PDA

View Full Version : Why Did Adam and Eve Choose To Sin? [for debate]



jasonlevene
Feb 17th 2005, 03:53 PM
Hello brothers and sisters. After several years of studying the Garden of Eden account of Adam and Eve's sin, I've concluded that:


*Eve was fully knowledgeable of God's command which was why she never ate of the tree of knowledge fruit prior to Satan approaching her. [Genesis 3:3]. Now it is true that she distorted God's command by claiming it prohibited the touching of the tree of knowledge fruit but it can not be denied that she still considered the tree of knowledge fruit to have been deadly.


*It was only when Satan claimed that the eating of the tree of knowledge fruit would make Eve as knowledgeable of good and evil as God that she desired the tree of knowledge fruit [Genesis 3:6]. In the parallel Scripture in the New Testament, 1 John 2:16 explains why Satan's lie provoked Eve to desire the fruit of that tree:

1 John 2:16-For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes and the pride of life, is not of the Father but is of this world.

Genesis 3:6-And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that is was pleasant to the eyes and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof and did eat...

Eve thus desired the fruit of that tree because she was driven by her worldly 'sinful nature' lusts to be her own god and make her own rules.


*Once Adam and Eve sinned, their access to the Garden of Eden's tree of life immortality had been cut off [Genesis 3:22]. This represents the curse of death inflicted upon sinful man. Jesus reversed this curse by rejecting his own sinful nature and dying on the cross and as a result he raised himself from the grave in immortality. This explains why physical death is so consistently portrayed as the opposite of the reward of the immortal resurrection for the righteous.

1 Corinthians 15:16-For if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain, ye are yet in your sins. Then they also which are fallen asleep in Christ are perished.



What do you all think of this assessment?

Kahtar
Feb 17th 2005, 04:06 PM
*Eve was fully knowledgeable of God's command which was why she never ate of the tree of knowledge fruit prior to Satan approaching her. [Genesis 3:3]. Now it is true that she distorted God's command by claiming it prohibited the touching of the tree of knowledge fruit but it can not be denied that she still considered the tree of knowledge fruit to have been deadly.I agree. She understood what God had commanded. And Adam was standing right there with her when she did it.


*It was only when Satan claimed that the eating of the tree of knowledge fruit would make Eve as knowledgeable of good and evil as God that she desired the tree of knowledge fruit [Genesis 3:6]. In the parallel Scripture in the New Testament, 1 John 2:16 explains why Satan's lie provoked Eve to desire the fruit of that tree:I also agree with this

1 John 2:16-For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes and the pride of life, is not of the Father but is of this world.

Genesis 3:6-And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that is was pleasant to the eyes and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof and did eat...


Eve thus desired the fruit of that tree because she was driven by her worldly 'sinful nature' lusts to be her own god and make her own rules.At this point, I have a slightly different view. Eve, or Adam, did not have a sinful nature to begin with. But the moment the serpent caused her to consider the fruit, that is the point that sin entered. When she made the decision.



*Once Adam and Eve sinned, their access to the Garden of Eden's tree of life immortality had been cut off [Genesis 3:22]. This represents the curse of death inflicted upon sinful man. Jesus reversed this curse by rejecting his own sinful nature and dying on the cross and as a result he raised himself from the grave in immortality. This explains why physical death is so consistently portrayed as the opposite of the reward of the immortal resurrection for the righteous.Did Jesus have a sinful nature?:hmm: Not sure, but nevertheless, He successfully overcame temptation.

Toolman
Feb 17th 2005, 06:58 PM
*Eve was fully knowledgeable of God's command which was why she never ate of the tree of knowledge fruit prior to Satan approaching her. [Genesis 3:3]. Now it is true that she distorted God's command by claiming it prohibited the touching of the tree of knowledge fruit but it can not be denied that she still considered the tree of knowledge fruit to have been deadly.

I agree. It also appears that Eve has the same problem many believers have of adding to God's word and making it "stricter" than what God gave.


*It was only when Satan claimed that the eating of the tree of knowledge fruit would make Eve as knowledgeable of good and evil as God that she desired the tree of knowledge fruit [Genesis 3:6]. In the parallel Scripture in the New Testament, 1 John 2:16 explains why Satan's lie provoked Eve to desire the fruit of that tree:

1 John 2:16-For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes and the pride of life, is not of the Father but is of this world.

Genesis 3:6-And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that is was pleasant to the eyes and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof and did eat...

Here is the other parallel in scripture:

Matthew 4:3 - Now when the tempter came to Him, he said, "If You are the Son of God, command that these stones become bread." (lust of the flesh)

6 - and said to Him, "If You are the Son of God, throw Yourself down. For it is written:
"He shall give His angels charge over you,'
and, "In their hands they shall bear you up,
Lest you dash your foot against a stone."' (pride of life)

8-9 - Again, the devil took Him up on an exceedingly high mountain, and showed Him all the kingdoms of the world and their glory. And he said to Him, "All these things I will give You if You will fall down and worship me."
Eve thus desired the fruit of that tree because she was driven by her worldly 'sinful nature' lusts to be her own god and make her own rules. (lust of the eyes)


Eve thus desired the fruit of that tree because she was driven by her worldly 'sinful nature' lusts to be her own god and make her own rules.

Not sure about this part. It is debatable as to whether Eve had a sin nature prior to ingesting the fruit.
Paul explains that sin entered through Adam into the world:
Romans 5:12-Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned--

Something to contemplate.


*Once Adam and Eve sinned, their access to the Garden of Eden's tree of life immortality had been cut off [Genesis 3:22]. This represents the curse of death inflicted upon sinful man. Jesus reversed this curse by rejecting his own sinful nature and dying on the cross and as a result he raised himself from the grave in immortality. This explains why physical death is so consistently portrayed as the opposite of the reward of the immortal resurrection for the righteous.

Scripture doesn't teach that Jesus had a sin nature, so I'm leary of describing Him as such.

I agree with physical death being the antithesis to the immortal resurrection.

theabaud
Feb 17th 2005, 07:26 PM
I agree. It also appears that Eve has the same problem many believers have of adding to God's word and making it "stricter" than what God gave.




excellant point. I am an IFB. so often our standards are taken as the Word when the Word said no such thing. I think it is good to have standards stretching beyond God's Word (to insure we don't stumble, not for "bonus righteousness"), but don't call them the Word because the Word is pure. Any thing we add is defiling.

Adam and eve were both given a will, or self volition or whatever you choose to cll it. She willfully disobeyed, and in kind he did as well. God did not choose for them to do this,although he did know it would ultimately happen.

Doma
Feb 18th 2005, 12:31 AM
http://www.kingdom-gospel.com/redeem.html



When God created Adam, He created Adam to serve God and have communion or relationship with him (Gen 3:8-9). Not as a slave. But as a husband-wife relationship (Eph5:31-32) or like a son and Father (Rom8:15-16), or even as friend to friend (John15:13-14). But the relationship of God to Adam was not forced upon him without choice. Yes God is God, yes God is Lord, but God is good, merciful and loving. God even commanded Adam. Does a father command his child to stay off the street for his own safety? So God commanded Adam to not eat from the Tree of Knowledge. But God left the choice to Adam whether to obey or not. God did not want a robot to serve and love Him. What value is love if there is no choice. But the value of love becomes precious when what can leave, does not, because it chooses to stay. So God commanded Adam to not eat of the Tree of Knowledge but was allowed to eat all else. There was put before Adam a choice:


Deut 30: MKJV
19 I call Heaven and earth to record today against you. I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing. Therefore, choose life, so that both you and your seed may live,
20 so that you may love the LORD your God, and that you may obey His voice, and that you may cling to Him. For He is your life and the length of your days, so that you may dwell in the land ...

Joshua 24: MKJV
15 And if it seems evil to you to serve the LORD, choose this day whom you will serve...

Some would have us think that Adam's fall was God's will, or some even think that God has or had some sadistic pleasure of forcing servitude with the choice of punishment. But I ask you, does the father who commands his child to stay off the busy street, wish and desire the traffic to be there, to run over stray children? No! His obedience is commanded because of certain laws put into effect. For order to exist there must be laws.

An example, without the law of gravity we would not be here. Is God therefore limited by gravity? No, he created it to bring order. Order without law would be an empty creation. And that was what was before God created. Therefore He made laws so His creation would exist in harmony. Well, some say would ask, couldn't God create a Universe where we can choose to walk without consequence? Then each man would be a god, and he would have his own standards, and each god or man would need create his own universe, because my laws would counter act against yours. And each god would then need to be completely alone, because we are selfish. And so God in His universe was alone and created man to be with Him. This is Love. And to exist in harmony and love, man must accept the laws of physics and laws of the spirit to abide there.

Another question by many is this? Is God evil that he put the Tree of Knowledge in the garden with Adam? This I know: God is good. In Him there is no evil. I know this; satan was on the earth and in the garden. I know this: God gave authority and power to Adam over all of creation. I therefore believe this: satan possessed a serpent in the garden which Adam could have rebuked and sent away. I believe this: satan cannot create but can corrupt.

Here is a revelation that I put from theory into doctrine. That satan some how, corrupted a tree or possessed it and it became the Tree of Knowledge. Read this:

Ezek 31: MKJV
8 The cedars in the garden of God could not hide him; the fir trees were not like his boughs, and the chestnut trees were not like his branches. Nor was any tree in the garden of God like him in his beauty.
9 I have made him beautiful by his many branches, so that all the trees of Eden in the garden of God envied him.
18 To whom are you like in glory and in greatness among the trees of Eden? Yet you shall be brought down with the trees of Eden to the lower parts of the earth...


So this Tree and the choice it gave came from satan, not from God. The fallen angels, came from heaven and have seen marvelous things man has not seen. It is completely possible, satan used his knowledge to corrupt a tree to produce the fruit of knowledge and death.

Rev 2:24 ...who did not know the deep things of Satan...

I believe this was permitted by God for 2 major reasons:

1. Because of the laws of order.
2. This furthered His desire for Adam to have a choice in choosing to obey, therefore allowing love thru choice to exist.
3. Adam had the authority to stop satan and bring all the earth including the serpent and the Tree of Knowledge back into their place under God away from corruption.

Lets remember:

1. God allowed it.
2. God did give power to break it.

Does a father allow the traffic to exist in front of his house despite the child's safety concerns? Yes. Because even the traffic and road serves the father. Though indirectly.

In Adam's original state before he sinned, what nature did he have? Did God's Holiness abide in Adam's being? This is another tough question. This is what I have found in God's Word:

Rom 14: NKJV
14 I know and am convinced by the Lord Jesus that there is nothing unclean of itself; but to him who considers anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean.

1 Tim 4: ESV
4 For everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving, 5 for it is made holy by the word of God and prayer.

What I see here then, is that nothing is evil and nothing is Holy, unless we do something about it. Therefore, Adam was neither unclean nor sanctified. He was in a neutral state given opportunity by God to choose. Adam had not eaten of the Tree of Life, in fact God chased him out of Eden before Adam could eat it.

What is important is what became of Adam's being after the sin. God had declared "for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die". Did Adam die physically that day? No. Did he die emotionally? No he increased emotion. Did he die intellectually? No, he increased intellectually. Did he die in his will? That is, did he lose total power of choice thru self determination? No, that increased as well. Only one thing remains; spirit. Adam died spiritually. That part of man where God can reside, now was dead. Did Adam have a spirit? Yes, spirit is immortal, but it's light was put out. From henceforward all people are born spiritually dead, eternally separated from God.

Rom 5: LITV
12 Because of this, even as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, so also death passed to all men, inasmuch as all sinned.

1 Cor 15: YLTV
15:22 for even as in Adam all die, so also in the Christ all shall be made alive,

So despite how a person conducts his life, whether he is cruel and evil or nice and caring, this has no effect upon that eternal spirit of a person that is forever dead and separated from God. Just as if a baby gets killed in the street, no matter what you do, you can't make the baby alive. No matter how much love, no matter how much caring. That baby will be separated from it's father by death and no action can restore it. But thank God for God, He made a way, where man can not.

That way is JESUS

Duane Morse
Feb 18th 2005, 12:55 AM
Adam sinned because it was impossible for him not to sin, at least once.
That is why God only had to give Adam one choice, to eat or not to eat from that tree.

It's impossible for us not to sin, also. Just try it sometime. Don't sin, in deed or thought, for an entire day. It is harder than it sounds.

EarlyCall
Feb 18th 2005, 01:14 AM
A couple things. First, to say that it was impossible for Adam to have not sinned is simply not true. That is nowhere to be found in the Word of God. It simply is a matter of opinion, and one I heartily disagree with.

Secondly, notice what happened. s*t*n tempted Eve, she sinned and then what happened next? Who tempted Adam to sin? Was it s*t*n? No, it was Eve! Consider what that means for a moment. Once Eve had sinned, had fallen, it wasn't enough for her to be the only one, she went to Adam to try and bring him into it as well. Of course there was no one else other than Adam around then, but sin does this. So often we are not satisfied to sin alone but involve others in our sin.

Sinning is like throwing a pebble into the water: it ripples outward. So then, others that have not sinned and are not guilty of our sin, are affected by our sin nonetheless. Sin is very ugly and devious.

Braver
Feb 18th 2005, 05:42 AM
They sinned because they have free will. This is also the reason why God put the forbidden Tree in Eden. Without the forbidden Tree, Eden is not a mansion, but a prison, and therefore God is not a Father, but a jailor and slaver. The Forbidden tree is the door, the tool with which man may exercise his free will.

God created man to glorify Him. Without free will, man can not glorify God (since glorifiying means to choose and exalt above others, this is glorification), therefore Free Will is Necessity.

Duane Morse
Feb 19th 2005, 12:00 AM
They sinned because they have free will. This is also the reason why God put the forbidden Tree in Eden. Without the forbidden Tree, Eden is not a mansion, but a prison, and therefore God is not a Father, but a jailor and slaver. The Forbidden tree is the door, the tool with which man may exercise his free will.

God created man to glorify Him. Without free will, man can not glorify God (since glorifiying means to choose and exalt above others, this is glorification), therefore Free Will is Necessity.
You make an excellent point.

That forbidden tree is not only the door to free will, it is also the door that leads to Life, and the door that leads to salvation.

If Adam had not exercised his free will Life would have stopped in its tracks. It would have been a static existence, as opposed to a dynamic Life.

If Adam had not exercised his free will there would have been no need for Jesus or His sacrifice. As that was the Plan from the beginning, Adam would have screwed up in a much bigger way than he did by sinning.

Doma
Feb 19th 2005, 08:57 PM
It was not God's will for Adam to sin. Any who believe such are calling scripture or God a liar or a tempter.

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.

God does not lie. If He wanted Adam to eat it He would have told him so. Adam had freedom to eat from the Tree of Life and chose not to.

dancedwithdolphin
Feb 20th 2005, 02:09 AM
From what I have read in Genesis I dont think that Adam and Eve knew the consequences of eating from that tree. Yes, they knew God told them the day they eat of that tree they would surely die. But just like you and me, our parents tell us dont touch fire it will burn you. Burn really is a foreign word until you have experienced it. Then you realize or have that knowledge placed into you: fire hurts the body, it leaves its mark on you. And then we no longer wish to place our hand in fire any more, because now we have learned the meaning. But once you have burned yourself, its too late to go back.

I see that God tells them death, but he doesnt go into details like you will lose my protection I have placed over you. You will experience pain, you will be afraid, you will get sick, all because of lying, murdering, bearing false witness, commiting adultery, and so on.

Our knowledge of sin comes from experiencing it. Our children are proof of that. You can tell them, but they dont really understand it until they have lived through it themselves. It is a cycle that doesnt end, because we tell our children, they tell their children, and so on. Its all the same warnings, but generally speaking they go ahead and partake of that fruit anyways. We are fortunate in the fact God forgives us, and once we have been burned we learn and dont desire to go back down that path again. We become more willing to listen to the warnings.

Perhaps we had to learn these things so that we could be perfected.

I know if I were back in that garden now, and that ole serpent tried to trick me, I would chuckle and say: Ya, right. Get thee behind me satan, as I run as far away from him as I can get. (Know what I mean).

Duane Morse
Feb 22nd 2005, 12:16 AM
It was not God's will for Adam to sin. Any who believe such are calling scripture or God a liar or a tempter.

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.

God does not lie. If He wanted Adam to eat it He would have told him so. Adam had freedom to eat from the Tree of Life and chose not to.
It may not be a case of 'want' or 'will', but a case of inevitability.

God knew that Adam would sin, period. He knew it, before Adam ever conceived the notion.
As far as God is concerned, it was already an accomplished fact.

As far as God is concerned, everything is already an accomplished fact.
We are the ones lagging behind.

Royalty
Feb 22nd 2005, 12:28 AM
GENESIS 2

15And the LORD God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it.





Adam knew very clearly whe God said that he had to "keep it" God meant to "keep it safe" or Gaurd it. Adam knew by God's words that there was a enemy that could threaten the Garden. So Adam had no excuses when the Serpent snuck in from the field and deceived Eve. Adam knew there was an outside threat.



Genesis 3
1Now the serpent was more subtile than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made.


So There was a field and a garden. The serpent was from the field and snuck into the garden. Adams job was to 'keep' (gaurd) the garden safe.



Adam knew all along.

Duane Morse
Feb 22nd 2005, 12:44 AM
GENESIS 2

15And the LORD God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it.





Adam knew very clearly whe God said that he had to "keep it" God meant to "keep it safe" or Gaurd it. Adam knew by God's words that there was a enemy that could threaten the Garden. So Adam had no excuses when the Serpent snuck in from the field and deceived Eve. Adam knew there was an outside threat.



Genesis 3
1Now the serpent was more subtile than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made.


So There was a field and a garden. The serpent was from the field and snuck into the garden. Adams job was to 'keep' (gaurd) the garden safe.



Adam knew all along.
Genesis 3
1Now the serpent was more subtile than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made.

Personally, I think you put the emphasis on the wrong word, and so come to an entirely different understanding.

The 'any' puts the serpent outside the realm of the beasts of the field, otherwise it would say 'any other'.

You seem to assume that Adam understood about the serpent better than he understood about death or sin. But, it may not have been so.

Royalty
Feb 22nd 2005, 01:05 AM
Genesis 3
1Now the serpent was more subtile than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made.

Personally, I think you put the emphasis on the wrong word, and so come to an entirely different understanding.

The 'any' puts the serpent outside the realm of the beasts of the field, otherwise it would say 'any other'.

You seem to assume that Adam understood about the serpent better than he understood about death or sin. But, it may not have been so.


Well the field was seperate from the garden. And something from the field got into the garden when he wasnt supposed to. Adam was supposed to Keep the garden safe. God warned Him.

qbee
Feb 22nd 2005, 02:48 AM
Adam and Eve chose to sin because God allowed them to have free agency..
He didnt want to create robots. They chose to go outside of Gods will
because they didnt KNOW what evil was (Evil is being outside of Gods will)
or the consequences of being outside of Gods will.. Without God or being in
his will there is only.. EVIL Death suffering pain sorrow. They NEVER
experienced this so they did not understand the true consequences of
disobeying God and being outside of his will... They didnt trust what he said.

God allowed Adam and Eve (mankind) to be tempted by evil and go outside
of his will.. So that he could teach us and so mankind will know without a
doubt that only in God will we have ... Eternal Life, peace, love, Joy and Happines..

Without him showing us Evil we would NEVER Know what and who
God really is... All powerfull, merciful, Just, kind , forgiving, Loving..
Now we trust him and believe what he said was true... But we have
inherited Adam and Eves sinfull nature through our flesh...

He wants us to know him and understand that without him....
We are forever lost..

The REAL reason God allowed Adam and Eve (mankind) to sin and experience
Evil.. Is Because he loves us and wanted us to fully trust him and he will bring
us back into his will and destroy.. Evil forever... And then once again it will be good..
But this time very very Good... Forever

Doma
Feb 22nd 2005, 07:00 AM
It may not be a case of 'want' or 'will', but a case of inevitability.

God knew that Adam would sin, period. He knew it, before Adam ever conceived the notion.
As far as God is concerned, it was already an accomplished fact.

As far as God is concerned, everything is already an accomplished fact.
We are the ones lagging behind.

Of coarse He knew, thus we know from scripture that Jesus died before the foundations of the World. But this was not the will of God. And yes God has a will, in fact there are 3 levels to His will:

Rom 12:
1: I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service.
2: And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God.

1. The Good
2. The Acceptable
3. The Perfect

You know the english word "sin" comes from the British terminology from archery and missing the target. A target has 3 circles. the bulls eye is God's perfect will. The inner circle is God's acceptable will, and the outer ring is His good will, missing the target completely is a sin. This is what Adam and Eve did. They missed the target.

Anyone who says it was God's plan for Adam to miss the target is living in heresy. God knew it, I do not deny, but it was not His will. He did not plan it, but made arrangments to fix it.

Eph:1:11: In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will:

Here we see He causes all things even failure to work toward His will. Thus He has a will, but even a failure to accomplish it will not defeat God's will. Adam's sin was NOT God's will, but God nevertheless used it.

qbee
Feb 22nd 2005, 07:34 AM
God hates evil ...which is (anything outside his will)

It is NOT Gods will that Adam or mankind should sin... and his will in this
will be accomplished.... Through his perfect plan of salvation to do this.

In fact in Gods eyes this has already been accomplished..
His will is all there is... He is just proving this to mankind..

It is Gods will that only that which is Good and righteous exist.

But he does allows evil and sin in this world to show mankind that it can
NOT be done for anyone outside of his will... He allows evil to teach us
this and he will destroy evil (satan) after he (it) has fufilled this purpose..

Satan and all his temptations will be thrown into the lake of fire forever..

Then Gods will, that only that which is Good and righteous exists,
will be accomplished in our eyes also.. We will no longer be confused
or even desire to be outside his will..

This is his plan and this is his will,
It WILL be done on earth as it is in heaven...:)

He is in control of all things even evil...
Everything created is only created for Gods glory and to bring
mankind through Jesus into Gods perfect will.. Which is.....

Goodness, kindness. mercy, Justice, Love.. etc etc...:hug: Forever..

ChristopherE
Feb 22nd 2005, 10:06 AM
I agree. She understood what God had commanded. And Adam was standing right there with her when she did it.

I have a hard time believing that. I can't imagine any man standing by as some other beguiles his wife. Plus, if Adam were present we'd have to say the serpent deceived them both rather than Eve was deceived and Adam sinned because of Eve.


Genesis 3
1Now the serpent was more subtile than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made.

So There was a field and a garden. The serpent was from the field and snuck into the garden. Adams job was to 'keep' (gaurd) the garden safe.

There's a couple different ways to view this and your statement confuses them both.

First, if you take the serpent, as in the beast of the field (later to be the snake), it was not evil. Adam shouldn't have had to guard from it. God made all the beast of the field and it was all good, for "God saw that it was good"

However, if you take the serpent as in Satan. He probably had free reign once he rebelled against God's authority. Still, Adam and Eve should have steared clear of such an influence, and would have had they kept God's instruction.

I am limitted in time now, and would have to organize my thoughts to delve any deeper into this but maybe it's enough for further comentating by others for now.

jasonlevene
Feb 22nd 2005, 08:52 PM
Scripture doesn't teach that Jesus had a sin nature, so I'm leary of describing Him as such.

I must respectfully disagree with you on this. The bible does teach that Jesus had a sin nature and that he defeated it by submitting himself to the excruciating pain and suffering of the cross.

Consider this:

Eve sinned because she succumbed to the worldly and corrupt sin nature [Genesis 3:6; 1 John 2:16]. Satan's lie provoked Eve into desiring that tree of knowledge fruit because she wanted to be her own god with her own rules in defiance of God's laws and God's rules. This is the jealousy greed and corruption of the sin nature and it was inherent in Adam and Eve from creation.

