount of translators that render it as or near the wording the KJV uses.

Clarke translated it as "a death thou shalt die"



See above.




If God spoke like Yoda from Star Wars maybe...


No.....that doesn't line up with having to die that same day. God didn't say, "You will begin dying on the day you eat it." God said, "You will die on the day that you eat it"

NO God said on the day you eat, a death thou shalt die.

The day Adam ate he was dead in trespasses and sins, awaiting dying to the flesh which would end his life. That is passed on to all men. That in Christ was abolished to Christ; Knowing that Christ being raised from the dead dieth no more; death hath no more dominion over him. For in that he died, he died unto sin once: but in that he liveth, he liveth unto God. Romans 6:9.10

Because Jesus was raised from the dead, we still will die in the flesh, however as before the resurrection of Christ there was no hope, now in his resurrection we have been begotten to a hope of living after our death.

That is what we are baptized into, a living hope.

percho
Apr 15th 2013, 04:53 PM
IMHO The resurrection of Jesus the Christ was victory for Christ over death. The wages of sin.

Why do we find it necessary to qualify death as physical of spiritual. You will not find the words physical/spiritual and death and or life next to each other in the word of God.

Death, the wages of sin comes to the man to/in the flesh. When the spirit which made the flesh alive returns to God who gave it the flesh made alive by that spirit dies and one is no longer a living soul.

Sin separates us from God but we continue to live until death to the flesh. We could not go to God and ask forgiveness because we were cut off from God. The death of Christ reconciled us to God the Father and through Christ we can now commune with the Father.

ewq1938
Apr 15th 2013, 05:28 PM
NO God said on the day you eat, a death thou shalt die.

Don't nit-pick. That's the same thing. The problem is he did not die a physical death like you are claiming. The only death he could have experienced that same day was spiritual in nature.



The day Adam ate he was dead in trespasses and sins, awaiting dying to the flesh which would end his life. That is passed on to all men.

No that is not "passed on". We are created mortal. Adam was created mortal. You make it sound as if Adam was created as some immortal angel and when he sinned God changed him into a mortal man but no such thing exists in the text.





That in Christ was abolished to Christ; Knowing that Christ being raised from the dead dieth no more; death hath no more dominion over him. For in that he died, he died unto sin once: but in that he liveth, he liveth unto God. Romans 6:9.10

So? All men must die but if they are saved then they shall "dieth no more".


Because Jesus was raised from the dead, we still will die in the flesh,

What? That makes no sense.




however as before the resurrection of Christ there was no hope, now in his resurrection we have been begotten to a hope of living after our death.

Again, very incorrect. God provided sin atonement in the first covenant. It was a much more difficult and complicated process but it did work well when it was done correctly.

percho
Apr 15th 2013, 07:05 PM
Don't nit-pick. That's the same thing. The problem is he did not die a physical death like you are claiming. The only death he could have experienced that same day was spiritual in nature.




No that is not "passed on". We are created mortal. Adam was created mortal. You make it sound as if Adam was created as some immortal angel and when he sinned God changed him into a mortal man but no such thing exists in the text.






So? All men must die but if they are saved then they shall "dieth no more".



What? That makes no sense.





Again, very incorrect. God provided sin atonement in the first covenant. It was a much more difficult and complicated process but it did work well when it was done correctly.

I am not nit picking. 930 years after eating the fruit Adam's death brought an end to him, the result of his sin, unless he is resurrected in Christ. However as I think I posted earlier, it was ordained for Christ to die even before Adam was created or sinned as a means of redemption for his sin.

It isn't really about man. It was about: He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil. 1 John 3:8

ewq1938
Apr 15th 2013, 07:42 PM
I am not nit picking. 930 years after eating the fruit Adam's death brought an end to him

Which proves that physical death is not the one God promised him the day he ate of the tree.



, the result of his sin

No, he died of old age most likely...heart attack or cancer....who knows. But sin didn't kill him physically, his sin killed him spiritually and might result in eternal death on judgment day.



However as I think I posted earlier, it was ordained for Christ to die even before Adam was created or sinned as a means of redemption for his sin.

It's ordained that all men die lol It's the natural way to move onto the next life as scripture says.

LookingUp
Apr 15th 2013, 11:13 PM
Again, very incorrect. God provided sin atonement in the first covenant. It was a much more difficult and complicated process but it did work well when it was done correctly.It didn't get you raised to immortality.

ewq1938
Apr 15th 2013, 11:30 PM
It didn't get you raised to immortality.

Oh ? why not ?

LookingUp
Apr 15th 2013, 11:31 PM
Oh ? why not ?Who was bodily raised to immortality before Jesus?

ewq1938
Apr 15th 2013, 11:34 PM
Who was bodily raised to immortality before Jesus?

Everyone ?

LookingUp
Apr 15th 2013, 11:49 PM
Everyone ?Name one person who was raised from the dead to bodily immortality before Jesus.