Believe it or not, when Jesus asked God the Father in Gethsemane to take the cup of wrath away from him, this was his very own sinful nature talking because if God the Father had granted that request, then the word of YHWH [the OT] would be lies. You see if the ancient Scriptures requred Jesus to suffer and die on that cross and he was somehow spared of the cross, how could we ever believe anything God ever said again. Jesus asked this of God the Father because he didn't want to endure the pain and suffering of the cross and he wanted the Father to get him out of it. But there was no having that which was why Jesus concluded that God's will be what it is: that he suffer and die on the cross. Every drop of blood thus that poured when Jesus was scourged, crowned with thorns and crucified was testimony against his own sin nature and his death sealed the deal in its defeat.


The sin nature thus is not the curse of death that renders man sinful. Succumbing to the sin nature renders man sinful and Jesus never allowed this.

Kahtar
Feb 22nd 2005, 11:34 PM
I have a hard time believing that. I can't imagine any man standing by as some other beguiles his wife. Plus, if Adam were present we'd have to say the serpent deceived them both rather than Eve was deceived and Adam sinned because of Eve.

Gen 3:6 And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasing to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make wise, she took of its fruit, and ate. She also gave to her husband with her, and he ate.

H5973 eem From H6004; adverb or preposition, with (that is, in conjunction with), in varied applications; specifically equally with; often with prepositional prefix (and then usually unrepresented in English): - accompanying, against, and, as (X long as), before, beside, by (reason of), for all, from (among, between), in, like, more than, of, (un-) to, with (-al).
Seems fairly clear to me. Not too difficult to believe if it's in the Word.

Kahtar
Feb 22nd 2005, 11:41 PM
I must respectfully disagree with you on this. The bible does teach that Jesus had a sin nature and that he defeated it by submitting himself to the excruciating pain and suffering of the cross.

Consider this:

Eve sinned because she succumbed to the worldly and corrupt sin nature [Genesis 3:6; 1 John 2:16]. Satan's lie provoked Eve into desiring that tree of knowledge fruit because she wanted to be her own god with her own rules in defiance of God's laws and God's rules. This is the jealousy greed and corruption of the sin nature and it was inherent in Adam and Eve from creation.
So you are trying to convince us that God created man with sinful nature?http://bibleforums.org/images/smilies/scratch_chin.gif I will have to respectfully disagree with you on that.



Believe it or not, when Jesus asked God the Father in Gethsemane to take the cup of wrath away from him, this was his very own sinful nature talking because if God the Father had granted that request, then the word of YHWH [the OT] would be lies. You see if the ancient Scriptures requred Jesus to suffer and die on that cross and he was somehow spared of the cross, how could we ever believe anything God ever said again. Jesus asked this of God the Father because he didn't want to endure the pain and suffering of the cross and he wanted the Father to get him out of it. But there was no having that which was why Jesus concluded that God's will be what it is: that he suffer and die on the cross. Every drop of blood thus that poured when Jesus was scourged, crowned with thorns and crucified was testimony against his own sin nature and his death sealed the deal in its defeat.
You indicated that the Bible teaches this 'sinful nature of Christ'. Perhaps you would like to share with us exactly where we can find that. The portion of scripture you are referring to does not tell us about sin nature.


The sin nature thus is not the curse of death that renders man sinful. Succumbing to the sin nature renders man sinful and Jesus never allowed this.Seems to me like you are confusing man's free will with sin nature.

jasonlevene
Feb 23rd 2005, 12:01 AM
So you are trying to convince us that God created man with sinful nature?http://bibleforums.org/images/smilies/scratch_chin.gif I will have to respectfully disagree with you on that.

Did God create man with a sin nature? Well the answer to that question is the answer to the question of this thread. Why did Adam and Eve choose to sin? According to Genesis 3:3, it was only when Eve heard Satan's lie that the deadly poisonous tree of knowledge fruit became desirable. In other words, she wanted the divine good/evil knowledge of Satan's lie more than the truth and life of God's commandment. 1 John 2:16 summarizes what was going through Eve's mind and keep it mind that this was before the sin even took place.


You indicated that the Bible teaches this 'sinful nature of Christ'. Perhaps you would like to share with us exactly where we can find that. The portion of scripture you are referring to does not tell us about sin nature.

It's the Gethsemane account. I would think everybody knows where that is. It's Matthew 26:36-46. Think about it for a second. Let's suppose God the Father took the cross/cup away from Jesus. Do you realize there would be no salvation for us? Do you realize that the OT words of YHWH that prophesied Jesus' suffering on the cross would have been nullified? Taking the cup away from Jesus would have meant the literal end of all things. So why did he ask it? Simply because the sinful nature desires what is contrary to God's will and Jesus did not want to suffer the pain and agony of the cross. Jesus was asking for what was contrary to God's will: the will outlined in the OT-the Scriptures. But by forcing himself to endure it, he defeated the sinful nature. This is why Jesus is called obedient [Phil. 2:6-11]: he rejected the sin nature's desires by suffering on the cross and he raised himself in immortality as the result.

Let me know what you think. God bless.

ChristopherE
Feb 23rd 2005, 01:31 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChristopherE
I have a hard time believing that. I can't imagine any man standing by as some other beguiles his wife. Plus, if Adam were present we'd have to say the serpent deceived them both rather than Eve was deceived and Adam sinned because of Eve.



Quote:
Originally Posted by God in His Word
Gen 3:6 And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasing to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make wise, she took of its fruit, and ate. She also gave to her husband with her, and he ate.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Strong's Concordance
H5973 eem From H6004; adverb or preposition, with (that is, in conjunction with), in varied applications; specifically equally with; often with prepositional prefix (and then usually unrepresented in English): - accompanying, against, and, as (X long as), before, beside, by (reason of), for all, from (among, between), in, like, more than, of, (un-) to, with (-al).


Seems fairly clear to me. Not too difficult to believe if it's in the Word.

That can just as easily be that at a later time she had Adam with her and they ate together. However, if we are to assume that Adam was there at the time Satan was deceiving Eve, then we have to conclude that Satan deceived them both.

qbee
Feb 23rd 2005, 02:53 AM
Well that could be true..
Adam allowed evil to enter into the garden and then Eve was
then tempted by evil to disobey God then she tempted Adam...

So the fault (original sin) lies with Adam for not keeping Gods
Garden from evil.. Sin would not have entered the garden if Adam
had not allowed the serpant (evil) to enter in.

He may not have known that the serpent was evil or was satan.
But he could have been tempted first by satan to let him in..
He was beautifull Adam may had admired this beautifull snake.
and let it in from the field..

so by not obeying God he still allowed evil (something outside of Gods will)
to enter in and to tempt them to disobey. Without evil present man may not
have ever had the desire :hmm: to disobey.. Meaning if they would have stayed
inside of Gods will (obeyed) ... Evil would have never entered to temp them
to sin. It could not enter unless Adam allow it to... and so God now teaches
Adam and Eve (mankind) what it is like to live amongst evil and that it is
impossible for mankind to overcome this evil (if we are outside of God will) Hard lesson....


If Gods children come back into his will by following the example of Jesus
with the help of His Holy Spirit to overcome our sinfull nature. Satan will
have no power in tempting us. God will finally destroy satan (evil) and man
will no longer have have a sinfull nature because evil will be destroyed.
and there will be no more temptation or desire to sin..
( we will be greatfull to be inside of Gods will once again)

I believe the flesh of Jesus may have had a sinfull nature.
Because it is said he overcame sin.. so to that means he
had the ability to sin.. But he always remained inside of Gods will..
He was tempted just like the first Adam was but he rebuked satan
(evil) and refused to sucumb to his temptations.

The only sin to come upon Jesus were our own sins not his..
That is why he was so overcome with grief in the garden he was bearing
all our sins upon him.. and contemplating the terrible deathe he was to suffer.
It was unbearable for him and he did cry out to God for merci and to take this
cup if at all possible.. But that wasnt a sin.. (asking God for merci is not sinfull)
He mearly was asking God if there was any other way because it was so painfull
and unbearable... But non-the less he said I will stay inside your will father
and obey whatever you have asked of me. He didnt didnt disobey or sin EVER.
Even though he was tempted by satan and had burdens of the flesh, pain
hunger, sorrow suffering... He always stayed inside of Gods will.

ChristopherE
Feb 23rd 2005, 05:50 AM
Hold up a minute.

Adam was not charged with protecting the garden from evil. He could not have been. They had no knowledge of good and evil. He can't protect against something he knows not of.They were both simply charged with not eating of the tree. Something Eve was seduced into doing and later Adam chose to do because of Eve.

qbee
Feb 23rd 2005, 08:43 AM
Hold up a minute.

Adam was not charged with protecting the garden from evil. He could not have been. They had no knowledge of good and evil. He can't protect against something he knows not of.They were both simply charged with not eating of the tree. Something Eve was seduced into doing and later Adam chose to do because of Eve.

Ooops You are right..Christopher
He wasnt told to protect the garden from evil.
He was charged to keep the garden period.. What I meant is he allowed the
serpent in... Not knowing it was evil.. But he still shouldnt have done that.
because he was charged to keep the garden.

This was not charged to Adam as sin.. Eating the fruit was.
But sin entered.. because of one man...


Non the less evil entered the garden in the form of a serpent..

Because of evil they went outside of Gods will and ate the fruit.
Because of thier disobedience they now had a sinfull nature because
they followed satans will (evil) instead of God will. They also now
knew the difference and were ashamed..



I believe Adam and Eve would not have sinned had they not been tempted to
sin.. They didnt know the difference between goodness and evil... All they
knew is that God told them not to eat or they would die. They didnt know
anything different outside of Gods will, untill satan lied to them. God allowed
evil in so he could teach A&E (mankind) the difference. So that they will
eventually be satisfied and trust to obey him and live in his will. Knowing
that is the best and safest place to be.. Anything else is brings suffereing
and death.


The reason we still sin knowing this is that we have been completly corrupted
and have inherited this sinfull nature through the ages. Sin upon sin upon sin.
We dont know how not to sin.. That is where Jesus comes in and he is how

we will be restored and recinsiled back into Gods will...

Evil (satan) will have served its purpose and be destroyed..

We will receive new uncorrupted bodies without a sinfull nature.
I would assume we will also be completly content in living in his will.

so am I way off here...:hmm:

ChristopherE
Feb 23rd 2005, 12:52 PM
so am I way off here...:hmm:

I agree entirely with 50% of your post there. :hug: The Latter 50%, for the record.

Adam and Eve would not have sinned had Satan not entered in.

I don't know where this notion that Adam should somehow not have allowed the serpent into the garden comes from. I mean, I see "keep" and it could mean guard but where is he directed in what to guard against. Were certain animals not allowed in the garden? God created all beasts and "it was good", Also, God brought all animals to Adam in the garden to see what he would name them even looking for a companion for him. What was not good, as far as Adam was concerned, was already in the midst of the garden and he kept his instruction concerning this until Eve was seduced into breaking it. Maybe I'm missing something, I can't figure this out. It just seems like a 'let's give the woman a break and heap more blame onto the man' sort of thing. :hmm: Not that he needs more blame. He chose Eve over God.


What I meant is he allowed the
serpent in... Not knowing it was evil..

I want to expand on this a little. I believe the serpent was just an animal not inherently evil. In fact, God saw that all the beasts he created was good. We also know that it was Satan that deceived Eve. I will submit that Satan possessed the serpent to do his will, or at least whispered in his ear while he still had one. The serpent was judged for doing Satan's will and transformed into the snake. And Satan went on his merry way (held over for trial)

--------------------

I did find more reason why the "and Adam was right there" wasn't sitting well with me. It's First Timothy 2:14

1Ti 2:13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
1Ti 2:14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.

It would seem to me that if Adam was in the presence of the deception, allowing it to occur, he would then be a party to that deception and/or deceived himself. He would then also be guilty of not "keeping" the garden. However, God's judgement against Adam was for 'listening to his wife and disobeying God in the act of eating of the tree', not failing to keep the garden and not being deceived

Feel free to tell me I'm wrong about this, I'd love to see more evidence to the contrary.

Incidently, are we adhering to a literal interpretation of the trees of knowledge and life for the purpose of this debate. Or would branching into metaphorical meanings be profitable?

Kahtar
Feb 23rd 2005, 03:04 PM
Did God create man with a sin nature? Well the answer to that question is the answer to the question of this thread. Why did Adam and Eve choose to sin? According to Genesis 3:3, it was only when Eve heard Satan's lie that the deadly poisonous tree of knowledge fruit became desirable. In other words, she wanted the divine good/evil knowledge of Satan's lie more than the truth and life of God's commandment. 1 John 2:16 summarizes what was going through Eve's mind and keep it mind that this was before the sin even took place.
What you have described here is nothing more that the God-given freewill in action. God did not create man with a sinful nature. The verse you quoted above shows that.

1John 2:16 For all that [is] in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world.


It's the Gethsemane account. I would think everybody knows where that is. It's Matthew 26:36-46. I'll say again, this portion of scripture does not say that Jesus had a sin nature. That is purely conjecture on your part. You have not yet given any scripture to back up your statement.

Think about it for a second. Let's suppose God the Father took the cross/cup away from Jesus. Do you realize there would be no salvation for us? Do you realize that the OT words of YHWH that prophesied Jesus' suffering on the cross would have been nullified? Taking the cup away from Jesus would have meant the literal end of all things.No disagreement here.

So why did he ask it? Simply because the sinful nature desires what is contrary to God's will and Jesus did not want to suffer the pain and agony of the cross. Jesus was asking for what was contrary to God's will: the will outlined in the OT-the Scriptures. But by forcing himself to endure it, he defeated the sinful nature.
He asked it because he was fully man, and as a man, did not desire the suffering he knew was to come. But because he did NOT have a sin nature, he chose God's will over his own.

Matthew 26:36-39 Then cometh Jesus with them unto a place called Gethsemane, and saith unto the disciples, Sit ye here, while I go and pray yonder.
37 And he took with him Peter and the two sons of Zebedee, and began to be sorrowful and very heavy.
38 Then saith he unto them, My soul is exceeding sorrowful, even unto death: tarry ye here, and watch with me.
39 And he went a little further, and fell on his face, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou [wilt]. Again, there is nothing in here that says he had a sin nature. It is your own opinion that he did, and (so far) not supported Biblically.

This is why Jesus is called obedient [Phil. 2:6-11]: he rejected the sin nature's desiresHe rejected the natural human aversion to suffering.
This is what I think. God bless...

Kahtar
Feb 23rd 2005, 03:11 PM
That can just as easily be that at a later time she had Adam with her and they ate together. However, if we are to assume that Adam was there at the time Satan was deceiving Eve, then we have to conclude that Satan deceived them both.

Genesis 3:6 And when the woman saw that the tree [was] good for food, and that it [was] pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make [one] wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.
It seems faily clear to me that it is describing one single event, rather than two separate events. Nevertheless, satan did in fact deceive them both, but he did it through the woman (I am NOT woman-bashing here). Satan understood the whole right-brain/left-brain thing and new that he could not get to Adam directly, but that he could get to Eve directly, and through her to Adam.

Kahtar
Feb 23rd 2005, 03:12 PM
Hold up a minute.

Adam was not charged with protecting the garden from evil. He could not have been. They had no knowledge of good and evil. He can't protect against something he knows not of.They were both simply charged with not eating of the tree. Something Eve was seduced into doing and later Adam chose to do because of Eve.
Yepper. I agree with you here.

jasonlevene
Feb 23rd 2005, 03:42 PM
What you have described here is nothing more that the God-given freewill in action. God did not create man with a sinful nature. The verse you quoted above shows that.

Okay I ask you this then, if Adam and Eve were not created with sin natures, then why did Satan's lie provoke Eve into desiring that tree of knowledge fruit? Are you saying 1 John 2:16 is not descriptive of a sin nature? In order for free-will to be legitimate, one must desire both evil and good and choose which to gratify. You can not be obedient if you only have the good to choose and that's the purpose of the sin nature.



He asked it because he was fully man, and as a man, did not desire the suffering he knew was to come. But because he did NOT have a sin nature, he chose God's will over his own.

Alright let's go with that. Jesus chose God's will over his own because he did not have a sin nature. How then could Adam and Eve have chosen their own wills over God's will if they didn't have sin natures either? The sin nature does not determine which way we choose. What is said of Jesus' flesh must be said of ours too [1 John 4:3].

You said Jesus asked to have the cup taken away because he did not desire the suffering he knew was to come. Now since God's will required Jesus to suffer on the cross, wouldn't you agree that Jesus desired what was contrary to God's will? [Just a quick note: desiring what is contrary to God's will is not sin, gratifying that desire is sin] And wouldn't you also agree that if God the Father had taken the cup away from Jesus, then the Scriptures of YHWH that prophesied Jesus drinking of that cup would have been nullified?

Doma
Feb 25th 2005, 02:34 PM
Why did Eve seem to have plave for deception but yet supposedly was not in a sin nature? because they were in a neutral status:

http://www.kingdom-gospel.com/redeem.html

In Adam's original state before he sinned, what nature did he have? Did God's Holiness abide in Adam's being? This is another tough question. This is what I have found in God's Word:

Rom 14: NKJV
14 I know and am convinced by the Lord Jesus that there is nothing unclean of itself; but to him who considers anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean.

1 Tim 4: ESV
4 For everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving, 5 for it is made holy by the word of God and prayer.

What I see here then, is that nothing is evil and nothing is Holy, unless we do something about it. Therefore, Adam was neither unclean nor sanctified. He was in a neutral state given opportunity by God to choose. Adam had not eaten of the Tree of Life, in fact God chased him out of Eden before Adam could eat it.

jasonlevene
Feb 25th 2005, 03:12 PM
Why did Eve seem to have plave for deception but yet supposedly was not in a sin nature? because they were in a neutral status:

http://www.kingdom-gospel.com/redeem.html

In Adam's original state before he sinned, what nature did he have? Did God's Holiness abide in Adam's being? This is another tough question. This is what I have found in God's Word:

Rom 14: NKJV
14 I know and am convinced by the Lord Jesus that there is nothing unclean of itself; but to him who considers anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean.

1 Tim 4: ESV
4 For everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving, 5 for it is made holy by the word of God and prayer.

What I see here then, is that nothing is evil and nothing is Holy, unless we do something about it. Therefore, Adam was neither unclean nor sanctified. He was in a neutral state given opportunity by God to choose. Adam had not eaten of the Tree of Life, in fact God chased him out of Eden before Adam could eat it.

I would disagree with this assessment because 1 John 2:16 perfectly describes Eve's reaction after hearing Satan's lie and 1 John 2:16 is an obvious description of the sinful nature. Adam and Eve were before their sin what they were after their sin.

Braver
Feb 26th 2005, 05:33 AM
Adam and Eve had free will, not sinful nature. The Fall brought about the sinful nature in them, and us ever since. When God created man, He said that man "is very good..." Are you trying to say that God created sinful nature in man? I think that's not biblical at all.

jasonlevene
Feb 26th 2005, 02:19 PM
Adam and Eve had free will, not sinful nature. The Fall brought about the sinful nature in them, and us ever since. When God created man, He said that man "is very good..." Are you trying to say that God created sinful nature in man? I think that's not biblical at all.

Yes...I am saying that God created the sinful nature in man. You can't exercise free will if you only desire what is good. You must have choices and that is the purpose of the sinful nature: to entice us to choose evil over that which is good. This is why Satan's lie provoked Eve into desiring the tree of knowledge fruit: she desired what was in his lie over what was in God's truth. Also, Satan was 'perfect' in all his ways [Ezekiel 28:15] yet he sinned because of his pride. If what is classified as 'perfection' can produce a Satan, then it's not so far fetched to suppose that what was 'very good' could be of the sinful nature.

And keep note that Eve's reaction after hearing Satan's lie [Genesis 3:6-1 John 2:16] was before the sin-and its curse-even took place so this should prove that the sinful nature was an inherent quality of man.

Kahtar
Feb 26th 2005, 03:20 PM
Jason, you are welcome to your opinion, of course. But you are simply confusing free will with sin nature.

Mat 26:39 And he went a little further, and fell on his face, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou [wilt].

G2309 thel'-o, eth-el'-o
Either the first or the second form may be used. In certain tenses θελέω theleō thel-eh'-o (and ἐθέλέω etheleō eth-el-eh'-o) are used, which are otherwise obsolete; apparently strengthened from the alternate form of G138; to determine (as an active voice option from subjective impulse; whereas G1014 properly denotes rather a passive voice acquiescence in objective considerations), that is, choose or prefer (literally or figuratively); by implication to wish, that is, be inclined to (sometimes adverbially gladly); impersonally for the future tense, to be about to; by Hebraism to delight in: - desire, be disposed (forward), intend, list, love, mean, please, have rather, (be) will (have, -ling, -ling [ly]).

Mat 26:42 He went away again the second time, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if this cup may not pass away from me, except I drink it, thy will be done.
G2307 thel'-ay-mah
From the prolonged form of G2309; a determination (properly the thing), that is, (actively) choice (specifically purpose, decree; abstractly volition) or (passively) inclination: - desire, pleasure, will.

In either the case of Eve or of Jesus, it is nothing more that the exercise of the free will of man. Sin nature did not enter man till after the choice to sin.
Jesus did NOT have a 'sin nature' else He would not have been the perfect sacrifice. It required a 'lamb without spot or rinkle'. That does not take away the fact that He COULD have sinned had he chosen to do so. He was tempted, but in every case, he made the active CHOICE not to.

Doma
Feb 26th 2005, 04:23 PM
I would disagree with this assessment because 1 John 2:16 perfectly describes Eve's reaction after hearing Satan's lie and 1 John 2:16 is an obvious description of the sinful nature. Adam and Eve were before their sin what they were after their sin.

I fully admit that is is possible I am interpreting the verses I gave wrongly. However, believing God gave sin nature in mankind is against the Bible & christianity.

jasonlevene
Feb 26th 2005, 08:59 PM
In either the case of Eve or of Jesus, it is nothing more that the exercise of the free will of man. Sin nature did not enter man till after the choice to sin.

But you see this is the point of this whole thread. If the sin nature did not enter man till after the choice to sin, then how was it that Satan's lie provoked Eve into desiring the forbidden tree of knowledge fruit? She wanted Satan's lie more than God's truth and if that is not indicative of a sinful nature, as 1 John 2:16 confirms, I don't know what is.


Jesus did NOT have a 'sin nature' else He would not have been the perfect sacrifice. It required a 'lamb without spot or rinkle'. That does not take away the fact that He COULD have sinned had he chosen to do so. He was tempted, but in every case, he made the active CHOICE not to.

The sin nature does not render one sinful. If that were the case, then Adam and Eve were created sinful because they had the sinful nature. The sinful nature was why they sinned. Also, as James 1:14-15 confirm, one becomes a sinner when the evil desire of the sinful nature conceives. Jesus never allowed this conception to take place. He never gave in to the sinful nature and concluded that he would walk away from the cross. This all boils down to this question: how can one practice choice and be obedient in free-will if one has only the good to choose from?

jasonlevene
Feb 26th 2005, 09:03 PM
I fully admit that is is possible I am interpreting the verses I gave wrongly. However, believing God gave sin nature in mankind is against the Bible & christianity.

Please excuse me for being redundant but I ask the question of this thread: why did Satan's lie provoke Eve into desire that deadly tree of knowledge fruit?

qbee
Feb 26th 2005, 09:59 PM
Please excuse me for being redundant but I ask the question of this thread: why did Satan's lie provoke Eve into desire that deadly tree of knowledge fruit?