Noeb
Apr 15th 2013, 11:54 PM
What does Christians dying everyday have to do with the future resurrection from the first death?
Huh? All die the first death.Why did you ask "Huh?" The resurrection is not for spiritual death. It's for physical death, and if the resurrection is not deliverance from the first death, what is it? Why is it then that death is swallowed in victory? Why is it then death no longer has a sting and the grave no victory?

1Co 15:54 So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory.
1Co 15:55 O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory?

LookingUp
Apr 16th 2013, 12:13 AM
Why did you ask "Huh?" The resurrection is not for spiritual death. It's for physical death, and if the resurrection is not deliverance from the first death, what is it? Why is it then that death is swallowed in victory? Why is it then death no longer has a sting and the grave no victory?

1Co 15:54 So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory.
1Co 15:55 O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory?
Death is death. Physical death and spiritual death can’t be separated into compartments. Either one is alive or dead. Those in Christ are alive even if they die. Those who are in unbelief are the walking dead. The resurrection to immortality is proof that we are alive even now. At judgment, the dead who are resurrected are resurrected in their mortal bodies and are still “the dead.”

Noeb
Apr 16th 2013, 12:42 AM
Death is death. Physical death and spiritual death can’t be separated into compartments. Either one is alive or dead. Those in Christ are alive even if they die. Those who are in unbelief are the walking dead. The resurrection to immortality is proof that we are alive even now.I don't know how this is related to the discussion at all.



At judgment, the dead who are resurrected are resurrected in their mortal bodies and are still “the dead.”You don't know this. There's no reason they could not have spiritual bodies to swim in the lake of fire with. Just sayin

ewq1938
Apr 16th 2013, 12:59 AM
Name one person who was raised from the dead to bodily immortality before Jesus.


Aside from the finality of immortality being decided on judgment day, Moses was dead and clear resurrected into an immortal body while Jesus was still alive.

LookingUp
Apr 16th 2013, 01:11 AM
Aside from the finality of immortality being decided on judgment day, Moses was dead and clear resurrected into an immortal body while Jesus was still alive.Clearly? Explain, please, why you say it's "clear."

ewq1938
Apr 16th 2013, 01:15 AM
Clearly? Explain, please, why you say it's "clear."

Are you mocking that I typed too fast and forgot the ly?

LookingUp
Apr 16th 2013, 01:24 AM
Are you mocking that I typed too fast and forgot the ly?No. Can you explain why you think it's clear?

ewq1938
Apr 16th 2013, 01:38 AM
No. Can you explain why you think it's clear?


Because Moses (and Elijah) were seen bodily:

Mar 9:4 And there appeared unto them Elias with Moses: and they were talking with Jesus.

LookingUp
Apr 16th 2013, 01:40 AM
Because Moses (and Elijah) were seen bodily:

Mar 9:4 And there appeared unto them Elias with Moses: and they were talking with Jesus.Angels are seen bodily, but that doesn't mean they were resurrected.

LookingUp
Apr 16th 2013, 01:44 AM
If all people were already being bodily raised to immortality, why does Scripture say Christ is the first fruits from the dead (1 Cor. 15:20)?

If all people were already being bodily raised to immortality, why did Jesus have to die and be raised to life?

You said everyone (post #160) has been resurrected to immortality. Why does Martha think the resurrection of the dead is “at the last day” (John 11:24)? She’s wrong?

And why does Paul say that the dead in Christ will rise first (1 Thess. 4:16)?

Why does Paul say the dead “will” be resurrected (1 Cor. 15:52) if they’ve already been resurrected?

ewq1938
Apr 16th 2013, 01:46 AM
Angels are seen bodily, but that doesn't mean they were resurrected.

Moses isn't an angel. He died and he was seen bodily so he was resurrected at some point.

ewq1938
Apr 16th 2013, 01:48 AM
If all people were already being bodily raised to immortality, why does Scripture say Christ is the first fruits from the dead (1 Cor. 15:20)?

Why does it say he is the "last Adam (man)"?




If all people were already being bodily raised to immortality, why did Jesus have to die and be raised to life?

Forgiveness of sins for the new covenant.


You said everyone (post #160) has been resurrected to immortality. Why does Martha think the resurrection of the dead is “at the last day” (John 11:24)? She’s wrong?

That's a different resurrection.


And why does Paul say that the dead in Christ will rise first (1 Thess. 4:16)?

They do.



Why does Paul say the dead “will” be resurrected (1 Cor. 15:52) if they’ve already been resurrected?

Different resurrection.

LookingUp
Apr 16th 2013, 01:51 AM
Moses isn't an angel. He died and he was seen bodily so he was resurrected at some point.
I know that Moses is not an angel. Moses was seen bodily. That doesn't mean he was resurrected. Angels are seen bodily. That doesn't mean they were resurrected.

ewq1938
Apr 16th 2013, 01:53 AM
I know that Moses is not an angel. Moses was seen bodily. That doesn't mean he was resurrected.

Explain how a dead man was seen bodily then.

LookingUp
Apr 16th 2013, 01:54 AM
Why does it say he is the "last Adam (man)"? If all people were already being bodily raised to immortality, why does Scripture say Christ is the first fruits from the dead (1 Cor. 15:20)?