SIMPLE
Because she did NOT yet know the difference between God and evil..
Inside of Gods will or outside of Gods will..
Untill satan (evil) came and tempted her..
God allowed this so he could teach mankind the difference..

Before they ate they did not know the difference..
after they ate they had the knowledge of good and evil..
and then still continued to sin anyway..
thus they NOW had a sinful nature..

Man knows the difference and sins anyway... Sinful nature..

jasonlevene
Feb 26th 2005, 11:45 PM
SIMPLE
Because she did NOT yet know the difference between God and evil..
Inside of Gods will or outside of Gods will..
Untill satan (evil) came and tempted her..
God allowed this so he could teach mankind the difference..

Before they ate they did not know the difference..
after they ate they had the knowledge of good and evil..
and then still continued to sin anyway..
thus they NOW had a sinful nature..

Man knows the difference and sins anyway... Sinful nature..

Okay if Eve did not yet know the difference between God and evil, then why is it that prior to the serpent approaching her, she had not eaten of the tree of knowledge fruit? In fact she explained why she hadn't eat of it...because she was going to die. So she did know that if she ate of it she was going to die. Now it is true that she added to God's command by claiming it prohibited the 'touching' of the tree of knowledge fruit but she still considered the tree of knowledge fruit deadly. She did know the difference. It was not knowledge of good and evil they lacked: it was unauthorized knowledge of good and evil that they lacked. And in order for Satan's lie to provoke Eve to desire that tree of knowledge fruit, she disavowed her knowledge of the tree of knowledge fruit killing her and accepted that it was going to make her as knowledgeable as good and evil as God.

Two questions:

If Eve didn't know right from wrong, why did she cite God's command as a reason why she hadn't eaten of the tree of knowledge fruit up until Satan approached her?

And how did Satan's lie provoke Eve into desiring that deadly tree if it wasn't that she desired Satan's lie [eating fruit=knowledge] more than God's truth [eating fruit=death-stay away from]?

qbee
Feb 27th 2005, 12:20 AM
I dont know...
God allowed this to happen for a purpose is all I know for sure..
or anyone else.. Untill God lets us know for sure all we can do
is assume...

Is there is a purpose for your questions?
Do you have something of importance to reveal to me?
that I do not know... or that I should know..

I have 3 questions to ask.. That you do have an answer to..

Why do you want to know.. What is your purpose for asking these questions?
How will knowing the answer help you or anyone else one way or the other?

If your assumption is true.. Does anything change...
If it does I need to know.. What changes???

How does knowing wether Adam or Eve had a sinfull nature when
they were created do anything to help us now... because if it
does I will continue to persue the answer with you for the truth.

If it doesnt make any difference in hell..
Then I must be about my fathers business...:lol:

Doma
Feb 27th 2005, 01:45 PM
Please excuse me for being redundant but I ask the question of this thread: why did Satan's lie provoke Eve into desire that deadly tree of knowledge fruit?

I attempted to answer this. But you didn't like it. There are only 2 reasons I know of for this.

1. You seek to cling to your position and are only trying to push it here, and thus are uncorrectable

or

2. My position and understanding of the verses I gave were in error. If so, you have falied to show why.

I highly recommend reading this page:

http://www.kingdom-gospel.com/interpret.html

Doma
Feb 27th 2005, 01:55 PM
Two questions:

If Eve didn't know right from wrong, why did she cite God's command as a reason why she hadn't eaten of the tree of knowledge fruit up until Satan approached her?


And how did Satan's lie provoke Eve into desiring that deadly tree if it wasn't that she desired Satan's lie [eating fruit=knowledge] more than God's truth [eating fruit=death-stay away from]?


There are 2 sources of knowing good and evil. Experience and from authority. She had faith in God's words, until she was decieved.

And like I said, she was able to be decieved because she was in a neutral state.

Now, either you must accept this or deny it. But failing to prove these points wrong thru scripture will cause your spiritual house to be shallow and built on sand.

I could very well be wrong. But to be wrong in your eyes, you need to disprove it with scripture.

Acts:17:11: These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.

Do you have this nobility? Or do you have this shallowness:

Math 7:
24: Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock:
25: And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell not: for it was founded upon a rock.
26: And every one that heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man, which built his house upon the sand:
27: And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell: and great was the fall of it.

I am not picking on you. This truth is for everyone here, even me. To remain teachable and noble, we must be willing to prove our stance with scripture and disprove any arguement against it.

Some claim they need not disprove arguements against it, that it is the responsibility of those with the arguement to persuade the truth.

This would be true, but out context in this very thread shows mankind can be decieved (as Eve was).

Now if Eve would have done what I am saying you should do, she would not have fell. Will your house fall? Or will you be noble like those in Thessalonica?

jasonlevene
Feb 27th 2005, 02:32 PM
There are 2 sources of knowing good and evil. Experience and from authority. She had faith in God's words, until she was decieved...And like I said, she was able to be decieved because she was in a neutral state.

If the source of knowing good and evil comes from experience and authority, then how was it that Eve understood that she was going to die if she had eaten of the forbidden tree of knowledge fruit? I note again that up until the serpent approached her, according to Scripture [Genesis 3:3] she considered the tree of knowledge fruit deadly as opposed to the other fruit trees in the Garden which she most likely was eating. This means that she knew the tree was deadly. Eve was not in any neutral state. If she were in a neutral state, then her 'ignorance' defense could have worked but Scripture plainly confirms that she knew what trees to eat and what tree not to eat and why that had been so.

Now what was the nature of Eve's 'deception'? Did the devil blindfold Eve take to the tree of knowledge and tell her to eat of its fruit? No. If that had been the case there would've been no judgment against Eve because she would've been innocent. What had happened was that Satan told her that the tree of knowledge fruit was going to make her as knowledgeable of good and evil as God [Genesis 3:5]. Now in verse 3 she'd just explained why she considered the tree of knowledge fruit to have been deadly-because of God's command. In verse 6 however, the tree of knowledge fruit became desirable because she believed Satan's lie rather than God's truth. Why? Because the divine knowledge of good and evil of Satan's lie was more alluring than the life of God's truth. It's that plain and simple. Check verse 6...it says 'And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food and that it was pleasant to the eyes and a tree desired to make one wise she took of the fruit thereof and did eat.'

You can't get around the fact that she knew that eating of the tree of knowledge fruit was wrong until the unauthorized knowledge of Satan's lie convinced her that eating of the tree of knowledge fruit was right.

jasonlevene
Feb 27th 2005, 02:42 PM
And just a quick note. God in his brilliance explains exactly what the tree of knowledge was all about. If Adam and Eve were without knowledge of good and evil, giving the command to them would have been meaningless. It should be clear to everyone here that they understood the concept of right and wrong and good and evil. So what was the tree of knowledge all about?

Genesis 2:25-And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.

And what happened after they ate of the tree of knowledge?

Genesis 3:7-And the eyes of them both were opened and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves aprons.

Do you see what this is all about? According to God's definition of good and evil, there was no shame in being naked but according to Adam and Eve's definition of good and evil, there was shame in being naked. Adam and Eve were created with the understanding of God's definition of good and evil [no shame in being naked] but they wanted to be their own gods and make their own rules which is why Satan's lie provoked Eve to sin. The tree of knowledge thus represented unauthorized knowledge of good and evil.

Kahtar
Feb 27th 2005, 03:02 PM
But you see this is the point of this whole thread. If the sin nature did not enter man till after the choice to sin, then how was it that Satan's lie provoked Eve into desiring the forbidden tree of knowledge fruit? She wanted Satan's lie more than God's truth and if that is not indicative of a sinful nature, as 1 John 2:16 confirms, I don't know what is.Satan's lie provoked Eve into desiring the forbidden tree of knowledge fruit because she listened to his lie, considered it, and made a choice. Once she made the choice, sin entered, and along with it the sin nature. Sin nature was then passed down through the seed of Adam, who also sinned.
She wanted the fruit not because of an already existant sin nature, but because having listened to the serpent she decided that he was right and God was withholding good things from them. The fact that it would kill her completely left her mind.
Still comes down to choice instead of sin nature.


The sin nature does not render one sinful. If that were the case, then Adam and Eve were created sinful because they had the sinful nature.Your reasoning is faulty here. Now sin nature is inheritted, but then it entered at the point of her decision. They were not created with sin or sin nature. Sin nature came from having sinned.

The sinful nature was why they sinned.No. CHOICE is why they sinned.

Also, as James 1:14-15 confirm, one becomes a sinner when the evil desire of the sinful nature conceives.No. One is born a sinner. When the evil desire of the sin nature conceives, death happens.

Jesus never allowed this conception to take place. He never gave in to the sinful nature and concluded that he would walk away from the cross. No. He never had a sin nature. He was born of the seed of the woman, not the man. The sin nature is passed down through the seed of the man.

This all boils down to this question: how can one practice choice and be obedient in free-will if one has only the good to choose from?This is the one correct observation you have made. The CHOICE was necessary. And because the choice was necessary, more than one option was necessary. Thus the tree.
True love requires choice. God wanted man to love Him, but man had to CHOOSE to do so, and the only way to may a reasonable choice was to be presented with at least two options, in this case completely opposite of each other.
And the choice could not be made unless both were understood, which necessitated experience. But to experience the one resulted in sin, death, separation from God.
Thus the skins offered. The skins came from sacrificed innocent animals, and were used to 'cover their nakedness', just as the sacrifice of innocent Jesus covers our sin now.
Their acceptance of the skins shows the true choice they made after having experinced both God and satan.

Kahtar
Feb 27th 2005, 03:47 PM
If the source of knowing good and evil comes from experience and authority, then how was it that Eve understood that she was going to die if she had eaten of the forbidden tree of knowledge fruit? I note again that up until the serpent approached her, according to Scripture [Genesis 3:3] she considered the tree of knowledge fruit deadly as opposed to the other fruit trees in the Garden which she most likely was eating. This means that she knew the tree was deadly. This is a correct observation.

Eve was not in any neutral state.Yes, actually, she was. She had, up to that point, not made a cecision one way or the other.

If she were in a neutral state, then her 'ignorance' defense could have worked but Scripture plainly confirms that she knew what trees to eat and what tree not to eat and why that had been so.Correct.


Now what was the nature of Eve's 'deception'? Did the devil blindfold Eve take to the tree of knowledge and tell her to eat of its fruit? No. If that had been the case there would've been no judgment against Eve because she would've been innocent. What had happened was that Satan told her that the tree of knowledge fruit was going to make her as knowledgeable of good and evil as God [Genesis 3:5]. Now in verse 3 she'd just explained why she considered the tree of knowledge fruit to have been deadly-because of God's command. In verse 6 however, the tree of knowledge fruit became desirable because she believed Satan's lie rather than God's truth. Why? Because the divine knowledge of good and evil of Satan's lie was more alluring than the life of God's truth. It's that plain and simple. Check verse 6...it says 'And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food and that it was pleasant to the eyes and a tree desired to make one wise she took of the fruit thereof and did eat.'

You can't get around the fact that she knew that eating of the tree of knowledge fruit was wrong until the unauthorized knowledge of Satan's lie convinced her that eating of the tree of knowledge fruit was right.These are correct observations. Does nothing to support your concept of being created with a sin nature, tho.

Kahtar
Feb 27th 2005, 03:50 PM
And just a quick note. God in his brilliance explains exactly what the tree of knowledge was all about. If Adam and Eve were without knowledge of good and evil, giving the command to them would have been meaningless. It should be clear to everyone here that they understood the concept of right and wrong and good and evil. So what was the tree of knowledge all about?

Genesis 2:25-And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.

And what happened after they ate of the tree of knowledge?

Genesis 3:7-And the eyes of them both were opened and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves aprons.

Do you see what this is all about? According to God's definition of good and evil, there was no shame in being naked but according to Adam and Eve's definition of good and evil, there was shame in being naked. Adam and Eve were created with the understanding of God's definition of good and evil [no shame in being naked] but they wanted to be their own gods and make their own rules which is why Satan's lie provoked Eve to sin. The tree of knowledge thus represented unauthorized knowledge of good and evil.I agree with all this.
Fact is, the only thing I really disagree with you on is the 'sin nature' thing. What you call 'sin nature' I call free will.
If you can provide some scripture that clearly tells us that we were created with sin nature, I'll be more inclined to accept it. If you can show some scripture that clearly says that Jesus also had a sin nature, I might be inclined to accept it. But I think the whole of scripture disagrees with your concept of sin nature.

jasonlevene
Feb 27th 2005, 04:49 PM
She wanted the fruit not because of an already existant sin nature, but because having listened to the serpent she decided that he was right and God was withholding good things from them. The fact that it would kill her completely left her mind.

You see again, this goes back to the original question of this thread. Why would she decide that Satan was right and that God had been withholding good things from them? Why would the truth of the tree of knowledge fruit killing her completely leave her mind? The answer is clear. She wanted the unauthorized knowledge of good and evil more than remaining alive under God's law. She wanted to be her own god and make her own rules. It's the sin nature as 1 John 2:16 confirms. The choice is to either go your own way and reject God or believe in God and follow him. This is/was the purpose of the sin nature. It's like I was saying to another poster, what is the sense of having a free-will choice if all you have is the good to choose from.



Now sin nature is inheritted...Sin nature came from having sinned. No. CHOICE is why they sinned.

Again, if the sin nature is inherited, why did Eve decide that Satan was right and that God was withholding good things from them? Why did she believe Satan's lie rather than God's truth? And how can you exercise choice if all you have is the good to choose from? You know my answers to all of these questions but how do you explain Eve's decision making process. You say choice is why they sinned...did Eve just make an uneducated guess? You have to explain why it all happened for the whole thing to make any sense.



He never had a sin nature. He was born of the seed of the woman, not the man. The sin nature is passed down through the seed of the man.

I don't think anyone answered this question yet. If Jesus did not want to go through with the crucifixion and God's will required it, then wouldn't you agree that Jesus desired what was contrary to God's will? And just to clarify that he did desire what was contrary to God's will, if God had granted Jesus' request and had taken the cup of wrath away from him, then there would be no cross to save us and the Scriptures in the Old Testament that prophesied that Jesus drink of the cup of wrath would have all been lies. Jesus did not have a choice because the Scriptures prophesied that he would never sin but the sin nature made it so difficult for Jesus to accomplish his mission [suffer on the cross] that he was sweating blood and needed angelic strengthening. He was obedient to God in contradiction of the sin nature.

We do not inherit the sin nature. We inherit the curse of the sin nature: mortality. Hence Jesus' immortal resurrection for having died without sin.

jasonlevene
Feb 27th 2005, 05:13 PM
If you can provide some scripture that clearly tells us that we were created with sin nature, I'll be more inclined to accept it. If you can show some scripture that clearly says that Jesus also had a sin nature, I might be inclined to accept it. But I think the whole of scripture disagrees with your concept of sin nature.

Genesis 3:5-For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof then your eyes shall be opened and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil. And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food and that it was pleasant to the eyes and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof and did eat....

1 John 2:16-For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh and the lust of the eyes and the pride of life is not of the Father but is of this world.

Jesus and His Sin Nature
Hebrew 2:14-Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same...

Philippians 2:8-And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient unto death even the death on the cross. Now what was he obedient against? The same sinful nature of Adam and Eve's flesh.

1 John 4:3-And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God...

Matthew 26:39-O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me, nevertherless not as I will but as thou wilt

Effect: No cross, Old Testament full of lies, deity YHWH nullified.

Why Jesus was obedient
Matthew 26:42-O my Father if this cup may not pass away from unless I drink it, thy will be done.

Jesus chooses to undergo suffering on the cross in contrast of his own sinful nature desires to walk away from the cross and spare himself of the suffering.

Effect: We are saved through cross, Old Testament prophecies fulfilled, deity of YHWH remains intact.

This is just a cursory Scriptural explanation of all this. For the full understanding of what this is all about, go to my website:

http://www.jasonlevene.com

Kahtar
Feb 27th 2005, 08:36 PM
Well, you wanted debate. And so you have received. it. You got what you desired.
You have provided some scriptures, and your commentary concerning them. But you have not yet convinced me. We interpret the same scriptures differently. The ones you use to support your concept I see as supporting mine. Interesting.
Nevertheless, we both, I am sure, conclude that salvation comes by grace through faith in the shed blood of Christ.
There is no further purpose to continue to debate, because we are not convincing each other, and debate for the sake of debate is pointless. So I'm done. Thank you for the exercise.

jasonlevene
Feb 27th 2005, 11:01 PM
Well, you wanted debate. And so you have received. it. You got what you desired.
You have provided some scriptures, and your commentary concerning them. But you have not yet convinced me. We interpret the same scriptures differently. The ones you use to support your concept I see as supporting mine. Interesting.
Nevertheless, we both, I am sure, conclude that salvation comes by grace through faith in the shed blood of Christ.
There is no further purpose to continue to debate, because we are not convincing each other, and debate for the sake of debate is pointless. So I'm done. Thank you for the exercise.

God's blessings to you.

Doma
Feb 27th 2005, 11:56 PM
quote:

If the source of knowing good and evil comes from experience and authority, then how was it that Eve understood that she was going to die if she had eaten of the forbidden tree of knowledge fruit?

reply:
This came from the authority of God, in which she had faith in. faith comes by hearing the word of God:

Rom:10:17: So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

So when God spoke to her/them, she had faith until she doubted. that is why doubt is the enemy of faith, which can produce deception.

------------------

quote:
I note again that up until the serpent approached her, according to Scripture [Genesis 3:3] she considered the tree of knowledge fruit deadly as opposed to the other fruit trees in the Garden which she most likely was eating. This means that she knew the tree was deadly.

reply:
By faith in God's word...

--------------------------

quote:
Eve was not in any neutral state. If she were in a neutral state, then her 'ignorance' defense could have worked but Scripture plainly confirms that she knew what trees to eat and what tree not to eat and why that had been so

reply:
Ignorance and neutrality do not go hand in hand. Ignorance comes from the word ignore. hence Eve ignored God's word, which she had heard.

A good illustration of how neutrality and ignorance do not go hand in hand is the new movie "Constantine".

-------------------------------

quote:
In verse 6 however, the tree of knowledge fruit became desirable because she believed Satan's lie rather than God's truth. Why? Because the divine knowledge of good and evil of Satan's lie was more alluring than the life of God's truth.

reply:
Not necessarily. I would say that the Tree of Life is more alluring. the failure here, is the lack of discipline. Eve was not discipled.

Lighthope
Feb 28th 2005, 02:33 AM
Why did Adam and Eve sin? For all the debates and long essays, I think Jeff Foxworthy had the best answer. To paraphrase:

When someone goes bad, we always hear about his upbringing, society, peer pressure.

Why can't for once we just hear someone say

"My momma was great, my daddy was great. I'm just [an idiot]!"

:rofl:

Best,

Lighthope

Pearls of Wisdom - "Sir, if you were my husband, I would poison your drink." --Lady Astor to Winston Churchill ; "Madam, if you were my wife, I would drink it." --His reply

--== THE DOCTOR WHO AUDIO DRAMAS: http://www.dwad.net
--== Give performance reviews of your boss: http://www.rateyourboss.org
--== Everlasting Films Call Board: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/everlastingfilms

jasonlevene
Feb 28th 2005, 02:45 AM
Jasonlevene said: In verse 6 however, the tree of knowledge fruit became desirable because she believed Satan's lie rather than God's truth. Why? Because the divine knowledge of good and evil of Satan's lie was more alluring than the life of God's truth.

reply:
Not necessarily. I would say that the Tree of Life is more alluring. the failure here, is the lack of discipline. Eve was not discipled.

Perhaps I'll attack this from another angle to settle this whole thing. According to Genesis 3:6, the tree of knowledge fruit became desirable to Eve when she'd heard Satan lie and claim that it was going to make her as knowledgeable of good and evil as god. My question is that if not the sinful nature, why did Eve see the tree as good for food, pleasant to the eyes and a tree to be desired to make one wise?

And please don't say that it was free will choice. I'm not asking about the choice, I'm asking why she made the choice.

Braver
Feb 28th 2005, 05:30 AM
I would have called you a stubborn fool in my previous life.

Eve DESIRED the tree because of her DESIRE (because she was created with desire, was endowed with desire). Pretty simple isn't it? Desire in itself is not good nor bad, do you understand this?

When God created man, God said that "it is VERY GOOD..." Now are you trying to say that sin nature is very good?

Please, exercise some humble Christian wisdom in this board, especially regarding this nonsense:

Jesus and His Sin Nature
Hebrew 2:14-Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same...

Philippians 2:8-And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient unto death even the death on the cross. Now what was he obedient against? The same sinful nature of Adam and Eve's flesh.

1 John 4:3-And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God...

Matthew 26:39-O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me, nevertherless not as I will but as thou wilt

Effect: No cross, Old Testament full of lies, deity YHWH nullified.

Where in the verses you have given us does it say that Christ has sin nature? "Blood and Flesh" is not equivalent to sin nature, okay?

jasonlevene
Feb 28th 2005, 02:25 PM
Eve DESIRED the tree because of her DESIRE (because she was created with desire, was endowed with desire). Pretty simple isn't it? Desire in itself is not good nor bad, do you understand this?

I do understand but it doesn't answer my question. My question is why did she desire what was evil [Satan's lie] when she clearly affirmed and acknowledged God's truth. The answer is plain and simple: read 1 John 2:16. It's ze sinful nature.


When God created man, God said that "it is VERY GOOD..." Now are you trying to say that sin nature is very good?

Was not the devil declared to have been perfect in all his ways? Now if what God calls perfect can result in a Satan, then it's not that much of a stretch to say that God created Adam and Eve with a sin nature yet still calls them 'very good'. The sin nature does not render one sinful: succumbing to it renders one sinful [James 1:14-16]



Where in the verses you have given us does it say that Christ has sin nature? "Blood and Flesh" is not equivalent to sin nature, okay?

I'm sorry but I have to ask this question again: if Jesus did not want to go through with the suffering of the cross and God's will required him to go through with that suffering, then didn't Jesus desire what was contrary to God's will? Believe it or not, the answer to this question answers the question as to why Eve desired evil.

Toolman
Feb 28th 2005, 02:30 PM
I would have called you a stubborn fool in my previous life.


Braver,

This is a warning. Cover-up name calling is not allowed. Please don't let it happen again. Address the issue not the person.

Doma
Mar 1st 2005, 12:17 AM
Perhaps I'll attack this from another angle to settle this whole thing. According to Genesis 3:6, the tree of knowledge fruit became desirable to Eve when she'd heard Satan lie and claim that it was going to make her as knowledgeable of good and evil as god. My question is that if not the sinful nature, why did Eve see the tree as good for food, pleasant to the eyes and a tree to be desired to make one wise?

And please don't say that it was free will choice. I'm not asking about the choice, I'm asking why she made the choice.

Thats easy, scripture tells us why:

1Tm:2:14: And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.

2Cor:11:3: But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.


I do understand but it doesn't answer my question. My question is why did she desire what was evil [Satan's lie] when she clearly affirmed and acknowledged God's truth. The answer is plain and simple: read 1 John 2:16. It's ze sinful nature.



Was not the devil declared to have been perfect in all his ways? Now if what God calls perfect can result in a Satan, then it's not that much of a stretch to say that God created Adam and Eve with a sin nature yet still calls them 'very good'. The sin nature does not render one sinful: succumbing to it renders one sinful [James 1:14-16]



I'm sorry but I have to ask this question again: if Jesus did not want to go through with the suffering of the cross and God's will required him to go through with that suffering, then didn't Jesus desire what was contrary to God's will? Believe it or not, the answer to this question answers the question as to why Eve desired evil.

Again the reason was Eve was decieved by satan's subtilty. And satan fell after God said everything was good.

The was a short time Jesus' will was different than the Father's. This is why Jesus prayed and asked His friends to pray with Him, but after 3 times praying He finally submitted His soul to God's will.

jasonlevene
Mar 1st 2005, 02:09 AM
The was a short time Jesus' will was different than the Father's.

I think we have finally reached a breakthrough here. If Jesus desired what was contrary to the Father's will, then Jesus desired evil! I say that because if Jesus' desires had conceived [James 1:14-16], there would have been no cross, no salvation for us, no Scriptures, no YHWH.


Thats easy, scripture tells us why:

1Tm:2:14: And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.

2Cor:11:3: But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.

I agree that Eve was deceived but what was the nature of Eve's deception? Did Satan blindfold Eve, lead her to the tree of knowledge and have her eat of its fruit? No he didn't. The deception had to all fall upon Eve's shoulders or else any punishment for her sin would've been unjustified. Eve's deception thus was that Satan's lie became the truth and God's truth became a lie because she desired the unauthorized knowledge of Satan's lie more than living under God's law just as Jesus desired what was contrary to God's will. He on the other hand rejected that desire by going to the cross.

It is irrefutable that Satan's lie provoked Eve into desiring the forbidden fruit because Eve wanted to be her own god and make her own rules. And that is the result of the sinful nature [1 John 2:16].

ChristopherE
Mar 1st 2005, 02:29 AM
This is getting kind of nonsensical. People are arguing over 'sin nature' without even defining it.

I can easily say Eve did not have a sin nature. If it was in her nature to sin she would have been sinning of her own free will. She'd have been feasting on the tree without any deception. She needed to be deceived to sin or to even desire to sin. If you could show me she was desiring the tree all along but afraid of consequence, I could say, yeh, it was in her nature to sin but she was being kept from it until she was deceived that the consequence was not as stated. That's not correct though, she had to be deceived to even desire that which was sinful. So I could say that she was tricked into doing something contrary to her nature.

Now, in a much broader sence of 'sin nature' ... I can't deny that Eve had a nature that, given the wrong conditions, enabled her to sin. Afterall, she sinned.

Braver
Mar 1st 2005, 02:42 AM
jasonlevene,

God says that Lucifer WAS perfect in all his ways, UNTIL iniquities were found in him. Everything that God has created were perfect in their original state, it is because Free Will is a necesssity that Sin became possible.

Jesus desired the cup to be taken away from Him, because He did not desire to be Sin. His will was in perfect accordance with the will of the Father, because God does not desire to be Sin.

God is not the author of Sin. By saying that God created sinful nature, is the same as saying that God is the author of Sin.

ChristopherE
Mar 1st 2005, 02:46 AM
No. He never had a sin nature. He was born of the seed of the woman, not the man. The sin nature is passed down through the seed of the man.

Umm, the seed of the woman?
Jesus was born of the seed of the Holy Spirit - God.
Women incubate, nurture and give sustenance to the seed so it grows. Women aren't the source of the seed.

Braver
Mar 1st 2005, 03:25 AM
Well, actually Christ is the seed of the woman, you can read about it in Genesis, the chapter where God declared enmity between the seed of the woman and the seed of the serpent.

God doesn't have seed, He is Spirit, not man.

ChristopherE
Mar 1st 2005, 04:14 AM
Matthew 1:20 ...for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.

God's seed is His Word.

Again, women bring the seed to fruition. Women don't have the seed in and of themselves.

Braver
Mar 1st 2005, 04:30 AM
Genesis 3:15 explicitly says "the seed of the woman".

If you have any doubt, read the entire chapter.

Christ is the seed of the woman, meaning He is not of human origin, but of Divine origin (of Holy Ghost), which is stated in the narrative of His birth in the Gospels.

jasonlevene
Mar 1st 2005, 04:33 AM
I can easily say Eve did not have a sin nature. If it was in her nature to sin she would have been sinning of her own free will.

Welcome to the discussion brother Christopher. I ask you the very same question: if not because of her sinful nature to be her own god and make her own rules, why did Satan's lie provoke Eve into seeing the tree as good for food, pleasing to the eyes and a tree desired to make one wise?


Now, in a much broader sence of 'sin nature' ... I can't deny that Eve had a nature that, given the wrong conditions, enabled her to sin. Afterall, she sinned.

Why did she choose to sin?

jasonlevene
Mar 1st 2005, 04:54 AM
jasonlevene,

God says that Lucifer WAS perfect in all his ways, UNTIL iniquities were found in him. Everything that God has created were perfect in their original state, it is because Free Will is a necesssity that Sin became possible.

I do agree that Lucifer was perfect in all his ways until iniquities were found in him but here's my question, where did the iniquities come from? Scripture clearly tells us that it was because of pride that Satan rebelled. He thought he was so beautiful that he wanted the worship God received. He chose to gratify his pride rather than reject it and continue to be subordinate to God. In like fashion, Adam and Eve chose to gratify the desires of their sinful nature rather than remain obedient to God.


Jesus desired the cup to be taken away from Him, because He did not desire to be Sin. His will was in perfect accordance with the will of the Father, because God does not desire to be Sin.

Doesn't matter why Jesus desired to have the cup taken away from him. Well actually it does but that's another story. The point is that Jesus wanted evil. Sure God does not desire to be sin but if YHWH's Scriptures required Jesus to become sin, then his not wanting to become sin is desiring evil. And not only that, his not wanting to become sin would've meant no cross for us! Jesus will was in perfect accordance with the will of the Father but only in spite of the will of his own sinful nature.


God is not the author of Sin. By saying that God created sinful nature, is the same as saying that God is the author of Sin.

Firstly, one is not a sinner because he has the sinful nature. One is a sinner because he succumbs to the sinful nature [James 1:14-16]. Adam and Eve thus were not created as 'sinners'. They became sinners when they succumbed to the sinful nature. As for whether God is the author of sin...you have to ask this question: what was God's purpose in creating Adam and Eve anyway? 1 Peter 1:20 answers that question:

Who [Jesus] verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you...

God's plan all along for Adam and Eve was thus the bodily immortal resurrection of Jesus and the Church. In other words just as God made the Egyptians into a powerful nation just to destroy them and make his name great in all the lands, Adam and Eve were created to demonstrate for us that there can never be harmony between God and the sinful nature. And that only Jesus as God in the flesh [Romans 3:23] could defeat it.

Braver
Mar 1st 2005, 05:22 AM
Lucifer committed iniquities because of his desire (desire in itself is not good nor bad, it is just that, a desire), because he has free will. But remember that God made him PERFECT, meaning without sin nature. Are you trying to tell us that sin nature is "very good"?

Adam and Eve were created to demonstrate the opposition between God and Sin? So you are saying that God foreordained the Fall of man! The Bible says that God foreknows all the ways of man (and angels for that matter), He has not foreordained that man should sin.

The heresy of supralapsarianism, the offspring of the doctrines of that dictator and tyrant of Geneva, how woeful is thy fruits!

Love Fountain
Mar 1st 2005, 05:25 AM
I think we have finally reached a breakthrough here. If Jesus desired what was contrary to the Father's will, then Jesus desired evil!



When a man drinks a cup, it must first pass through his mouth which is a part of his head and then pass into his body which is also a part of his head. For no head exists without a body and no body exists without a head. Therefore the passing of the cup was so that it didn't have to pass on to HIS BODY. So that HIS BODY wouldn't have to endure unto the end!

Matt 24:9-13

9 Then shall they deliver you up to be afflicted, and shall kill you: and ye shall be hated of all nations for my name's sake.

10 And then shall many be offended, and shall betray one another, and shall hate one another.

11 And many false prophets shall rise, and shall deceive many.

12 And because iniquity shall abound, the love of many shall wax cold.

13 But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved.
KJV

Jesus was never contrary to His Father's will as it is written!


John 8:28-29

28 Then said Jesus unto them, When ye have lifted up the Son of man, then shall ye know that I am he, and that I do nothing of myself; but as my Father hath taught me, I speak these things.

29 And he that sent me is with me: the Father hath not left me alone; FOR I DO ALWAYS those things that please him.
KJV

Jesus is not a liar!

2 Cor 11:3

3 But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.
KJV

Whose mind is corrupted from the simplicities of Christ, but a mind which would separate THE HEAD from THE BODY? THE HUSBAND from THE WIFE?

Matt 26:38-40

38 Then saith he unto them, My soul is exceeding sorrowful, even unto death: tarry ye here, and watch with me.

39 And he went a little further, and fell on his face, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt.

40 And he cometh unto the disciples, and findeth them asleep, and saith unto Peter, What, could ye not watch with me one hour?
KJV

What hour are HIS DISCIPLES/HIS BODY/THE BRIDE to watch with HIM/THE HEAD/THE BRIDEGROOM?

The HOUR of temptation at the END when they are delivered up to endure!

Matt 26:41

41 Watch and pray, that ye enter not into temptation: the spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak.
KJV

Love Fountain
1 Peter 4:12-13

12 Beloved, think it not strange concerning the fiery trial which is to try you, as though some strange thing happened unto you:

13 But rejoice, inasmuch as ye are partakers of Christ's sufferings; that, when his glory shall be revealed, ye may be glad also with exceeding joy.
KJV

Braver
Mar 1st 2005, 05:25 AM
Look, I have been telling you again and again that Adam and Eve sinned because of their desires, which in themselves are not good nor bad. But you keep on going in cycles, asking "why did Eve sin?" and saying that it was because of her sinful nature. The Bible says that God made everything good, and especially man "very good", answer this then, is sinful nature very good?

Do not blaspheme Christ by saying that He has sinful nature. It is precisely the reason why He is the seed of the woman, so that He does not inherit sinful nature (the nature which was corrupted AFTER the Fall), therefore without spot or blemish to atone for the sins of the world. If Christ has sinful nature, He would not be able to be our Savior.

ChristopherE
Mar 1st 2005, 09:21 AM
Genesis 3:15 explicitly says "the seed of the woman".

If you have any doubt, read the entire chapter.

Christ is the seed of the woman, meaning He is not of human origin, but of Divine origin (of Holy Ghost), which is stated in the narrative of His birth in the Gospels.

yes and Matthew 1:20 explicity says "of the Holy Ghost" Do you deny that the Holy Ghost seeded Eve? If so we'll just have to agree to disagree. That seed did come by the woman, Mary, but it was not of the woman by herself.


Welcome to the discussion brother Christopher. I ask you the very same question: if not because of her sinful nature to be her own god and make her own rules, why did Satan's lie provoke Eve into seeing the tree as good for food, pleasing to the eyes and a tree desired to make one wise?

thank you, but I've been participating all along. I've stated my position according to how you want to define what you're arguing. I'm not interested in being drawn into a discusion where you repeatedly ask the same question regardless of answer, however. It feels to me, sorry if I misrepresent, but feels that you are trying to draw the conversation into a trap that would hold that God created sin for His purpose.

yes, God forknew it would happen. He made preparations for it to happen. I dare not say that because He prepared for it that it was His perfect will - that sin was His will. God forbid. there is His perfect will and His permissive will.


desires, which in themselves are not good nor bad

this idea keeps entering into the discussion in one form or another. It grieves me to see it. A desire can be sinful. If I desire to murder someone, whether I do it or not, it's a sin I must repent for. The desire itself is bad. If I'm full of sinful desires, even if I never act on them, I still need Christ as my saviour, for they make me a sinner.

The scriptures from which I speak on this matter include:

Mat 5:28 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Mat/Mat005.html#28) But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.

(you don't have to commit adultery with a woman, you just have to desire to and it is the same sin. - the desire is adultery - is sin - the desire is bad)

Mat 15:19 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Mat/Mat015.html#19) For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies:

(thoughts can be evil in and of themselves, they don't need to be acted upon to be sinful)

Gen 6:5 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Gen/Gen006.html#5) And GOD saw that the wickedness of man [was] great in the earth, and [that] every imagination of the thoughts of his heart [was] only evil continually.

(yep, man's imaginations - not just his actions - were so evil it repented the Lord that He made man.)

------------------------

As for Jesus Christ's prayer in the garden, did it occur to anyone that He could have been setting us an example of how to deny the flesh? Lead by example, right? He had to show us, 'look, the flesh can be denied, and this is how - prayer'. This all ties into the discussion in the modalism thread of Christ's vs the Father's will. It was not His will to have the cup pass from Him, it would be the will of the flesh, though Christ would never humor the will of the flesh.

Toolman
Mar 1st 2005, 03:04 PM
Do not blaspheme Christ by saying that He has sinful nature. It is precisely the reason why He is the seed of the woman, so that He does not inherit sinful nature (the nature which was corrupted AFTER the Fall), therefore without spot or blemish to atone for the sins of the world. If Christ has sinful nature, He would not be able to be our Savior.

Christ is also called the seed of Abraham, Isaac and David:

Galatians 3:16
Romans 9:7
Acts 13:23
2 Timothy 2:8

The word of God is referred to as "seed":
1 Peter 1:23 - having been born again, not of corruptible seed but incorruptible, through the word of God which lives and abides forever,

God's "seed" remains in the believer
1 John 3:9 - Whoever has been born of God does not sin, for His seed remains in him; and he cannot sin, because he has been born of God.

FWIW

jasonlevene
Mar 1st 2005, 03:43 PM
Lucifer committed iniquities because of his desire (desire in itself is not good nor bad, it is just that, a desire), because he has free will. But remember that God made him PERFECT, meaning without sin nature. Are you trying to tell us that sin nature is "very good"?

You say Lucifer committed iniquities because of his desire and then you say that the desire in itself isn't good nor bad. Well if the desire is neither good nor bad, then how can it inspire sin? Good desires don't inspire sin. Bad desires do. It's that plain and simple. Satan was created perfect but because of his internal pride [evil desire] he rebelled against God and sinned. Adam and Eve desired evil [unauthorized knowledge of Satan's lie] and sinned. Jesus desired evil but did not give in to the sinful nature and thus did not sin. This is irrefutable.



Adam and Eve were created to demonstrate the opposition between God and Sin? So you are saying that God foreordained the Fall of man! The Bible says that God foreknows all the ways of man (and angels for that matter), He has not foreordained that man should sin.

Question: If sinlessness is an attribute of deity [Romans 3:23], then how could Adam and Eve have been sinless?

jasonlevene
Mar 1st 2005, 03:48 PM
Jesus was never contrary to His Father's will as it is written...Jesus is not a liar!

I agree with this. Jesus was never contrary to His Father's will in spite of his sinful nature. If Jesus desired not to drink of the Father's cup and the Father required him to drink of the cup, then Jesus desired evil. He just didn't gratify it unlike Adam and Eve and all the rest of us.

jasonlevene
Mar 1st 2005, 04:04 PM
Look, I have been telling you again and again that Adam and Eve sinned because of their desires, which in themselves are not good nor bad. But you keep on going in cycles, asking "why did Eve sin?" and saying that it was because of her sinful nature. The Bible says that God made everything good, and especially man "very good", answer this then, is sinful nature very good?

The sinful nature is not 'very good' as 1 John 2:16 confirms but God didn't say that the 'sinful nature' was very good. He said that man was 'very good'. But doesn't mean man was without choice. And the reason I continue to ask why Eve sinned is that you say that the desire that inspired Eve to sin was neither good nor bad. How can that be? Why didn't Eve sin before the serpent approached her?

Because she acknowledged that the tree of knowledge was deadly because of God's commandment. This was a good desire.

The tree of knowledge became good for food, pleasing to the eyes and a tree desired to make one wise because she desired the unauthorized knowledge of Satan's lie. This was a bad desire.

It's that plain and simple.


Do not blaspheme Christ by saying that He has sinful nature. It is precisely the reason why He is the seed of the woman, so that He does not inherit sinful nature (the nature which was corrupted AFTER the Fall), therefore without spot or blemish to atone for the sins of the world. If Christ has sinful nature, He would not be able to be our Savior.

If the sinful nature tarnishes one's righteousness, then Adam and Eve were created sinners...which they were not. Succumbing to the sinful nature makes one a sinner [James 1:14-16]. And again, if Jesus had not the sinful nature, how do you explain that he desired what was contrary to God's will?

Matt14
Mar 1st 2005, 05:17 PM
Hello JAZZ5521,

Long time no see.

It's often been said that truth can usually be summed up quickly and briefly. Could you please give me a two-sentence explanation of what you are teaching, and the implications of it?

Thanks :)

ProjectPeter
Mar 1st 2005, 05:51 PM
Hello JAZZ5521,

Long time no see.

It's often been said that truth can usually be summed up quickly and briefly. Could you please give me a two-sentence explanation of what you are teaching, and the implications of it?

Thanks :)
The old "I'll change my handle and they'll never know it is me" thingy eh.... :D

Long time no see yourself man... hope all is going well and I noticed the job change in your profile! Glad to hear it!

jasonlevene
Mar 1st 2005, 06:15 PM
Hello JAZZ5521,

Long time no see.

It's often been said that truth can usually be summed up quickly and briefly. Could you please give me a two-sentence explanation of what you are teaching, and the implications of it?

Thanks :)

And hello to you too Matt14. Here's a quick summation of what I believe:

Adam and Eve were created with both a sin nature and a desire to remain obedient to God. They sinned because they succumbed to the sin nature and were condemned to mortality as a result. They represent us all as we are all sinners. Jesus came in flesh that was vulnerable to the sinful nature which compelled him to desire evil [a way out of the cross] in Gethsemane. He rejected that desire however by submitting to God's will and enduring the suffering and agony of the cross-thus defeating and killing the sinful nature which died along with him. He as a result raised himself in immortality and he offers the free gift of immortality to all those [the Church] wishing to follow him and eat of his flesh on the cross: the true tree of life.

I know this seems far fetched and even 'blasphemous' but the one question that corroborates it all is:

Why did Adam and Eve choose to sin?

You see if the sin nature came about after Adam and Eve's sin, why did Satan's lie provoke Eve into seeing the tree of knowledge as desirable? Unless as 1 John 2:16 points out, the sinful nature was inherent in man at creation. And it makes perfect sense. If Adam and Eve had freewill, how could they only have the good to choose from? That's like having a multiple choice test with only one question to choose from. In order for free will to be legitimate, one must desire both evil and good and choose which to gratify. Hence the sin of Adam and Eve.

There's much more to this but I promised to keep it brief so there you go.

Hope it helps.

jasonlevene
Mar 1st 2005, 06:20 PM
The old "I'll change my handle and they'll never know it is me" thingy eh.... :D

Long time no see yourself man... hope all is going well and I noticed the job change in your profile! Glad to hear it!

Oh no I'll tell you that I'm the same Jazz5521. But as in all things God teaches us lessons, when I was on hear before I let my temper get the best of me and I was insulting to some of the people here. I learned from that that there's no need to get all personal. All of this is up to God. He just wants us to keep asking the questions. That's all. But yes it's the same me :D

ProjectPeter
Mar 1st 2005, 07:28 PM
Oh no I'll tell you that I'm the same Jazz5521. But as in all things God teaches us lessons, when I was on hear before I let my temper get the best of me and I was insulting to some of the people here. I learned from that that there's no need to get all personal. All of this is up to God. He just wants us to keep asking the questions. That's all. But yes it's the same me :D
Glad you got that straightened out... it always helps when posting on boards.

I think, Jason formerly known as Jazz, that where many are getting hung up with your understanding is perfectly displayed in the post you made to Matt. You say, "Unless as 1 John 2:16 points out, the sinful nature was inherent in man at creation." Now I turn to John 2:16 to double check thinking my memory must be a bit off.... then I read....

1 John 2:16 *For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world.

I read that and then what you wrote and I don't see Scripture saying what you say it says. Now I think I could work at it and try and make a case for what you are saying but then I think I would have to really make it say that disregarding context and even the plain interpretation. So perhaps that's the hangup.

Matt14
Mar 1st 2005, 07:34 PM
Long time no see yourself man...

Good to see you too. Too long, actually. Hope everything is going well with you and yours. :)


hope all is going well and I noticed the job change in your profile! Glad to hear it!

Thanks! It's where I plan to devote my life from here on out, Lord willing.

Talk more soon.

Love Fountain
Mar 1st 2005, 07:36 PM
I agree with this. Jesus was never contrary to His Father's will in spite of his sinful nature. If Jesus desired not to drink of the Father's cup and the Father required him to drink of the cup, then Jesus desired evil. He just didn't gratify it unlike Adam and Eve and all the rest of us.

Jason,

Did your Mom give birth to you so that you could partake in death?

Love Fountain

Matt14
Mar 1st 2005, 07:38 PM
And hello to you too Matt14. Here's a quick summation of what I believe:

Adam and Eve were created with both a sin nature and a desire to remain obedient to God. They sinned because they succumbed to the sin nature and were condemned to mortality as a result. They represent us all as we are all sinners. Jesus came in flesh that was vulnerable to the sinful nature which compelled him to desire evil [a way out of the cross] in Gethsemane. He rejected that desire however by submitting to God's will and enduring the suffering and agony of the cross-thus defeating and killing the sinful nature which died along with him. He as a result raised himself in immortality and he offers the free gift of immortality to all those [the Church] wishing to follow him and eat of his flesh on the cross: the true tree of life.

I know this seems far fetched and even 'blasphemous' but the one question that corroborates it all is:

Why did Adam and Eve choose to sin?

You see if the sin nature came about after Adam and Eve's sin, why did Satan's lie provoke Eve into seeing the tree of knowledge as desirable? Unless as 1 John 2:16 points out, the sinful nature was inherent in man at creation. And it makes perfect sense. If Adam and Eve had freewill, how could they only have the good to choose from? That's like having a multiple choice test with only one question to choose from. In order for free will to be legitimate, one must desire both evil and good and choose which to gratify. Hence the sin of Adam and Eve.

There's much more to this but I promised to keep it brief so there you go.

Hope it helps.

That wasn't two sentences. :lol:

Thanks for that summary, though. It was clear, and I think I see what you believe here.

Often misunderstandings and disagreements come from a lack of well-defined terms. Perhaps we need to define exactly what you mean by "sin nature."

What is your definition of this "sin nature" that you see Adam and Eve, and Christ, as having?

ProjectPeter
Mar 1st 2005, 07:40 PM
Good to see you too. Too long, actually. Hope everything is going well with you and yours. :)



Thanks! It's where I plan to devote my life from here on out, Lord willing.

Talk more soon.
Doing well... getting ready for another Spring/Summer six month camping trip. Can't wait actually... need the clean air (as if there is any clean air left!). And hey my friend... the Lord's willing. If not then you'd know by now. :D We'll keep you in prayer.

Matt14
Mar 1st 2005, 07:43 PM
Ordinarily, Jason, we do not allow banned members to return. For the moment, though, we'll hold off on that issue, because of this:


Oh no I'll tell you that I'm the same Jazz5521. But as in all things God teaches us lessons, when I was on hear before I let my temper get the best of me and I was insulting to some of the people here. I learned from that that there's no need to get all personal. All of this is up to God. He just wants us to keep asking the questions. That's all. But yes it's the same me :D

This is great! Realizing wrong and learning from it is all any of us can ask in our lives, isn't it?

Toolman
Mar 1st 2005, 09:48 PM
This is great! Realizing wrong and learning from it is all any of us can ask in our lives, isn't it?

That and a nice MLT... a mutton, lettuce and tomato sandwich when the mutton is nice and lean, and the tomato is ripe.... they're so perky. I love that.

:)

http://pitofdespair.20m.com/max3.jpg

jasonlevene
Mar 1st 2005, 10:42 PM
That wasn't two sentences. :lol:

Thanks for that summary, though. It was clear, and I think I see what you believe here.