Forgiveness of sins for the new covenant.I thought sins were already forgiven and people were being raised.


That's a different resurrection.Care to explain?

Are we going to use up 150 posts with one question and one answer or are you going to just explain your position and save us time?

LookingUp
Apr 16th 2013, 01:54 AM
Explain how a dead man was seen bodily then.Explain why it can't be done.

ewq1938
Apr 16th 2013, 01:59 AM
If all people were already being bodily raised to immortality, why does Scripture say Christ is the first fruits from the dead (1 Cor. 15:20)?

It doesn't mean that no one has died and has been resurrected...which is obvious since Moses was seen bodily.



I thought sins were already forgiven and people were being raised.

In the old Covenant, yes. But when Christ came, the old was going to be nailed to the cross.



Care to explain?

It's best for a different thread but there are different kinds of resurrections at different times.




Are we going to use up 150 posts with one question and one answer or are you going to just explain your position and save us time?

What?

LookingUp
Apr 16th 2013, 02:02 AM
If you want to explain your position, I'd be interested. If not, then fine.

Noeb
Apr 16th 2013, 04:52 AM
Aside from the finality of immortality being decided on judgment day, Moses was dead and clear resurrected into an immortal body while Jesus was still alive.Moses body and Elijah were taken. Their bodies were not immortal before Christ.

Noeb
Apr 16th 2013, 04:58 AM
Why does it say he is the "last Adam (man)"?There were only two. Jesus was the second man. He was the last because he succeeded and we don't need another.

ewq1938
Apr 16th 2013, 04:58 AM
Moses body and Elijah were taken.


Moses died and was buried. He wasn't "taken". I'd like you to show the scriptures showing Moses was "taken"...will hold my breath for 3 years then I will stop LOL

ewq1938
Apr 16th 2013, 04:59 AM
There were only two. Jesus was the second man.

Was Jesus literally the "second man"? I thought Cain was the second man

Noeb
Apr 16th 2013, 05:03 AM
Was Jesus literally the "second man"? I thought Cain was the second man
Yes. Just the the second man. He was the last because he succeeded and we don't need another.

1Co 15:45 And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.
1Co 15:46 Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual.
1Co 15:47 The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is the Lord from heaven.

ewq1938
Apr 16th 2013, 05:06 AM
Yes. Just the the second man. He was the last because he succeeded and we don't need another.

Yeah, so "second" and "last" are not literal...they symbolize something else.

Noeb
Apr 16th 2013, 05:10 AM
Moses died and was buried. He wasn't "taken". I'd like you to show the scriptures showing Moses was "taken"...will hold my breath for 3 years then I will stop LOLRight......sure....and you have scripture showing he was buried? No..of course not...no you don't, we know he was not, but I have

Jud 1:9 Yet Michael the archangel, when contending with the devil he disputed about the body of Moses, durst not bring against him a railing accusation, but said, The Lord rebuke thee.

JFB Commentary
about the body of Moses — his literal body. Satan, as having the power of death, opposed the raising of it again, on the ground of Moses’ sin at Meribah, and his murder of the Egyptian. That Moses’ body was raised, appears from his presence with Elijah and Jesus (who were in the body) at the Transfiguration

Noeb
Apr 16th 2013, 05:12 AM
Yeah, so "second" and "last" are not literal...they symbolize something else.and as long as everything symbolizes something, that something being whatever sounds good to make the puzzle pretty, scripture means whatever we want it to mean.:rolleyes:

ewq1938
Apr 16th 2013, 05:17 AM
Right......sure....and you have scripture showing he was buried? No..of course not...no you don't,


Don't be rude.


Yes, Moses was buried.

Deuteronomy 34:5 So Moses the servant of the LORD died there in the land of Moab, according to the word of the LORD.
Deuteronomy 34:6 And he buried him in a valley in the land of Moab, over against Bethpeor: but no man knoweth of his sepulchre unto this day.

ewq1938
Apr 16th 2013, 05:19 AM
and as long as everything symbolizes something,

Was Jesus literally the last man, or the second man? No. Obviously these things are symbolic.

Noeb
Apr 16th 2013, 05:37 AM
Don't be rude.


Yes, Moses was buried.

Deuteronomy 34:5 So Moses the servant of the LORD died there in the land of Moab, according to the word of the LORD.
Deuteronomy 34:6 And he buried him in a valley in the land of Moab, over against Bethpeor: but no man knoweth of his sepulchre unto this day.Rude? You're one to talk.

I vaguely thought of that for a split second and dismissed it as something else, but you still have no explanation for how he could have been immortal nor any scripture that says he was.

Noeb
Apr 16th 2013, 05:39 AM
Was Jesus literally the last man, or the second man? No. Obviously these things are symbolic.Yes, there were only two like them, and there will never be another.

ewq1938
Apr 16th 2013, 05:41 AM
Rude? You're one to talk.

I'm going to put you on ignore.

Noeb
Apr 16th 2013, 05:45 AM
I'm going to put you on ignore.
:pp I've been doing that for years with your post anyhow......