Often misunderstandings and disagreements come from a lack of well-defined terms. Perhaps we need to define exactly what you mean by "sin nature."

What is your definition of this "sin nature" that you see Adam and Eve, and Christ, as having?

Hey I tried to keep it brief but even my H.S. English teacher said I use too many words :spin:

The defintion of sin nature that I see Adam and Eve and Christ as having is the depravity, corruption and immorality that we all have...or in short everything listed in Galatians 5:19-21. This I believe is why Satan's lie provoked Eve to see the tree of knowledge as desirable: she wanted the unauthorized knowledge of Satan's lie more than living under God's truth. I could be wrong but it all makes sense. I'm open for any new interpretations.

Matt14
Mar 1st 2005, 10:47 PM
But what does that entail, exactly, when you say "depravity, corruption, and immorality?"

To me, what you are saying by using these words is that Adam, Eve and Christ were born guilty. Born sinners. Is this what you mean? Do you feel they were guilty from birth of sin?

Matt14
Mar 1st 2005, 10:49 PM
Gotta go for the day, but I will pick this up with you tomorrow, Lord willing. :) Take care.

jasonlevene
Mar 1st 2005, 10:58 PM
But what does that entail, exactly, when you say "depravity, corruption, and immorality?"

To me, what you are saying by using these words is that Adam, Even and Christ were born guilty. Born sinners. Is this what you mean? Do you feel they were guilty from birth of sin?

No there's a difference. One is only guilty of sin when one succumbs to the sin nature. The evil desire must conceive before sin and death are thus brought forth [James 1:14-16]. I use the example of Jesus in Gethsemane. Jesus never said 'God I'm walking away from the cross.' That would have been the 'conception' of Jesus' evil desire to live without the cross. His mental assent would've gone for the sinful nature desire. But praise God that he concluded that 'If this cup can not pass from unless I drink it, thy will be done.' [Matt. 26:42] He gave his mental assent rather to God's will and thus remained sinless.

Hope this helps

God blesss

qbee
Mar 1st 2005, 11:28 PM
Those who have Ears Let them hear....
I only tell you this with Love.. :hug:


Man not Jesus is born into a sinfull nature because of Adams sin..
Jesus was begotten of God and is not born into a sinfull nature..
He took on a human nature not sinfull nature.. he was not born into sin..

Adam did not take on a sinfull nature UNTILL he sinned..
being tempted is NOT a sinfull nature.. sucumbing to temptation is..

You can not take on a sinfull nature untill you sin or are born into sin as we are..

Example....
1..One is not a murderer untill he murders.. he then takes on the nature of a murderer

2...One is not a theif untill he steals.. He then takes on the nature of a theif..

3...One does not have a sinfull nature untill he sins.. He then takes on a nature of sin. (a sinfull nature)

GET IT...... :pray: :)

Being tempted to sin.. Is not sin...
You do not take on a sinfull nature untill you Choose to go outside of Gods will and sin.
Then you have a sinfull nature.. Not untill... It is a choice...

EVIL is what gave man (Adam) the choice... :hmm: Evil is serving a purpose...

Just because Jesus was tempted in the Garden doesnt mean he had a sinfull
nature.... He wasnt born into sin (he was begotten of God) and he never sinned.
So He wasnt born with a sinfull nature and he never took on a sinfull
nature by sinning... Because he NEVER sinned..

**********************************

Christ is man.. flesh and blood (The second Adam)
Christ is God... Spirit

He refers to himself as "son of man" "Son of God"

Jesus is refered to as the second Adam...
Adam was not created with a sinfull nature
Adam was tempted and then sinned and brought sin into the world
Jesus was also tempted and defeated sin ..
making it powerless over any who have faith..


He was man in the flesh, He is the Spirit of God...
He did not have supernatural blood or abilities in the flesh.
He had human flesh and human blood...
He subjected or submitted his flesh to his Spirit of God..
He denied his flesh and lived in the spirit... :)

He did take on our human nature... (not sinfull nature)
His flesh was tempted by sin just as we are..
That was the purpose.. He defeated or denied sin in the flesh
an example to man..Then He conquered death by the spirit of God..


Heb 2:16 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=58&CHAP=2&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=16)-18 For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took
on him the seed of Abraham. 17 Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be
made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest
in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people.

18 For in that he himself hath suffered being tempted, he is able to succour
them that are tempted.

qbee
Mar 2nd 2005, 12:03 AM
Adam and Eve were NOT created with a sinfull nature.
They were created with free agency and natural God given desires..
They didnt take on a sinfull nature untill they were tempted and
and chose to disobey..

You are asking the wrong question..
The question to ask.. Is.. Why didnt Adam and Eve sin..
before satan (evil) came into the garden ..

Because it was in there "nature" to obey God.
They did NOT have a sinfull nature.. They didnt
even question or desire to go against his will..
It never entered thier mind to do this..
They did not have a sinfull nature...

Until Evil (satan) tempted or lied to them..
They were deceived by evil and then sinned..
I dont even think they realised untill after
they ate the fruit and then they were ashamed.

They had free agency and natural Godly desires..
They did not have a sinfull nature untill they chose
to go outside of or against Gods gods will and sin...
They Now have a sinfull nature...

We are born into that sinfull nature.. because of Adams sin..

But Man was not created with a sinfull nature..
He chose to have a sinfull nature..

qbee
Mar 2nd 2005, 01:35 AM
Satan was NOT created with a sinfull nature..
He was also not created as man.. He was an angel
he had powers that man doesnt have...

He decided to go against God will and even make war
with Gods angels.. When he did that he chose to take
on an evil nature.. Not only did he want to disobey God.
He wanted to take on the power of God..

He was never ahamed and NEVER repented.
He still is Evil and always will be EVIL
.
Now God uses satan.. To fufill his will so man will not follow after satan..
When we finally get our angel bodies so to speak we will not do as satan did.

We will be totally happy content and even greatfull to be in Gods will..

Then Satan (Evil) will then be destroyed...

God shows us that Satan has no power to go over Gods will..
Just for the fact.. That any Evil that satan can do...
God can turn it around and use it for good....

That is ANYTHING..... Even The most vilest, corrupt, nasty, filthy things...
God will turn it and use it to create good.....

There is nothing evil satan can do... To defeat God or good....:pp

He keeps trying but will never succeed....
Satan chose to have an EVIL nature...

jasonlevene
Mar 2nd 2005, 02:28 AM
But what does that entail, exactly, when you say "depravity, corruption, and immorality?"

To me, what you are saying by using these words is that Adam, Eve and Christ were born guilty. Born sinners. Is this what you mean? Do you feel they were guilty from birth of sin?

Firstly, let me tell you that I believe that Adam and Eve were destined to sin because only Jesus could reflect God's glory by never sinning [Romans 3:23]. It was only a matter of time.

But were Adam and Eve created guilty? Not at all. The judgment was passed only after Adam and Eve made their choice to rebel against God. You see it's like a multiple choice question. If you want to choose two answers because they both seem right, you'll know whether you've chosen the right or wrong answer when the teacher looks over your test. But up until that point you're neither right nor wrong. When God put the commandment to Adam and Eve, they chose right by obeying it but when they disavowed the command and believed Satan's lie, they chose wrong. They were only sentenced as guilty when the test was graded.

Looking forward to hearing from you. Have a great night.

God Bless

jasonlevene
Mar 2nd 2005, 02:33 AM
Satan was NOT created with a sinfull nature...Satan chose to have an EVIL nature...

Satan chose to rebel against God because he thought his beauty entitled him to receive the worship that God was receiving. His free-will choice was to either gratify his vain pride or his desire to remain an obedient angel.

qbee
Mar 2nd 2005, 03:33 AM
Satan chose to rebel against God because he thought his beauty entitled him to receive the worship that God was receiving. His free-will choice was to either gratify his vain pride or his desire to remain an obedient angel.

I could agree with that... But we can NOT equate mans nature with that
of satans nature and free will.. Satan knew the differece between good
and evil.. He was created to know that he was an angel... Spiritual

man was created different than satan.. He didnt have forknowledge of
good and evil.. because God hadnt allowed man to eat of that fruit...
Satan already had eaten that fruit. He had full knowledge of good and evil.

So God did not create man with this knowledge.. It was satan that tempted
them with evil and lies so they would desire that fruit... Before that man had
no desire for sin, he would remain sinless. Because God himself kept man from
the knowledge of sin... Satan tempted man with desire to take on a sinfull
nature by eating the fruit. After man tasted the fruit he was ashamed...
He then knew he did wrong.. He sinned and took on a sinfull nature.

Satan was never ashamed or repentive.. He is the father of evil..

Adam became the father of sin for disobeying (he took on the nature of sin)
He now has the ability to sin.. He did not have that nature or ability
untill evil came to him first.... Withour satan (evil) man would never
have chosen to sin... It wasnt in his nature to do so. :)

Remeber Man wasnt created like satan.
He had no capacity for evil or sin in him..
Without Satan.......
Man would never sin or go against God will.

He was not created with a sinfull nature.. It was only through Satans temptation that he even had desire to go against God will and not before.

Man chose to take on a sinfull nature.. When Evil came to him..

Braver
Mar 2nd 2005, 03:46 AM
Ahem...

I shall explain this one last time, and I am out of here... :B :B :B

Taking the example of multiple-choice question...

Question:
What is the way that you, man, would like to walk upon?
a) Life
b) Death

Adam and Eve could answer this question, meaning they could choose either a or b, simply because they were endowed with the mental capacity to choose, we call this FREE WILL.

Life or Death (a or b) is simply CHOICE. SINFUL NATURE is INCLINATION to DEATH (b), do you understand this simple concept now? Do you? I really hope you do, I sincerely hope you do.

God did not put nor create any SINFUL NATURE (inclination to choose b over a) in Adam and Eve. God created Adam and Eve with FREE WILL, then give them choices to exercise their FREE WILL upon.

Pray do understand this very simple explanation. :lol: :D :lol: :D :lol:

ProjectPeter
Mar 2nd 2005, 04:00 AM
Ahem...

I shall explain this one last time, and I am out of here... :B :B :B

Taking the example of multiple-choice question...

Question:
What is the way that you, man, would like to walk upon?
a) Life
b) Death

Adam and Eve could answer this question, meaning they could choose either a or b, simply because they were endowed with the mental capacity to choose, we call this FREE WILL.

Life or Death (a or b) is simply CHOICE. SINFUL NATURE is INCLINATION to DEATH (b), do you understand this simple concept now? Do you? I really hope you do, I sincerely hope you do.

God did not put nor create any SINFUL NATURE (inclination to choose b over a) in Adam and Eve. God created Adam and Eve with FREE WILL, then give them choices to exercise their FREE WILL upon.

Pray do understand this very simple explanation. :lol: :D :lol: :D :lol:
Braver... you have the demeanor of a corncob!

I really do say that in love! Do you understand? Do you? I really hope you do, I sincerely hope you do. :D:D:D:D:D

qbee
Mar 2nd 2005, 11:41 AM
But he certainly:B gets :B his point:B across.. He really does...:lol:

Go Braver..

jasonlevene
Mar 2nd 2005, 11:57 AM
I could agree with that... But we can NOT equate mans nature with that
of satans nature and free will.. Satan knew the differece between good
and evil.. He was created to know that he was an angel... Spiritual

man was created different than satan.. He didnt have forknowledge of
good and evil.. because God hadnt allowed man to eat of that fruit...
Satan already had eaten that fruit. He had full knowledge of good and evil.So

God did not create man with this knowledge.. It was satan that tempted
them with evil and lies so they would desire that fruit... Before that man had
no desire for sin, he would remain sinless. Because God himself kept man from
the knowledge of sin...

You know I hate to be a spoiled sport but this all goes back to the original question of this thread. If Adam and Eve were without knowledge of good and evil, then how was it that Eve understood God's command that eating of the tree of knowledge meant death. When you know something will result in your death and you avoid it, that means you know that it is bad for you. The tree of knowledge was all about unauthorized knowledge of good and evil-not knowledge in and of itself. That's why the whole nudity thing is in there. God knew they ate of the tree of knowledge because they hid in their shame of being nude and the only way they would've known that was having eaten of the tree of knowledge. In other words, if Adam and Eve were without knowledge of good and evil, then a commandment that threatened death was meaningless unless they knew that death was bad for them.

jasonlevene
Mar 2nd 2005, 12:08 PM
Ahem...

I shall explain this one last time, and I am out of here... :B :B :B

Taking the example of multiple-choice question...

Question:
What is the way that you, man, would like to walk upon?
a) Life
b) Death

Adam and Eve could answer this question, meaning they could choose either a or b, simply because they were endowed with the mental capacity to choose, we call this FREE WILL.

Life or Death (a or b) is simply CHOICE. SINFUL NATURE is INCLINATION to DEATH (b), do you understand this simple concept now? Do you? I really hope you do, I sincerely hope you do.

God did not put nor create any SINFUL NATURE (inclination to choose b over a) in Adam and Eve. God created Adam and Eve with FREE WILL, then give them choices to exercise their FREE WILL upon.

Pray do understand this very simple explanation. :lol: :D :lol: :D :lol:

Do you see why the original question of this thread is so powerful? Using your example, if not because of their sinful nature desires to be their own god and make their own rules, why would Adam and Eve have chosen [b] in the first place?

You can't choose death unless you want it and by believing Satan's lie and disavowing God's truth, Adam and Eve proved they wanted death.

judi<>><
Mar 2nd 2005, 12:25 PM
If Adam and Eve were without knowledge of good and evil, then how was it that Eve understood God's command that eating of the tree of knowledge meant death. In other words, if Adam and Eve were without knowledge of good and evil, then a commandment that threatened death was meaningless unless they knew that death was bad for them.

You're making an assumption here that is not necessarily true. I may tell my children--don't touch that stove, because it is hot, and you will burn yourself. If they follow my directions, it does not mean that they know what it means for the stove to be hot, or what it would mean to get burnt. All that is necessary for them to understand is...Mom doesn't want me to touch the stove!!

So, all it was necessary for Adam and Eve to understand was...Goddoesn't want us to eat the fruit of that tree.

Now, if they were really listening, my children might not even touch the stove when it was not hot. In fact, that would be ideal for me, since they might not understand "hot and cold..." But if you asked them why they didn't touch the stove, the answer would be..."Mommy said, 'Don't touch the stove, or you'll get burned!'"

So Eve said, "God said, don't eat from or touch that tree, or you'll die..."

Question: How do you know that she really understood what that meant???
If she did not, then she was simply parroting God's explanation of why, while she obeyed God because of the relationship she and Adam had with Him. A relationship that was broken the moment they disobeyed Him, and began to learn what "good and evil" were all about....:blush:

Toolman
Mar 2nd 2005, 02:00 PM
I thought some of you guys might be interested in a thread I posted a while back about the two trees in the garden (http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?t=7482)


I have a theory I want to run by you guys and see what you think. I did not come up with this theory but have heard men from both arminian and reformed circles make mention of it.

There were 2 trees in the garden of Eden.

1) The tree of Life.
2) The tree of the knowledge of Good and Evil.

The theory is this, that these 2 trees represent the 2 covenants, Law and Grace.

1) The tree of Life (Grace)
2) The tree of the knowledge of Good and Evil (Law)

That these 2 choices were laid out before man and still are. 1 brings death, the other brings life.

There are some interesting insights here and scriptural text that perhaps back this up.

When Adam ate the fruit we know that sin and death entered the world. Lets look at some scriptures:

Romans 3:20 - ...for by the law is the knowledge of sin
The law gives knowledge of good and evil

I Cor. 15:56 - ...the power of sin is the law
The law gives sin its power

2 Corinthians 3:6 - ...for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life
The law bring death

Romans 6:23 - The wages of sin is death
sin was brought in by the fruit of the tree and death came with it

Now the tree of life:
Galatians 3:13 - Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us (for it is written, "Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree

Romans 6:23 - ... but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.
Life comes from Christ

I realize this is allegorical but it sures seems to fit. Paul used a similiar allegory in Galatians 4:21-31

http://www.biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?language=english&passage=galatians+4%3A21-31&version=NKJV

The tree of the knowledge of Good and Evil had to be in the garden because it is God's law. The law is not evil, its holy, but the fruit of it brings death for man.
Depending on our own good or evil works brings death.
Depending on God brings life.

What do you guys think?

Toolman

Comments are welcome of course :)

Another interesting factor I see in observing the fall is that prior to eating the fruit Adam and Eve were naked and unashamed and also God is not ashamed or concerned with their nakedness, He walks with Adam in the garden.

After partaking of the fruit the only thing that really changed was Adam and Eve's perspective, according to the text, they were now ashamed of something that had always been.
In their shame they try to provide a "covering" of their own work (fig leaves).
But God provides a covering of animal skin (indicating blood sacrifice) that He provides.

Just an observation.

ProjectPeter
Mar 2nd 2005, 02:22 PM
But he certainly:B gets :B his point:B across.. He really does...:lol:

Go Braver..
Gotta give him an A+ for that sure enough! :D

ProjectPeter
Mar 2nd 2005, 02:29 PM
I thought some of you guys might be interested in a thread I posted a while back about the two trees in the garden (http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?t=7482)



Comments are welcome of course :)

Another interesting factor I see in observing the fall is that prior to eating the fruit Adam and Eve were naked and unashamed and also God is not ashamed or concerned with their nakedness, He walks with Adam in the garden.

After partaking of the fruit the only thing that really changed was Adam and Eve's perspective, according to the text, they were now ashamed of something that had always been.
In their shame they try to provide a "covering" of their own work (fig leaves).
But God provides a covering of animal skin (indicating blood sacrifice) that He provides.

Just an observation.
I think I remember that discussion a little bit. While I think that it would work I would certainly make a differentiation between the Law of Moses and the Law of God (aka Ten Commandments). Yes, the ten are included in the Law of Moses as was circumcission and a few other commands passed down before.... but there is that difference that I would make it a point to point out. Other than that I think you are certainly onto something with that.

jasonlevene
Mar 2nd 2005, 04:18 PM
You're making an assumption here that is not necessarily true. I may tell my children--don't touch that stove, because it is hot, and you will burn yourself. If they follow my directions, it does not mean that they know what it means for the stove to be hot, or what it would mean to get burnt. All that is necessary for them to understand is...Mom doesn't want me to touch the stove!!

So, all it was necessary for Adam and Eve to understand was...Goddoesn't want us to eat the fruit of that tree.

Now, if they were really listening, my children might not even touch the stove when it was not hot. In fact, that would be ideal for me, since they might not understand "hot and cold..." But if you asked them why they didn't touch the stove, the answer would be..."Mommy said, 'Don't touch the stove, or you'll get burned!'"

So Eve said, "God said, don't eat from or touch that tree, or you'll die..."

Question: How do you know that she really understood what that meant???

Because Eve said so herself. She told Satan that if she would have eaten of the tree of knowledge fruit, then she was going to die [Genesis 3:3]. Which is why she never ate of it until the serprent approached her. She considered the tree of knowledge fruit as something bad. She ate of it when she considered the tree of knowledge fruit as 'good' after hearing Satan's 'tree of knowledge fruit=divne knowledge good and evil' lie.

Love Fountain
Mar 2nd 2005, 06:00 PM
Satan chose to rebel against God because he thought his beauty entitled him to receive the worship that God was receiving. His free-will choice was to either gratify his vain pride or his desire to remain an obedient angel.

Satan walked away from Love to be number one and not a part of the one. He misquotes the Bible leaving words out, similar to what is being done in this thread everytime there has been a mention of a "tree of knowledge fruit".

Where does the Bible say this verbatim?

There is a tree of the knowledge of good and evil but where is "the tree of knowledge fruit"? Nowhere that I've read? Can someone please share with me the whereabouts of this "tree of knowledge fruit"?

Satan appeared in the garden as the nachash, Hebrew for serpent which is a shining one. Hence a messenger of light. He came in tempting as his spirit still does to those who allow it now.

Jesus was delivered to be tempted but HE WAS NOT TEMPTED!

Luke 4:12
12 And Jesus answering said unto him, It is said, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God.
KJV

Love Fountain

Toolman
Mar 2nd 2005, 06:09 PM
Jesus was delivered to be tempted but HE WAS NOT TEMPTED!

Luke 4:12
12 And Jesus answering said unto him, It is said, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God.
KJV

Love Fountain

LF,

Not sure what the rest of your post was driving at but as far as Jesus not being tempted, scripture tells us plainly:

Hebrews 2:18 - For in that He Himself has suffered, being tempted, He is able to aid those who are tempted.

Hebrews 4:15 - For we do not have a High Priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but was in all points tempted as we are, yet without sin.

Love Fountain
Mar 2nd 2005, 06:22 PM
LF,

Not sure what the rest of your post was driving at but as far as Jesus not being tempted, scripture tells us plainly:

Hebrews 2:18 - For in that He Himself has suffered, being tempted, He is able to aid those who are tempted.

Hebrews 4:15 - For we do not have a High Priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but was in all points tempted as we are, yet without sin.


Toolman,

Do you interpret Heb 2:18 to suggest that Jesus actually thought about taking satan up on his offers?

What about James?

James 1:13

13 Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God CANNOT BE TEMPTED with evil, neither tempteth he any man:
KJV

Please reread what I said,

Jesus was delivered to be tempted but HE WAS NOT TEMPTED.

Meaning he was not tempted to partake. He saw the lies clearly and new they led to nothingness.

Does this help clear up what was meant?

Love Fountain

Toolman
Mar 2nd 2005, 06:48 PM
Toolman,

Do you interpret Heb 2:18 to suggest that Jesus actually thought about taking satan up on his offers?

Heb 2:18 says that Jesus was tempted. I take it at face value that He was.


What about James?

James 1:13

13 Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God CANNOT BE TEMPTED with evil, neither tempteth he any man:
KJV

Please reread what I said,

Jesus was delivered to be tempted but HE WAS NOT TEMPTED.

Meaning he was not tempted to partake. He saw the lies clearly and new they led to nothingness.

Does this help clear up what was meant?

Love Fountain

The same greek word (Peirazo) is translated "tempted" in both James and Hebrews (and Matthew 4 when Jesus is tempted by Satan).

Perhaps a seeming contradiction, but I believe the James passage speaks specifically of the Father and Hebrews speaks specifically of Jesus.

We know that God cannot die, because dying requires sin (wages of sin is death), yet we see Jesus dying. That is because Jesus has 2 natures (the hypostatic union) that of God and man.

So was Jesus tempted (perhaps tested is a better translation) just as we are, yet without sin?
Yes, I believe He was. Perhaps we are saying the same thing, but I think the scripture clearly states that Jesus was "Peirazo" but God cannot be "Peirazo".

Here are some nice articles on the hypostatic union that deal directly with this issue if you are interested:
http://www.carm.org/doctrine/obj_Jesus_sin.htm
http://www.carm.org/doctrine/obj_Jesusdied.htm

ProjectPeter
Mar 2nd 2005, 07:01 PM
Toolman,

Do you interpret Heb 2:18 to suggest that Jesus actually thought about taking satan up on his offers?

What about James?

James 1:13

13 Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God CANNOT BE TEMPTED with evil, neither tempteth he any man:
KJV

Please reread what I said,

Jesus was delivered to be tempted but HE WAS NOT TEMPTED.

Meaning he was not tempted to partake. He saw the lies clearly and new they led to nothingness.

Does this help clear up what was meant?

Love Fountain
Hey LF,

You know... being tempted doesn't mean that you actually consider taking the offer. I think you are adding more to the meaning of the word than is actually there. There are tons of temptations that will face a person... hopefully many of us don't even ponder the thought of following through a large part of them.... sooner or later I would hope one would recognize it straightway and never give it a moments thought. But nonetheless... it looks as if you are adding to the meaning of the word temptation by making into something that one must actually consider before it is really temptation. That isn't what it means at all. Perhaps that will help you understand that passage a bit better.

Toolman is correct. Scripture plainly states that Jesus was tempted... even the passages you refer to about him being led by the Spirit to be tempted in the wilderness... that clearly implies that he was tempted.... hence that whole satan offering him this and that. What Jesus did was resist temptation and therefore resisted Satan and that resulted in Satan fleeing him... until a more opportune time which implies too that it wasn't the only time Satan tried to tempt Jesus or at least it is clear that Satan went away looking to simply bide his time.

Love Fountain
Mar 2nd 2005, 07:02 PM
Heb 2:18 says that Jesus was tempted. I take it at face value that He was.


Thanks for your response Toolman.

Are you Hebrew?




Perhaps a seeming contradiction, but I believe the James passage speaks specifically of the Father and Hebrews speaks specifically of Jesus.



Contradiction? I don't see a contradiction.

Are you suggesting that Jesus isn't God?

Love Fountain

ProjectPeter
Mar 2nd 2005, 07:08 PM
Thanks for your response Toolman.

Are you Hebrew?



Contradiction? I don't see a contradiction.

Are you suggesting that Jesus isn't God?

Love Fountain
And being Hebrew has what to do with what he said?

As to the last comment... I would hope Toolman doesn't even take the bait on that... nice trap though....:D What would be great is not to turn this into a Oneness vs Trinity debate... don't you think?

Toolman
Mar 2nd 2005, 07:08 PM
Thanks for your response Toolman.

Are you Hebrew?

No, but my best friend is :)



Contradiction? I don't see a contradiction.

Are you suggesting that Jesus isn't God?

Love Fountain

No.

Love Fountain
Mar 2nd 2005, 07:09 PM
Hey LF,

You know... being tempted doesn't mean that you actually consider taking the offer.


Thanks for your response Peter!

That was exactly my point!




I think you are adding more to the meaning of the word than is actually there.


That is exactly what I think Toolman is doing. Funny you should think it's me?


Love Fountain

Love Fountain
Mar 2nd 2005, 07:15 PM
No, but my best friend is :)

If we pick and choose what we take at face value within a designated book, then we need to also go to the beginning of the book and take at face value the title.

Hence Hebrews is written to the Hebrews at face value. So unless either one of us is Hebrew we cannot take anything from the book at face value because it is not written to us unless we are Hebrew.




No.

No what?

Jesus can be tempted but God can't and yet Jesus is God?

How does this make sense?

Love Fountain

Love Fountain
Mar 2nd 2005, 07:19 PM
And being Hebrew has what to do with what he said?

As to the last comment... I would hope Toolman doesn't even take the bait on that... nice trap though....:D What would be great is not to turn this into a Oneness vs Trinity debate... don't you think?

Peter,

No trap, no Oneness vs. Trinity debate either.

Love Fountain

ProjectPeter
Mar 2nd 2005, 07:26 PM
Thanks for your response Peter!

That was exactly my point!



That is exactly what I think Toolman is doing. Funny you should think it's me?


Love Fountain
If what I said is what you mean and agree with then perhaps you might jump back a bit and reread what you have said. Because what you said is in no way in agreement with what I said. You say he wasn't tempted. Bible says he was tempted. You say he wasn't tempted because he didn't consider .... I say he was tempted because the Bible says he was tempted and just because he didn't actually ponder doing what Satan said doesn't make it not temptation.

Toolman
Mar 2nd 2005, 07:30 PM
No what?

No, I'm not suggesting that Jesus is not God.



Jesus can be tempted but God can't and yet Jesus is God?

How does this make sense?

I already gave my explanation as to why there is no contradiction.
Do you agree with my explanation?

If not perhaps you can give your explanation of these passages and how Jesus could be Peirazo and yet God cannot be Peirazo:

Hebrews 2:18 - For in that he himself hath suffered being tempted (Peirazo), he is able to succour them that are tempted.
Hebrews 4:15 - For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted (Peirazo) like as we are, yet without sin.
Matthew 4:1 - Then was Jesus led up of the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted (Peirazo) of the devil.
James 1:13 - Let no man say when he is tempted (Peirazo), I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted (Peirazo) with evil, neither tempteth (Peirazo) he any man

Here is the Strong's definition of Peirazo (http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=3985&version=kjv)

I am interested to learn how I am adding more to the meaning of the word than is actually there when it is the same exact word in all the passages :hmm:

BTW - Love Fountain, I'm not trying to get on your bad side. I am just trying to understand what you are saying. If you took my comments as aggressive or antagonistic they were not meant to be.
You seem a bit miffed at me and I hope that is not the case. If we can't discuss in a civil, gentle tone then I would just as soon drop it.

ProjectPeter
Mar 2nd 2005, 07:31 PM
If we pick and choose what we take at face value within a designated book, then we need to also go to the beginning of the book and take at face value the title.

Hence Hebrews is written to the Hebrews at face value. So unless either one of us is Hebrew we cannot take anything from the book at face value because it is not written to us unless we are Hebrew.Okie dokie.... disregard anything that I have said to you in previous post. We are as far apart as east and west and any further discussion would be a great big huge honkin exercise in futility!

Toolman
Mar 2nd 2005, 07:38 PM
If we pick and choose what we take at face value within a designated book, then we need to also go to the beginning of the book and take at face value the title.

Hence Hebrews is written to the Hebrews at face value. So unless either one of us is Hebrew we cannot take anything from the book at face value because it is not written to us unless we are Hebrew.

Using this logic then we also cannot consider referencing the book of James:

James 1:1 - James, a bondservant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ,
To the twelve tribes which are scattered abroad:

James was writing to the Jews also.

While I believe it is important to know the audience of the intended letter there are biblical truths in both letters (Hebrews and James) that transcend the original audience, like Christ's superiority, taming the tongue, etc.

FWIW

Love Fountain
Mar 2nd 2005, 07:48 PM
If what I said is what you mean and agree with then perhaps you might jump back a bit and reread what you have said. Because what you said is in no way in agreement with what I said. You say he wasn't tempted. Bible says he was tempted. You say he wasn't tempted because he didn't consider .... I say he was tempted because the Bible says he was tempted and just because he didn't actually ponder doing what Satan said doesn't make it not temptation.

Consider this,

The church of Philadelphia is said to be kept from the hour of temptation in Rev 3:10, yet in Rev 3:12 it states the church of Philadelphia has a need to overcome. If they were literally kept from the hour of temptation they wouldn't be there having a need to overcome, but having a need to overcome shows they are there during the temptation. They are kept from the hour of temptation because they are not tempted.

They are not tempted during the hour of temptation because they were foretold all things that would come upon the world by Jesus.

Hopefully this helps?

Love Fountain

ProjectPeter
Mar 2nd 2005, 07:49 PM
Using this logic then we also cannot consider referencing the book of James:

James 1:1 - James, a bondservant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ,
To the twelve tribes which are scattered abroad:

James was writing to the Jews also.

While I believe it is important to know the audience of the intended letter there are biblical truths in both letters (Hebrews and James) that transcend the original audience, like Christ's superiority, taming the tongue, etc.

FWIW
Hey man... why stop there. I am not from Galatia... chuck it out! I'm not from Rome... lose that one! Tis a bad game to play when it comes to Scripture.

ProjectPeter
Mar 2nd 2005, 07:53 PM
Consider this,

The church of Philadelphia is said to be kept from the hour of temptation in Rev 3:10, yet in Rev 3:12 it states the church of Philadelphia has a need to overcome. If they were literally kept from the hour of temptation they wouldn't be there having a need to overcome, but having a need to overcome shows they are there during the temptation. They are kept from the hour of temptation because they are not tempted.

They are not tempted during the hour of temptation because they were foretold all things that would come upon the world by Jesus.

Hopefully this helps?

Love Fountain
Just proof positive that context is everything.

Love Fountain
Mar 2nd 2005, 07:56 PM
Using this logic then we also cannot consider referencing the book of James:

James 1:1 - James, a bondservant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ,
To the twelve tribes which are scattered abroad:

James was writing to the Jews also.

While I believe it is important to know the audience of the intended letter there are biblical truths in both letters (Hebrews and James) that transcend the original audience, like Christ's superiority, taming the tongue, etc.

FWIW

Exactly why we shouldn't go to the "face value" approach, wouldn't you agree? It can get pretty ridiculous huh?

As for the twelve tribes written to in James, the twelve tribes consist of the house of Judah and the house of Israel. They are not the same but that is another discussion altogether.

Love Fountain

Love Fountain
Mar 2nd 2005, 08:05 PM
No, I'm not suggesting that Jesus is not God.



I already gave my explanation as to why there is no contradiction.
Do you agree with my explanation?

If not perhaps you can give your explanation of these passages and how Jesus could be Peirazo and yet God cannot be Peirazo:

Hebrews 2:18 - For in that he himself hath suffered being tempted (Peirazo), he is able to succour them that are tempted.
Hebrews 4:15 - For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted (Peirazo) like as we are, yet without sin.
Matthew 4:1 - Then was Jesus led up of the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted (Peirazo) of the devil.
James 1:13 - Let no man say when he is tempted (Peirazo), I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted (Peirazo) with evil, neither tempteth (Peirazo) he any man

Here is the Strong's definition of Peirazo (http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=3985&version=kjv)

I am interested to learn how I am adding more to the meaning of the word than is actually there when it is the same exact word in all the passages :hmm:

BTW - Love Fountain, I'm not trying to get on your bad side. I am just trying to understand what you are saying. If you took my comments as aggressive or antagonistic they were not meant to be.
You seem a bit miffed at me and I hope that is not the case. If we can't discuss in a civil, gentle tone then I would just as soon drop it.

Toolman,

I appreciate your responses and am not miffed. Communication sure can be a challenge, especially on this type of format. Forgive me if I have given you the appearance of anything but civility, this is not my intent. I didn't understand your response, and I thought you were adding to my response by throwing in the "face value" card. As Peter and you have shared we'd be tossing out books in the Bible left and right if we stop at face value.

I too am just trying to understand what you are saying? Thank you for sharing the Strong's, hopefully my last response to Peter regarding what was meant utilizing the church of Philadelphia from Revelation clears up what I meant from the beginning about being there for the temptation but not actually being tempted?

Love Fountain

Love Fountain
Mar 2nd 2005, 08:10 PM
Just proof positive that context is everything.


Are we in understanding and agreemtent now or are we still as far apart as East to West?

Love Fountain

ProjectPeter
Mar 2nd 2005, 08:14 PM
Are we in understanding and agreemtent now or are we still as far apart as East to West?

Love Fountain
Not going to concede agreement as of yet... I do understand where you are coming from on this at least. Agreement can wait until I see where you are actually going though... so maybe we've narrowed it down as far as east coast to west coast for now.

Toolman
Mar 2nd 2005, 08:33 PM
I too am just trying to understand what you are saying? Thank you for sharing the Strong's, hopefully my last response to Peter regarding what was meant utilizing the church of Philadelphia from Revelation clears up what I meant from the beginning about being there for the temptation but not actually being tempted?

Love Fountain

LF,

I still must disagree with your declaration that Jesus was not tempted.

To me Hebrews clearly states that Jesus was tempted just like we are. I have no reason to believe His temptation is any different from mine. The difference is in His reaction to the temptation.

Does this negate Jesus' deity? No, I don't believe it does but it reveals his humanity. It is easy to overemphasize one side or the other of his dual nature, but I think the scripture presents a perfect balance in its entirety, regarding both Christ's deity and his humanity.

For instance when I read this passage:
Hebrews 5:8 - though He was a Son, yet He learned obedience by the things which He suffered.

I have to say "does God have to "learn" anything, especially obedience?"

When I view the garden of gethsemane and I see that Christ desires for the cup to pass Him by, but He willing submits to the Father's will instead of His own I have to observe that His will desired something that was contrary to the Father's will.

I think all of this ties into the fact that we have a high priest who understands our humanity intimately, our struggles, our temptations, etc.
yet He was without sin.

Sometimes it is uncomfortable for us to perceive the full humanity of Jesus but it is not something God is ashamed of or hides. We should fully embrace it and learn what God is saying through that IMO.

jasonlevene
Mar 2nd 2005, 08:45 PM
When I view the garden of gethsemane and I see that Christ desires for the cup to pass Him by, but He willing submits to the Father's will instead of His own I have to observe that His will desired something that was contrary to the Father's will.

Wow Toolman, I couldn't have said this better myself. :pp

Matt14
Mar 2nd 2005, 08:49 PM
No there's a difference. One is only guilty of sin when one succumbs to the sin nature. The evil desire must conceive before sin and death are thus brought forth [James 1:14-16]. I use the example of Jesus in Gethsemane. Jesus never said 'God I'm walking away from the cross.' That would have been the 'conception' of Jesus' evil desire to live without the cross. His mental assent would've gone for the sinful nature desire. But praise God that he concluded that 'If this cup can not pass from unless I drink it, thy will be done.' [Matt. 26:42] He gave his mental assent rather to God's will and thus remained sinless.

Basically, the way I'm understanding you, is that the term "sin nature" that you use is not guilt, but simply the ability to either sin, or not sin. Please correct me if I am misunderstanding you.

Jesus was tempted in all ways just as men are today:

Heb 4:15 For we do not have a high priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but One who has been tempted in all things as we are, yet without sin.

We know this passage is true, and it is very direct.

So although I do not think the term "sin nature" is needed to describe this idea (I prefer "free will"), I agree with you on this point.

But the term "sin nature" is a loaded term. I do not believe anyone is born guilty of sin, not Jesus, not the children of Adam and Eve, not children today.

What do you think of this?

Also, allow me one more important question:

In all teachings, there is a result. What exactly is the result of what you believe and what you are saying in this thread?

One of my professors always asks, "What difference does it make?"

So that's what I'm asking. This idea you are putting forth..What difference does it make?

Thanks :)

Matt14
Mar 2nd 2005, 09:04 PM
Hence Hebrews is written to the Hebrews at face value. So unless either one of us is Hebrew we cannot take anything from the book at face value because it is not written to us unless we are Hebrew.

Wow, that's quite a zinger. :)

Can we not take Romans at face value unless we are a Roman? Do we have to be an Ephesian to take Ephesians at face value?

Perhaps we should toss Romans through Philemon?

And while we're at it, I'm not Timothy, so I guess I can't take I and II Timothy at face value?

Perhaps I've misunderstood your meaning here. Have I?

I hope so, because this sort of idea could lead to all kinds of confusion.

Matt14
Mar 2nd 2005, 09:10 PM
Hey man... why stop there. I am not from Galatia... chuck it out! I'm not from Rome... lose that one! Tis a bad game to play when it comes to Scripture.

Sorry everyone, I'm playing catch-up in this thread, didn't know this point had alreay been addressed by Toolman and ProjectPeter.

Toolman
Mar 2nd 2005, 09:12 PM
Basically, the way I'm understanding you, is that the term "sin nature" that you use is not guilt, but simply the ability to either sin, or not sin. Please correct me if I am misunderstanding you.

Jesus was tempted in all ways just as men are today:

Heb 4:15 For we do not have a high priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but One who has been tempted in all things as we are, yet without sin.

We know this passage is true, and it is very direct.

So although I do not think the term "sin nature" is needed to describe this idea (I prefer "free will"), I agree with you on this point.

But the term "sin nature" is a loaded term. I do not believe anyone is born guilty of sin, not Jesus, not the children of Adam and Eve, not children today.

What do you think of this?

Matt,

Good points.

I would like to point out one thing in my understanding though and get your input (and Jason's and anyone else who wants to jump in :)).
I believe that scripture declares that all children of Adam (mankind) are born with a nature that is in bondage to sin (a sin nature), IOW a nature that is contrary to God and His ways and will consistently manifest itself in that manner.

That is why ALL people will sin when presented with the chance, because their nature and their will is in bondage to sin. They will consistently choose contrary to God's ways because of this bondage.

It is not until Christ changes us that we become a new creature and are endowed with a new nature that is not carnal but spiritual.

And I am not equating the "sin nature" with the guilt of sin. Just making an observation that IMO there were only 2 people born who truly had free will (free from the bondage of sin), the 1st and 2nd Adam. Their wills were not in bondage to sin.

Any thoughts are more than welcome.

Love Fountain
Mar 2nd 2005, 09:56 PM
LF,

I still must disagree with your declaration that Jesus was not tempted.



Ok. Maybe you didn't understand the explanation regarding Philadelphia? How they are at the hour of temptation but not actually tempted?

Please share with me one thing that satan has that would tempt Jesus?



To me Hebrews clearly states that Jesus was tempted just like we are. I have no reason to believe His temptation is any different from mine. The difference is in His reaction to the temptation. Does this negate Jesus' deity? No, I don't believe it does but it reveals his humanity. It is easy to overemphasize one side or the other of his dual nature, but I think the scripture presents a perfect balance in its entirety, regarding both Christ's deity and his humanity.


What good thing done by humanity doesn't come from God?

What bad thing done by humanity comes from God?

Jesus wasn't sent to be ministered to by mankind. We are His sudents not the other way around.

Mark 10:45

45 For even the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.
KJV






For instance when I read this passage:
Hebrews 5:8 - though He was a Son, yet He learned obedience by the things which He suffered.

I have to say "does God have to "learn" anything, especially obedience?"


No, God doesn't need to learn obedience but notice Heb 5:8 says "He was a Son", yet how could Jesus be "a" son and not "THE SON"? How many sons are there?

Context of Heb 5 must be clear and we need to understand the subject and object of the part of the chapter which is stated in the opening verse. The object is stated in verse 1 of Heb 5 as "every high priest" and the subject is "taken from among men". Do we not err if we look at verse 8 without the context of HEb 5:1-10?



When I view the garden of gethsemane and I see that Christ desires for the cup to pass Him by, but He willing submits to the Father's will instead of His own I have to observe that His will desired something that was contrary to the Father's will.


If you see Jesus contrary to the Fathers will, please explain to me how Jesus ALWAYS does those things that pleases His Father as John 8:29 states?

John 8:29

29 And he that sent me is with me: the Father hath not left me alone; for I DO ALWAYS THOSE THINGS THAT PLEASE HIM.
KJV

Love Fountain

Love Fountain
Mar 2nd 2005, 10:04 PM
Wow, that's quite a zinger. :)

Can we not take Romans at face value unless we are a Roman? Do we have to be an Ephesian to take Ephesians at face value?

Perhaps we should toss Romans through Philemon?

And while we're at it, I'm not Timothy, so I guess I can't take I and II Timothy at face value?

Perhaps I've misunderstood your meaning here. Have I?

I hope so, because this sort of idea could lead to all kinds of confusion.

I agree Matt. Face value interpetation leads to confusion. Imagine if people really thought the locusts of Rev 9 were really locusts with the hair of women and the teeth of a lion? They sure would be confused!

Love Fountain

ProjectPeter
Mar 2nd 2005, 10:04 PM
Ok. Maybe you didn't understand the explanation regarding Philadelphia? How they are at the hour of temptation but not actually tempted?

Please share with me one thing that satan has that would tempt Jesus?



What good thing done by humanity doesn't come from God?

What bad thing done by humanity comes from God?

Jesus wasn't sent to be ministered to by mankind. We are His sudents not the other way around.

Mark 10:45

45 For even the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.
KJV





No, God doesn't need to learn obedience but notice Heb 5:8 says "He was a Son", yet how could Jesus be "a" son and not "THE SON"? How many sons are there?

Context of Heb 5 must be clear and we need to understand the subject and object of the part of the chapter which is stated in the opening verse. The object is stated in verse 1 of Heb 5 as "every high priest" and the subject is "taken from among men". Do we not err if we look at verse 8 without the context of HEb 5:1-10?



If you see Jesus contrary to the Fathers will, please explain to me how Jesus ALWAYS does those things that pleases His Father as John 8:29 states?

John 8:29

29 And he that sent me is with me: the Father hath not left me alone; for I DO ALWAYS THOSE THINGS THAT PLEASE HIM.
KJV

Love Fountain
Okay... west coast of US and East coast of Africa. Getting further away again... :D

Love Fountain
Mar 2nd 2005, 10:11 PM
Okay... west coast of US and East coast of Africa. Getting further away again... :D

Peter,

Are you mocking me?

Does this kind of response not defy the guidelines to posting on this forum?

Love Fountain

Toolman
Mar 2nd 2005, 10:16 PM
Ok. Maybe you didn't understand the explanation regarding Philadelphia? How they are at the hour of temptation but not actually tempted?

Please share with me one thing that satan has that would tempt Jesus?


I didn't say that Jesus was tempted by satan, the scripture does:
Matthew 4:1 - Then was Jesus led up of the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted (Peirazo) of the devil.


What good thing done by humanity doesn't come from God?

What bad thing done by humanity comes from God?

Jesus wasn't sent to be ministered to by mankind. We are His sudents not the other way around.

Sorry, you lost me on this one. Not following, I'm sure its because I'm not the sharpest tool in the shed.

I will agree that Christ came to serve and not to be served and that all good things come from God.


No, God doesn't need to learn obedience but notice Heb 5:8 says "He was a Son", yet how could Jesus be "a" son and not "THE SON"? How many sons are there?

Context of Heb 5 must be clear and we need to understand the subject and object of the part of the chapter which is stated in the opening verse. The object is stated in verse 1 of Heb 5 as "every high priest" and the subject is "taken from among men". Do we not err if we look at verse 8 without the context of HEb 5:1-10?

Actually the verse doesn't use either an "a" or a "the", the verse simply uses the greek word "Huios" which is used throughout scripture to describe both Jesus and others as "son". Sometimes the translators put "a" in front, and sometimes "the".

Here is a crosswalk link with all occurrences of this word:
http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=5207&version=nas


If you see Jesus contrary to the Fathers will, please explain to me how Jesus ALWAYS does those things that pleases His Father as John 8:29 states?

John 8:29

29 And he that sent me is with me: the Father hath not left me alone; for I DO ALWAYS THOSE THINGS THAT PLEASE HIM.
KJV

Love Fountain

I didn't say He did anything that was not pleasing to the Father. In fact the opposite, He did the Father's will.

If you don't see Jesus' will as different from the Father's then explain this passage:

Matthew 26:39 - He went a little farther and fell on His face, and prayed, saying, "O My Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from Me; nevertheless, not as I will, but as You will."

Matt14
Mar 2nd 2005, 10:22 PM
I agree Matt. Face value interpetation leads to confusion. Imagine if people really thought the locusts of Rev 9 were really locusts with the hair of women and the teeth of a lion? They sure would be confused!

Love Fountain

I think the meaning behind what you said to TM is getting lost. :)

Toolman said that Hebrews 4:15 says Christ was tempted in the same way as we are. And you and I know full well what temptation is.

But you said we can only take this plain passage at face value if we are a Hebrew.

What I'm trying to ask you is, why does this passage change meaning depending on whether or not you are a Hebrew?

This is the type of thing I'm saying causes much confusion, not taking things at face value. I would like to understand why you say that this passage changes depending on your nationality/ethnicity.

Thanks,

Matt

ChristopherE
Mar 2nd 2005, 11:50 PM
Temptation is obviously the sin of the temptor not the temptee unless the temptee submits to it. Do people think that Jesus gave what He was being tempted with consideration? Did He ponder it or reject it outright?

What I'm getting at is I can see the word "tempted" being used two ways.
Someone was tempted because of the attempts of the temptor.
Someone was tempted because they felt a temptation to take/do something.

I don't see Jesus internalizing the temptation in a 'well, should I or shouldn't I' scenario. I've not studied this matter completely so I'm curious how others are understanding it.

Duane Morse
Mar 3rd 2005, 12:21 AM
I really can not see how some one can be tempted if they do not consider the option to be at least somewhat viable.


If you look at a piece of candy and feel no desire for it, you can never be tempted with it.

It is only those things that stir a desire in you that can tempt you, so saying that Jesus had not internalized it is just saying that Jesus was never tempted in the first place.

If He was tempted in all things as the Bible states, then He must have considered and desired those things, to some degree, in the first place.

qbee
Mar 3rd 2005, 12:48 AM
This is a very good point..
because we are tempted by satan.. and also by our own desires of the flesh..
Jesus was temptempted in both of these ways.. Just as mankind is....
He overcame both of these temptaions but in different ways...

I dont think he really had to overcome the temptations of satan
in the wilderness..because he didnt even consider or ponder the
possibilty.. He was just putting satan in his place..
But in the Garden :( he did have to overcome this in his flesh..

First Satans temptation of pride.. In the wilderness..
Jesus knew the enemy who was tempting him in the widerness..
This was the temptation of pride from satan himself.. When this
happened Jesus didnt give it a second thought or even ponder
the possibility.. He rebuked satan with the word of God..

Second the temptations of the flesh.... In the garden..
In the garden when Jesus prayed.. The temptation he was faced
with was not of pride but of the flesh.. He knew what he would
have to face in his flesh and spirit.. He would have to take all the
sins of mankind upon him... I believe this scripture is to show just
how unbearable this was.. No man can even conceive doing this..
Jesus was showing his human nature here.. He was tempted not
to go through with this.. and even pondered it in his prayer..
But even though he had the ability not to go through with this..
Meaning he had a choice.. He chose to obey the will of God..

He was tempted in the flesh and overcame it with prayer and
his willingness to subject to the fathers will..

God was letting us know how big of a deal this was and what Jesus
had to endure and go through in the flesh and spirit to bring Gods
plan of salvation to the world.. It wasnt EASY.. Even for the saviour..

He was tempted and had to overcome just as we do...
He is showing us that if he could overcome and do what he did..
That we should be able to follow and overcome our trials by our faith...
In what he did for us...

ProjectPeter
Mar 3rd 2005, 01:02 AM
Peter,

Are you mocking me?

Does this kind of response not defy the guidelines to posting on this forum?

Love Fountain
If you find that to be "mocking" you then I certainly understand why you can't seem to grasp the clear Scriptural words that Jesus was in fact tempted as we are. But hey... I suppose that happens.

Doma
Mar 3rd 2005, 01:44 AM
I think we have finally reached a breakthrough here. If Jesus desired what was contrary to the Father's will, then Jesus desired evil! I say that because if Jesus' desires had conceived [James 1:14-16], there would have been no cross, no salvation for us, no Scriptures, no YHWH.



I agree that Eve was deceived but what was the nature of Eve's deception? Did Satan blindfold Eve, lead her to the tree of knowledge and have her eat of its fruit? No he didn't. The deception had to all fall upon Eve's shoulders or else any punishment for her sin would've been unjustified. Eve's deception thus was that Satan's lie became the truth and God's truth became a lie because she desired the unauthorized knowledge of Satan's lie more than living under God's law just as Jesus desired what was contrary to God's will. He on the other hand rejected that desire by going to the cross.

It is irrefutable that Satan's lie provoked Eve into desiring the forbidden fruit because Eve wanted to be her own god and make her own rules. And that is the result of the sinful nature [1 John 2:16].

You are jumping to conclusions about Jesus. There are many possibilities, 1, He may simply have been trying to get to God's perfect will, from a lesser degree of God's will, like good or acceptable. Or He may simply have had a hard time accepting God's will at that moment.

The nature of Eve's decpetion was from several factors, 1st she was undisciplined and thus was iresponsible over God's word and commands. 2nd she didn't run to her head with the problem (also due to undiscipline, this is not sin nature), and she was motivated by deception and trickery.

Eve was not alone in this and thus satan and the serpent both were judged as well (so did Adam).

I think you have a misunderstanding about undiscipline and sin nature. A neutral being with no discipline can easily sin.


You say Lucifer committed iniquities because of his desire and then you say that the desire in itself isn't good nor bad. Well if the desire is neither good nor bad, then how can it inspire sin? Good desires don't inspire sin. Bad desires do. It's that plain and simple. Satan was created perfect but because of his internal pride [evil desire] he rebelled against God and sinned. Adam and Eve desired evil and sinned. Jesus desired evil but did not give in to the sinful nature and thus did not sin. This is irrefutable.




Question: If sinlessness is an attribute of deity [Romans 3:23], then how could Adam and Eve have been sinless?

We don't know much about the origin and the fall of angels, but we know it happened in a very short period of time. Perhaps they were created in a neutral state, and given a short time to make a choice like Adam did, and after their choice, those who didn't fall may have ate from the Tree of Life. This is speculation. We just don't know.

I would not say sinlessness must come from ddeity status alone. many things share the same attributes. A dog has eyes, and humans have eyes...


Those who have Ears Let them hear....
I only tell you this with Love.. :hug:


Man not Jesus is born into a sinfull nature because of Adams sin..
Jesus was begotten of God and is not born into a sinfull nature..
He took on a human nature not sinfull nature.. he was not born into sin..

Adam did not take on a sinfull nature [u]UNTILL he sinned..
being tempted is NOT a sinfull nature.. sucumbing to temptation is..

You can not take on a sinfull nature untill you sin or are born into sin as we are..

Example....
1..One is not a murderer untill he murders.. he then takes on the nature of a murderer

2...One is not a theif untill he steals.. He then takes on the nature of a theif..

3...One does not have a sinfull nature untill he sins.. He then takes on a nature of sin. (a sinfull nature)

GET IT...... :pray: :)

Being tempted to sin.. Is not sin...
You do not take on a sinfull nature untill you Choose to go outside of Gods will and sin.
Then you have a sinfull nature.. Not untill... It is a choice...

EVIL is what gave man (Adam) the choice... :hmm: Evil is serving a purpose...
.

I say Amen to all that except the last line. I am not fully persuaded of that. I believe God gave them a choice,before satan arrived. But the choice did not have a manifested form of evil to partake of. But they could have disobeyed God in other things, if they wanted to...


Firstly, let me tell you that I believe that Adam and Eve were destined to sin because only Jesus could reflect God's glory by never sinning [Romans 3:23]. It was only a matter of time.



Rom 3:23 does not say that. That was written after man sinned, although God knew it, but He did not ordain it. Preknowledge is NOT ordination.


You know I hate to be a spoiled sport but this all goes back to the original question of this thread. If Adam and Eve were without knowledge of good and evil, then how was it that Eve understood God's command that eating of the tree of knowledge meant death. .

I answered this already they knew because they had faith in God's word, but the enemy of faith came to Eve, doubt....


Do you see why the original question of this thread is so powerful? Using your example, if not because of their sinful nature desires to be their own god and make their own rules, why would Adam and Eve have chosen [b] in the first place?

You can't choose death unless you want it and by believing Satan's lie and disavowing God's truth, Adam and Eve proved they wanted death.

Eve wanted it thru deception, Adam chose it because he decided being with his wife was more important than God's will.

-------------------------

As for the Jesus temptation bit, it is better understaood this way, His humanity was tempted because it had flesh, tho no sin like Adam, His divinity was not tempted.

-------------------


I really can not see how some one can be tempted if they do not consider the option to be at least somewhat viable.


If you look at a piece of candy and feel no desire for it, you can never be tempted with it.

It is only those things that stir a desire in you that can tempt you, so saying that Jesus had not internalized it is just saying that Jesus was never tempted in the first place.

If He was tempted in all things as the Bible states, then He must have considered and desired those things, to some degree, in the first place.

This is not necessarily true, you forget deception. Ok I have no interest in candy, but you coma along and turn the candy's appearence tio something else. I am now decived and take it.

Eve ate by deception, Adam ate for not the sake of the fruits effect, but because of Eve.

So neither had the desire of the fruit and partook from that desire.

Toolman
Mar 3rd 2005, 02:17 AM
Adam ate for not the sake of the fruits effect, but because of Eve.

Where does scripture teach this, when you say because of Eve what do you mean?

ProjectPeter
Mar 3rd 2005, 02:59 AM
Where does scripture teach this, when you say because of Eve what do you mean?In the same verse that says the fruit was an apple.... :D

Doma
Mar 3rd 2005, 03:09 AM
Where does scripture teach this, when you say because of Eve what do you mean?

We don't know alot, but we can deduce from what we do know...

Adam was not decieved:

2Cor:11:3: But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.

1Tm:2:14: And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.

Adam also was not in the transgression, he didn't participate to obtain knowledge or god status.

Thus any accusation in this thread about Adam desiring sin is ludicrous.

We also know satan never approached Adam, and there was no discussion about any of this with Adam. Ever here Bill Cosby's account of this? Adam bit the apple because he wanted Eve.

Adam wanted a help meet, and none of the animals were sufficient. Why else does the Bible say a woman can turn a man into a piece of bread?

Prov:6:26: For by means of a whorish woman a man is brought to a piece of bread: and the adulteress will hunt for the precious life.

The NT says women are weak, the NT says a woman should be quiet in the church and not bother a service with her questions. men are not as gullible, are not weak. When men sin, they know they are in error. They choose sin for lust. I worked in a Vitamin company for 5 years and worked closely with the Advertisement dept. Ever notice that most ads are to women? Why? because they are weak and you can decieve them easier. And when ads do target men, how do they do it? With women.

How did David fall? A man after God's own heart? he fell because of a woman, just like his father Adam.

Stick a beautiful woman in front of us, we become a piece of bread.

Why else did Paul say it is better to marry than to burn in lust?

Why else did Jesus say this:

Math 19:
10: His disciples say unto him, If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry.
11: But he said unto them, All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given.

I know I got married for 1 reason alone, I will not hide it. The Bible approves it, and it keeps me from sin. This does not mean that after I chose marriage for this reaosn that I took any woman, I chose a believer. I decided on standards. Thus the woman I married was not for 1 reason, but marriage itself was for 1 reason. the wife I chose was for several reasons.

The Bible does not say exactly why Adam sinned, but deduction is very easy on this matter. We do know it was NOT by the transgression.

JasonLambofGod
Mar 3rd 2005, 04:26 AM
When the parents are away the kids will play.

*shrugs*

qbee
Mar 3rd 2005, 04:31 AM
Well to me "Adam was not deceived" means.. He Knew better..
Eve was deceived meaning .. she believed the lie.. That is why the sin
fell to Adam.. He wasnt deceived by satans lie as Eve was but he sinned
anyway.... He wanted to please EVE..

There are 2 kinds of temptations.. 1 from satan 2 Mans own desire. (flesh)
Eve sinned because of pride.. she was deceived by satans temptations
Adam sinned because of mans desires in the flesh... His own desire..

But It still all stems from satan...
satan reached Adam through Eve..

ChristopherE
Mar 3rd 2005, 07:08 AM
In the same verse that says the fruit was an apple.... :D

or that it was a literal fruit in the first place? ;)

Zhavoney
Mar 3rd 2005, 09:33 AM
Hello brothers and sisters. After several years of studying the Garden of Eden account of Adam and Eve's sin, I've concluded that:


*Eve was fully knowledgeable of God's command which was why she never ate of the tree of knowledge fruit prior to Satan approaching her. [Genesis 3:3]. Now it is true that she distorted God's command by claiming it prohibited the touching of the tree of knowledge fruit but it can not be denied that she still considered the tree of knowledge fruit to have been deadly.


*It was only when Satan claimed that the eating of the tree of knowledge fruit would make Eve as knowledgeable of good and evil as God that she desired the tree of knowledge fruit [Genesis 3:6]. In the parallel Scripture in the New Testament, 1 John 2:16 explains why Satan's lie provoked Eve to desire the fruit of that tree:

1 John 2:16-For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes and the pride of life, is not of the Father but is of this world.

Genesis 3:6-And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that is was pleasant to the eyes and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof and did eat...

Eve thus desired the fruit of that tree because she was driven by her worldly 'sinful nature' lusts to be her own god and make her own rules.


*Once Adam and Eve sinned, their access to the Garden of Eden's tree of life immortality had been cut off [Genesis 3:22]. This represents the curse of death inflicted upon sinful man. Jesus reversed this curse by rejecting his own sinful nature and dying on the cross and as a result he raised himself from the grave in immortality. This explains why physical death is so consistently portrayed as the opposite of the reward of the immortal resurrection for the righteous.

1 Corinthians 15:16-For if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain, ye are yet in your sins. Then they also which are fallen asleep in Christ are perished.



What do you all think of this assessment?

Well eve couln't have been driven by her worldly lust since the only world at that time was loving God and tending His garden. It wasn't until after they ate the fruit that their eyes were opened to know sin. Eve and Adam believed the lies of the devil over the truth of God to fulfill Gods purpose. Christ created everything after God created Him. First as melchezedek and then as Christ. Man was then created for Christ to save and bring in a royal priesthood for the fellowship of the God head.

Zhavoney
a son of man
by faith in him alone

Kahtar
Mar 3rd 2005, 12:41 PM
Christ created everything after God created Him. First as melchezedek and then as Christ.
???????:eek: :confused :hmm:


:B

Doma
Mar 3rd 2005, 02:22 PM
or that it was a literal fruit in the first place? ;)

Don't fall for that line of thought, the end result is believing the Word is not inspired, and becomes a bed time story. Perhaps the cross wasn't real, maybe Jesus wasn't real either. Oh its all just a moral tale to bring the world into a higher moral conscience, you get the idea.

If God said it was a tree and a fruit, it was real, for more on this read here:

http://www.kingdom-gospel.com/interpret.html

Toolman
Mar 3rd 2005, 02:52 PM
We don't know alot, but we can deduce from what we do know...

So it is a theory not a biblical fact. I don't have a problem with that but just wanted to make sure.


Adam was not decieved:

2Cor:11:3: But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.

1Tm:2:14: And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.

Adam also was not in the transgression, he didn't participate to obtain knowledge or god status.

Thus any accusation in this thread about Adam desiring sin is ludicrous.

I agree that Adam was not deceived. I do not agree that Adam was not in transgression.

Romans 5:

12Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned--
13(For until the law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law.
14Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those who had not sinned according to the likeness of the TRANSGRESSION of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come.
15But the free gift is not like the offense. For if by the one man's offense many died, much more the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abounded to many.
16And the gift is not like that which came through the one who sinned. For the judgment which came from one offense resulted in condemnation, but the free gift which came from many offenses resulted in justification.
17For if by the one man's offense death reigned through the one, much more those who receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ.)
18Therefore, as through one man's offense judgment came to all men, resulting in condemnation, even so through one Man's righteous act the free gift came to all men, resulting in justification of life.
19For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so also by one Man's obedience many will be made righteous.

ProjectPeter
Mar 3rd 2005, 02:54 PM
or that it was a literal fruit in the first place? ;)
I've no problem with the fruit and the tree being a literal fruit and a tree for that matter.... But I have come to the conclusion that it couldn't have been an apple because of an old saying... An apple a day keeps the doctor away. Now it doesn't say keeps you out of school or makes you good or bad. So it must not have been an apple. Probably some sort of passion fruit though.






























okay.... everything after me saying I have no problem with it being a literal fruit and tree.... IT WAS A JOKE! PUT THE ROCKS AWAY!!!!

jasonlevene
Mar 3rd 2005, 04:22 PM
Well eve couln't have been driven by her worldly lust since the only world at that time was loving God and tending His garden. It wasn't until after they ate the fruit that their eyes were opened to know sin. Eve and Adam believed the lies of the devil over the truth of God to fulfill Gods purpose. Christ created everything after God created Him. First as melchezedek and then as Christ. Man was then created for Christ to save and bring in a royal priesthood for the fellowship of the God head.

Zhavoney
a son of man
by faith in him alone

Welcome to the discussion Zhavoney. If Eve's sin wasn't driven by worldly lust to be her own god and make her own rules, why would Satan's lie provoke Eve into desiring the same tree of knowledge fruit that she acknowledged as deadly only moments before?

ProjectPeter
Mar 3rd 2005, 04:44 PM
Welcome to the discussion Zhavoney. If Eve's sin wasn't driven by worldly lust to be her own god and make her own rules, why would Satan's lie provoke Eve into desiring the same tree of knowledge fruit that she acknowledged as deadly only moments before?
Help me out here Jason.... even though I am sure you have already covered this it would save me from having to go back through and read everything again trying to find it.

Do you think that both Adam and Eve had the sinful nature from the moment of creation?

A Brother
Mar 3rd 2005, 04:46 PM
Adam and Eve had a choice between two commandments.
1) Multiply and replenish the earth.
2) Do not partake of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

Well they could not keep the first commandment unless they broke the 2nd one.

Man is not evil by nature, he is only evil when he sins after being subject to temtation. The natural man is an enemy to god, but what is the natural man? It is the person whom has committed sin. And usually a sinful man will keep on committing sin.

Which brings up something else that the Toolman said that man after being born again you cannot sin. Well let me ask you this, then why is not this doctrine found in every Christian church? I bet if you took a survey about, can a person commit sin after being born again, that you will get a wide array of answers.

All of us know plenty of born again people whom do wrongful, even very sinful things. To him whom is with out sin, cast the first stone. Even Christ whom was perfect and unblemished did not throw any stones.

Toolman
Mar 3rd 2005, 04:51 PM
Adam and Eve had a choice between two commandments.
1) Multiply and replenish the earth.
2) Do not partake of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

Well they could not keep the first commandment unless they broke the 2nd one.

Not following you here. Where does scripture state they needed to break 2 to keep 1?


Which brings up something else that the Toolman said that man after being born again you cannot sin.

I didn't say that, just for the record.

A Brother
Mar 3rd 2005, 05:09 PM
Toolman you are right. Mis-quoted you. Sorry!

Well it doesn't that on the 2 must be broken to keep 1. Just a method of deduction which is how they must have been thinking when they where given these 2 commandments. They are both conflicting on purpose. Why? so that they would exercise their free will in all of this. Either way they would be not keeping one of the commandments. This was all meant for us to bring this whole human family into existance all through the use of free will.

Seems like a Grand Design to me.

jasonlevene
Mar 3rd 2005, 05:10 PM
I think you have a misunderstanding about undiscipline and sin nature. A neutral being with no discipline can easily sin.

You can attribute Eve's sin to anything under the sun. But the clear fact of the matter is that Satan's lie provoked Eve into desiring that tree of knowledge fruit and that was simply because she wanted to be as knowledgeable of good and evil as god. No lie provokes you to desiring something that you know is deadly unless you want what's in that lie and that's exactly what happened to Eve.



I would not say sinlessness must come from ddeity status alone. many things share the same attributes. A dog has eyes, and humans have eyes...Rom 3:23 does not say that. That was written after man sinned, although God knew it, but He did not ordain it. Preknowledge is NOT ordination.

Yes but sinlessness is equated with deity in Romans 3:23. And I don't believe it matters that it was written after man sinned. Peter says Jesus was chosen before the foundations of the world which means that man sin and its redemption was already an afterthought before the foundations of the world. The characteristics of deity can not change regardless of time.




I answered this already they knew because they had faith in God's word, but the enemy of faith came to Eve, doubt....

Ah ha...but the question is why did Eve doubt God's word? Why would she disavow God's command to believe Satan's lie?



As for the Jesus temptation bit, it is better understaood this way, His humanity was tempted because it had flesh, tho no sin like Adam, His divinity was not tempted.

If Jesus had no sin [or sinful nature] like Adam, then how could he desire sin-or what was contrary to God's will?



This is not necessarily true, you forget deception. Ok I have no interest in candy, but you coma along and turn the candy's appearence tio something else. I am now decived and take it.

Eve ate by deception, Adam ate for not the sake of the fruits effect, but because of Eve.

So neither had the desire of the fruit and partook from that desire.

But this isn't what happened with Eve. Satan didn't turn the candy's appearance into something else. He turned the effects of eating the candy into something else. There is a big difference between the two. If you have no interest in candy because someone told you you'll get sick from eating it and I come along and say not only that you won't get sick but that it's the best tasting candy you've ever eaten and you thus desire it and eat it and do get sick, you've disavowed the words of the first person because you wanted to eat the best tasting candy you've ever eaten.

Toolman
Mar 3rd 2005, 05:20 PM
Toolman you are right. Mis-quoted you. Sorry!

Its ok.. it happens.


Well it doesn't that on the 2 must be broken to keep 1. Just a method of deduction which is how they must have been thinking when they where given these 2 commandments. They are both conflicting on purpose. Why? so that they would exercise their free will in all of this. Either way they would be not keeping one of the commandments. This was all meant for us to bring this whole human family into existance all through the use of free will.

Seems like a Grand Design to me.

I don't see the 2 conflicting. Can you explain where the conflict is between the 2 commands?

jasonlevene
Mar 3rd 2005, 05:33 PM
Basically, the way I'm understanding you, is that the term "sin nature" that you use is not guilt, but simply the ability to either sin, or not sin. Please correct me if I am misunderstanding you.

Yes. The sin nature is not guilt but the reason why Adam and Eve sinned, why we all sin, and why Jesus desired sin but unlike all the rest of us just did not gratify it.



One of my professors always asks, "What difference does it make?"

So that's what I'm asking. This idea you are putting forth..What difference does it make?

Thanks :)

Let me explain it this way. I was always one to ask questions when things didn't make sense. And throughout the past few years, I've found myself asking the question: if we inherit the sin nature as a result of Adam and Eve's sin, then why did they originally choose to sin in the first place. The 'deception' answer to that question didn't make any sense either because it wasn't like Satan hid the tree of knowledge fruit under some shells and did a three card monte. A closer examination of the exchange between Eve and Satan revealed to me that the nature of the deception was that Eve took Satan's lie as the truth and God's truth as a lie. And the only reason someone would do that is if they wanted the lie more than the truth. Well imagine how shocked I was to read 1 John 2:16 in light of the Eve serpent exchange. Then the pieces started to fit together. Adam sinned because of his sin nature and Eve sinned because of hers. Well then I thought: what about Jesus? I was always raised to believe that Jesus was some sort of robot who never had the desire to do contrary to what he was told. But then I read the Gethsemane accounts and more pieces of the puzzle started to fit together. Jesus didn't want to go through with the cross and was asking God the Father to get him out of it. And then I realized that if God the Father had granted Jesus' request, then the Scriptures that prophesied Jesus to suffer on the cross would've been nullified. The deity of YHWH would've been nullified because the Word of YHWH would be all lies. And not to mention there'd be no cross to save us! What other than the sinful nature could that have been attributed to? More pieces started to fit together. This is why Hebrews says he was tempted but was without sin; this is why Paul says Jesus was 'obedient', and this is why Jesus said that to live forever one must deny the sinful nature in this flesh-just as he did.

I'm sorry for this being so long but you know how talkative I can be. :)

Toolman
Mar 3rd 2005, 05:53 PM
Well imagine how shocked I was to read 1 John 2:16 in light of the Eve serpent exchange. Then the pieces started to fit together.

Here is how those 3 temptations tie together.

Examine:

1 John 2:16 - For all that is in the world--the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life--is not of the Father but is of the world.

Genesis 3:6 - So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food (lust of the flesh), that it was pleasant to the eyes(lust of the eyes), and a tree desirable to make one wise (pride of life), she took of its fruit and ate.

Matt 4:3 - Now when the tempter came to Him, he said, "If You are the Son of God, command that these stones become bread."(lust of the flesh)

5-6 - Then the devil took Him up into the holy city, set Him on the pinnacle of the temple, and said to Him, "If You are the Son of God, throw Yourself down. For it is written:
"He shall give His angels charge over you,'
and, "In their hands they shall bear you up,
Lest you dash your foot against a stone." (pride of life)

8-9 - Again, the devil took Him up on an exceedingly high mountain, and showed Him all the kingdoms of the world and their glory. And he said to Him, "All these things I will give You if You will fall down and worship me." (lust of the eyes)

Jason, while I am leary to use the term "sin nature" I do agree with you that Jesus was actually able to be tempted just as Adam and Eve and we are.
Fully human and fully God, the mystery of Christ.

What do you make of Paul's statements in Romans where he says that "sin" entered through one man (Adam)?

Romans 5: 12Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned-- 13(For until the law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law. 14Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those who had not sinned according to the likeness of the transgression of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come.

jasonlevene
Mar 4th 2005, 02:41 AM
Help me out here Jason.... even though I am sure you have already covered this it would save me from having to go back through and read everything again trying to find it.

Do you think that both Adam and Eve had the sinful nature from the moment of creation?

Yes I believe that Adam and Eve were created with the sinful nature. It is why we choose to sin and rebel against God.

ProjectPeter
Mar 4th 2005, 04:50 AM
Yes I believe that Adam and Eve were created with the sinful nature. It is why we choose to sin and rebel against God.
And you believe that Jesus had this same sin nature?

Doma
Mar 4th 2005, 06:06 AM
So it is a theory not a biblical fact. I don't have a problem with that but just wanted to make sure.



I agree that Adam was not deceived. I do not agree that Adam was not in transgression.

Romans 5:

12Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned--
13(For until the law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law.
14Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those who had not sinned according to the likeness of the TRANSGRESSION of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come.
15But the free gift is not like the offense. For if by the one man's offense many died, much more the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abounded to many.
16And the gift is not like that which came through the one who sinned. For the judgment which came from one offense resulted in condemnation, but the free gift which came from many offenses resulted in justification.
17For if by the one man's offense death reigned through the one, much more those who receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ.)
18Therefore, as through one man's offense judgment came to all men, resulting in condemnation, even so through one Man's righteous act the free gift came to all men, resulting in justification of life.
19For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so also by one Man's obedience many will be made righteous.

I would say there is a difference between the transgression of Adam and The Transgression. Since scripture seems to speak both ways.


Adam and Eve had a choice between two commandments.
1) Multiply and replenish the earth.
2) Do not partake of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

Well they could not keep the first commandment unless they broke the 2nd one.

.

Sorry but thats way wrong. Sex is not sin. Sex outside of marriage is sin, but not in marriage:

Heb:13:4: Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge.


... that was simply because she wanted to be as knowledgeable of good and evil as god. ...

The characteristics of deity can not change regardless of time...

Ah ha...but the question is why did Eve doubt God's word? Why would she disavow God's command to believe Satan's lie?


If Jesus had no sin [or sinful nature] like Adam, then how could he desire sin-or what was contrary to God's will?

But this isn't what happened with Eve. Satan didn't turn the candy's appearance into something else. ...

1. Eve didn't want it, she was decieved or tricked into it. Have you never seen someone tricked into anything? When my wife 1st came into America I told her not to take any phone calls and change our phone service. Sure enough our phone service was changed and she denied doing it. I finally got the phone company to play the tape, and I listened and heard the conversation how my wife was tricked into changing the service.

2. Not saying the characteristics changed. I said things can share characteristics. Thus other things besides deity can have sinlessness. I won't be God, but I will be sinless 1 day:

1Jn:3:2: Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is.

3. Eve doubted because she was not disciplined. We are all called to be disciples. She failed in her discipleship.

4. Wanting something outside God's will is not necessarily sin. It does however, negate Kingdom authority:

http://www.kingdom-gospel.com/kingdom.html



Math 7:
21: Not every one that says unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that does the will of my Father which is in heaven.
22: Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in your name? and in your name have cast out devils? and in your name done many wonderful works?
23: And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, you that work iniquity. Doing good things in the name of the Lord does nothing to advance the Kingdom of God. It may promote your ministry but not Jesus' ministry. Suffice it to say that many "good" deeds done in the name of the Lord are actually dead works.

--

Dead works are soulishness, not sins. Jesus showed soulishness, and thus is why He sweat blood:

http://www.kingdom-gospel.com/judge1.html



Back to Rev 14: MKJV

20 And the winepress was trodden outside the city, and blood came out of the winepress, even to the bridles of the horses, for the space of a thousand, six hundred stadia.

After learning what Gehenna is, we now see this is outside New Jerusalem in heaven. This is where Jesus will be judging the church. Please make note of the blood from The Winepress.

Luke 22:44: And being in an agony he prayed more earnestly: and his sweat was as it were great drops of blood falling down to the ground.

Here is Jesus, in Gethsemane praying. What I am about to say may be shocking to many believers. Jesus struggled with God's will in Gethsemane. Struggled but did not sin. He even asked the disciples to pray with Him. It took 3 times of prayer before Jesus accepted the cup of God's will. This is the only time Jesus may have had His soul struggle to obey the Spirit. During this winepress of His soul (remember Gethsemane means winepress in Greek), He was purified thru prayer and obeyed. The winepress, with Christ denying His soul, actually produced blood. Not much blood (just some drops), because Jesus never sinned, nor was He soulish or selfish. The carnal christians will produce blood when they are thrust into the winepress of God's wrath. The grapes must be emptied! Blood cannot inherit the Kingdom of heaven. This is not physical blood in Rev 14:20, this is the essence of their soulishness. The souls will be emptied of all things corruptible.

4. But satan did turn the Tree of Knowledge into something else in HER eyes, otherwise she would have ate from it without satan's help. He tricked her, do not forget this.




Let me explain it this way. I was always one to ask questions when things didn't make sense. And throughout the past few years, I've found myself asking the question: if we inherit the sin nature as a result of Adam and Eve's sin, then why did they originally choose to sin in the first place. The 'deception' answer to that question didn't make any sense either because it wasn't like Satan hid the tree of knowledge fruit under some shells and did a three card monte. A closer examination of the exchange between Eve and Satan revealed to me that the nature of the deception was that Eve took Satan's lie as the truth and God's truth as a lie. And the only reason someone would do that is if they wanted the lie more than the truth. Well imagine how shocked I was to read 1 John 2:16 in light of the Eve serpent exchange.....

Alot of self involved in that and reasoning. Paul and scripture says we can reason, but it never should be to self exaltation. the Bible tells us His ways are higher than our ways, and that we see darkly about these things. You cannot create a doctrine by your reason until you stamp out all other reasons, and you are clinging to this reason more highly than you ought. This will be the downfall of your spiritual house. It is thus built on sand.

Prov:14:12: There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death.
Prov:16:25: There is a way that seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death.

The Bible cautions all teachers that we reciece a greater judgment because of thse things. It is therefore of the uttmost importance to remain teachable, whenever someone comes along and shows a hole in the doctrine, one must be willing to submit it to scriptural light.

If God created Adam, and there is no sin in Him, then God cannot create evil. Nothing can come out of God corrupt.

Toolman
Mar 4th 2005, 02:35 PM
I would say there is a difference between the transgression of Adam and The Transgression. Since scripture seems to speak both ways.

Well to say that Adam was not in transgression is incorrect but if you want to explain what you are talking about I'm open.


1. Eve didn't want it, she was decieved or tricked into it. Have you never seen someone tricked into anything?

Eve was not tricked as in she didn't want what was offered. She was tricked in that what was offered was not delivered. Let's observe:

Here is the offer:
Then the serpent said to the woman, "You will not surely die. For God knows that in the day you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil."

Here is Eve's response:
So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree desirable to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate.

So we see that Satan told Eve that by eating the fruit she would not die (which meant God lied) and that they would be like God.

Eve desired what Satan offered, this God-like wisdom, and so she gladly partook. The deception was that what Satan offered was a lie, Eve did die and the fruit did not make her like God.

Eve clearly believed Satan's lie as truth and God's truth as a lie and she desired that which she thought the fruit could give her, to be equal with God.

jasonlevene
Mar 4th 2005, 04:27 PM
And you believe that Jesus had this same sin nature?

Yes I believe Jesus had this same sin nature but unlike all the rest of us, he remained sinless by rejecting it and suffering on the cross.

jasonlevene
Mar 4th 2005, 04:31 PM
If God created Adam, and there is no sin in Him, then God cannot create evil. Nothing can come out of God corrupt.

Then why did God issue the commandment to Adam?

jasonlevene
Mar 4th 2005, 04:32 PM
Eve clearly believed Satan's lie as truth and God's truth as a lie and she desired that which she thought the fruit could give her, to be equal with God.

This is what I believe Toolman.

Toolman
Mar 4th 2005, 04:36 PM
This is what I believe Toolman.

Jason,

The interesting thing here though is that Eve was deceived, Adam was not, and scripture declares that Adam is the one who sinned (never declares that Eve sinned) and that sin passed down through Adam.

What is your view on that. I asked you earlier about this passage but you may have missed it:

Romans 5: 12 Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned--
13(For until the law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law. 14Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those who had not sinned according to the likeness of the transgression of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come.

jasonlevene
Mar 4th 2005, 06:25 PM
Jason,

The interesting thing here though is that Eve was deceived, Adam was not, and scripture declares that Adam is the one who sinned (never declares that Eve sinned)...

I disagree. 1 Timothy 2:14 says: 'and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor.'


I asked you earlier about this passage but you may have missed it:

Romans 5: 12 Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned--
13(For until the law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law. 14Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those who had not sinned according to the likeness of the transgression of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come.

Oops sorry for not addressing this because it is an integral part of what we're discussing in that I'm sure many here are wondering: if Adam and Eve were created with a sin nature then what was the curse of death pronounced upon Adam and Eve.

Well it first needs to establisheded that Adam and Eve were not created immortal. God told them to fruitfully multiply before their sin so there must've been an aging process inherent in Adam and Eve. This was the purpose of the tree of life in the Garden of Eden: to halt Adam and Eve's inherent aging process. So what happened after their sin:

Genesis 3:22-Then the LORD God said, "Behold, the man has become like one of us, knowing 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"

Adam and Eve's inherent aging process was thus going to run its course until the two would die some 900 years later. And so Adam and Eve did physically die on the day of their sin in that their access to the tree of life was prohibited from that day forward. Not convinced? Consider that Paul tells the Ephesians that they were already 'raised up together with Christ' [Ephesians 2:6] yet he tells the Corinthians that the Holy Spirit was a 'down payment' of the glorious resurrection to come [2 Corinthians 1:22]. Is this a contradiction? Not at all. What Paul is saying is that our future resurrection is so certain that we can count ourselves as already raised from the dead right now. Adam and Eve's physical death thus was so certain that they could have counted themselves as physically dead from the day they sinned until the day they died. In this way, we are all 'spiritually deceased' in Adam in that we all sin [Romans 5:12; Ephesians 2:3]. So what was the curse of death that spread to all men of sin? Mortality.

But didn't Jesus die? Yes he did...but unlike the rest of us he didn't die because he sinned he died to kill his sinful nature. This I believe is why the resurrection of the dead for the righteous-including Jesus-is consistently contrasted with the state of being physically dead. Consider Romans 8:11- 'But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you.'

Toolman
Mar 4th 2005, 06:40 PM
I disagree. 1 Timothy 2:14 says: 'and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor.'

Good point. Also interesting that the greek word here is different than that in Romans 5, though they appear to have the same root.
Maybe something worth investigating.


Well it first needs to establisheded that Adam and Eve were not created immortal. God told them to fruitfully multiply before their sin so there must've been an aging process inherent in Adam and Eve.
Why does having children indicate an aging process that ends in death?
I'm not following you on that one.


This was the purpose of the tree of life in the Garden of Eden: to halt Adam and Eve's inherent aging process. So what happened after their sin:

Genesis 3:22-Then the LORD God said, "Behold, the man has become like one of us, knowing 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"

Adam and Eve's inherent aging process was thus going to run its course until the two would die some 900 years later. And so Adam and Eve did physically die on the day of their sin in that their access to the tree of life was prohibited from that day forward. Not convinced? Consider that Paul tells the Ephesians that they were already 'raised up together with Christ' [Ephesians 2:6] yet he tells the Corinthians that the Holy Spirit was a 'down payment' of the glorious resurrection to come [2 Corinthians 1:22]. Is this a contradiction? Not at all. What Paul is saying is that our future resurrection is so certain that we can count ourselves as already raised from the dead right now. Adam and Eve's physical death thus was so certain that they could have counted themselves as physically dead from the day they sinned until the day they died. In this way, we are all 'spiritually deceased' in Adam in that we all sin [Romans 5:12; Ephesians 2:3]. So what was the curse of death that spread to all men of sin? Mortality.

But didn't Jesus die? Yes he did...but unlike the rest of us he didn't die because he sinned he died to kill his sinful nature. This I believe is why the resurrection of the dead for the righteous-including Jesus-is consistently contrasted with the state of being physically dead. Consider Romans 8:11- 'But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you.'

Good points all the way around and I agree with much of that.

jasonlevene
Mar 5th 2005, 01:51 AM
Why does having children indicate an aging process that ends in death? I'm not following you on that one.


Because children age from conception onward and that aging process would have to end somewhere and based on the tree of life/immortality being in the Garden of Eden with Adam and Eve, I'd say it was going to end in death. But of course I'm open to anything.


Good points all the way around and I agree with much of that.

Thanx...Great minds think alike :rofl:

Doma
Mar 5th 2005, 09:53 PM
Well to say that Adam was not in transgression is incorrect but if you want to explain what you are talking about I'm open.



Eve was not tricked as in she didn't want what was offered. She was tricked in that what was offered was not delivered.

.

I am speaking about this transgression:

1Tm:2:14: And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.

Yes, exactly concerning the deception. It was her observance of what was offered. When it was thru God's words, she remained sin free, but when observed thru the deception, she partook. Thus she was tricked into eating and desiring by changing the observation.

Doma
Mar 5th 2005, 09:56 PM
Then why did God issue the commandment to Adam?

because a danger came into the garden.

I believed this before but saw something knew due to this thread. I noticed the Tree of knowledge is not listed in Gen 1, before God said all was good. Thats because:

http://www.kingdom-gospel.com/redeem.html



Another question by many is this? Is God evil that he put the Tree of Knowledge in the garden with Adam? This I know: God is good. In Him there is no evil. I know this; satan was on the earth and in the garden. I know this: God gave authority and power to Adam over all of creation. I therefore believe this: satan possessed a serpent in the garden which Adam could have rebuked and sent away. I believe this: satan cannot create but can corrupt.

Here is a revelation that I put from theory into doctrine. That satan some how, corrupted a tree or possessed it and it became the Tree of Knowledge. Read this: Ezek 31: MKJV
8 The cedars in the garden of God could not hide him; the fir trees were not like his boughs, and the chestnut trees were not like his branches. Nor was any tree in the garden of God like him in his beauty.
9 I have made him beautiful by his many branches, so that all the trees of Eden in the garden of God envied him.
18 To whom are you like in glory and in greatness among the trees of Eden? Yet you shall be brought down with the trees of Eden to the lower parts of the earth...

----------------

God commanded them because sin came into the garden after he had put them there.

ProjectPeter
Mar 6th 2005, 12:38 AM
because a danger came into the garden.

I believed this before but saw something knew due to this thread. I noticed the Tree of knowledge is not listed in Gen 1, before God said all was good. Thats because:

http://www.kingdom-gospel.com/redeem.html



Another question by many is this? Is God evil that he put the Tree of Knowledge in the garden with Adam? This I know: God is good. In Him there is no evil. I know this; satan was on the earth and in the garden. I know this: God gave authority and power to Adam over all of creation. I therefore believe this: satan possessed a serpent in the garden which Adam could have rebuked and sent away. I believe this: satan cannot create but can corrupt.

Here is a revelation that I put from theory into doctrine. That satan some how, corrupted a tree or possessed it and it became the Tree of Knowledge. Read this: Ezek 31: MKJV
8 The cedars in the garden of God could not hide him; the fir trees were not like his boughs, and the chestnut trees were not like his branches. Nor was any tree in the garden of God like him in his beauty.
9 I have made him beautiful by his many branches, so that all the trees of Eden in the garden of God envied him.
18 To whom are you like in glory and in greatness among the trees of Eden? Yet you shall be brought down with the trees of Eden to the lower parts of the earth...

----------------

God commanded them because sin came into the garden after he had put them there.
Gotta be honest with you on this one Doma... I'd consider putting that back in the theory section and forget the idea of doctrine... especially based on that passage of Scripture out of Ezekiel. That's way to weak to try and make a doctrine out of it.

Braver
Mar 7th 2005, 05:46 AM
I'm cool, and I'm back :D

Why did God issue the commandment to not eat of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil?

Because God did not want Adam and Eve to eat of it, simple.

The Garden of Eden was a mansion, the Tree was the door. Without the Tree, the Garden is not a mansion, but a prison.

That is why the Tree must be there, because man was created to glorify God, therefore Free Will is a necessity, and the Tree must exist to exercise the Free Will upon.

God put the Tree so that man may be free, but He did not want man to eat of it, that's why He said "eat not of it, lest thou diest" Now pay close attention that it doesn't mean that man is factually not free, it is not so, since the existence of the Tree guaranteed the freedom of man, not the partaking of the Tree.

What happens is that when we say that Adam and Eve were created with sinful nature (the inclination to choose evil), we are saying that Sin is necessity, whereas this is not true nor biblical. The Bible teaches and informs in simple and clear words, we would be reading too much into the account of the Fall if we say that Adam and Eve were created with sinful nature...

Toolman
Mar 7th 2005, 02:41 PM
I'm cool, and I'm back :D

Why did God issue the commandment to not eat of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil?

Because God did not want Adam and Eve to eat of it, simple.

The Garden of Eden was a mansion, the Tree was the door. Without the Tree, the Garden is not a mansion, but a prison.

That is why the Tree must be there, because man was created to glorify God, therefore Free Will is a necessity, and the Tree must exist to exercise the Free Will upon.

God put the Tree so that man may be free, but He did not want man to eat of it, that's why He said "eat not of it, lest thou diest" Now pay close attention that it doesn't mean that man is factually not free, it is not so, since the existence of the Tree guaranteed the freedom of man, not the partaking of the Tree.

What happens is that when we say that Adam and Eve were created with sinful nature (the inclination to choose evil), we are saying that Sin is necessity, whereas this is not true nor biblical. The Bible teaches and informs in simple and clear words, we would be reading too much into the account of the Fall if we say that Adam and Eve were created with sinful nature...

Braver,

Where does scripture declare that God put the tree of the knowledge of good and evil in the garden so that man could exercise free will?

Where does scripture declare that the garden would be a prison without that tree?

I don't find this in scripture but believe it is only an opinion.

jasonlevene
Mar 7th 2005, 11:54 PM
What happens is that when we say that Adam and Eve were created with sinful nature (the inclination to choose evil), we are saying that Sin is necessity, whereas this is not true nor biblical. The Bible teaches and informs in simple and clear words, we would be reading too much into the account of the Fall if we say that Adam and Eve were created with sinful nature...

But just as you say the tree of knowledge represented the freedom of man's choice, the sin nature also represented the reason why man has a choice. We either gratify it or we gratify our desire to please God. Now let me tell you that I believe man was destined to sin because without sin and death, there would've been no way for Jesus to establish his sinless deity in our flesh. But as for the sin nature, it was why Eve wanted the tree of life's divine good/evil unauthorized knowledge.

Braver
Mar 8th 2005, 02:34 AM
Correct, it is my personal exposition on the Genesis account of the Garden and the Fall. And as such I claim no ultimate authority, although this course of action is not exclusively mine (everyone in this forum states their own personal opinions, well most of the time).

The Tree did/does not represent the freedom of man's choice, it is the object of the exercise of human free will.

Now what you are saying is, correct me if I am wrong, is that Sin is Necessity, and that God foreordained Adam and Eve to trangress and therefore fell from His Grace, is that what you are saying?

This makes God the Author of Sin.

Braver
Mar 8th 2005, 02:42 AM
And I should like to remind you, sirs, that the idea of God creating Adam and Eve with sinful nature is nowhere to be found in the Bible, neither explicitly nor implicitly. Furthermore, no such conclusion can be drawn using any reasonable method of Bible exposition.

ProjectPeter
Mar 8th 2005, 03:25 AM
And I should like to remind you, sirs, that the idea of God creating Adam and Eve with sinful nature is nowhere to be found in the Bible, neither explicitly nor implicitly. Furthermore, no such conclusion can be drawn using any reasonable method of Bible exposition.
It's the year 2005 man.... reasonable methods of Bible exposition is a dinosaur of an idea.... :D

Braver
Mar 8th 2005, 04:48 AM
Just confirm it for me: Do you believe that God foreordained man to fall from Grace? (Supralapsarianism)

In fact, a Calvinist must need be a Supralapsarian, otherwise, he is not an honest Calvinist who professes to be one.

ChristopherE
Mar 8th 2005, 02:46 PM
Don't fall for that line of thought, the end result is believing the Word is not inspired, and becomes a bed time story. Perhaps the cross wasn't real, maybe Jesus wasn't real either. Oh its all just a moral tale to bring the world into a higher moral conscience, you get the idea.

If God said it was a tree and a fruit, it was real, for more on this read here:

http://www.kingdom-gospel.com/interpret.html

Come on now, all biblical imagery isn't litteral. It does all serve the truth though.

Jesus is the bread of life.
We eat of his flesh. Drink of His Blood.
He provides living water.
The tree of life at the end of Reveltations, is it not Jesus Christ?
The Adam and Eve story is indeed real to me, it happened, but not to consider a deeper meaning behind or besides magical fruit trees, is a little short-sighted.

No line of thought fell for here. You can't fictionalize the bible. You also can't presume there aren't mysteries beyond a surface reading of it.

jasonlevene
Mar 8th 2005, 03:19 PM
And I should like to remind you, sirs, that the idea of God creating Adam and Eve with sinful nature is nowhere to be found in the Bible, neither explicitly nor implicitly. Furthermore, no such conclusion can be drawn using any reasonable method of Bible exposition.

Okay, if the idea of God creating Adam and Eve with a sinful nature isn't biblical, then why did Satan's lie provoke Eve into seeing the 'deadly' tree of knowledge fruit as good for food, pleasing to the eyes and a tree to be desired to make one wise?

jasonlevene
Mar 8th 2005, 03:25 PM
Just confirm it for me: Do you believe that God foreordained man to fall from Grace? (Supralapsarianism)

Let's just put it this way. If Jesus was chosen to be the sacrifice for sin before the foundation of the world, then God's plan all along was Jesus Christ and the resurrection of the saints.

Braver
Mar 9th 2005, 01:57 AM
:B :B :B

We are going in circles, a doggoned boring circle. You keep asking the same question, and when answered, would not accept that EVE DESIRED THE FORBIDDEN FRUIT BECAUSE GOD ENDOWED HER WITH DESIRE, WHICH IN ITSELF IS NEUTRAL (NOT GOOD NOR BAD), AND NOT BECAUSE GOD PUT IN HER SINFUL NATURE (INCLINATION TOWARDS EVIL).

CHRIST WAS CHOSEN BEFORE THE FOUNDATION OF THE WORLD BECAUSE GOD IS ETERNAL, DO YOU UNDERSTAND ETERNAL? I HOPE YOU DO, I REALLY HOPE YOU DO, I SINCERELY HOPE YOU DO.

Do you believe that God made everything "very good"? Sinful nature is very bad, not very good.

jasonlevene
Mar 9th 2005, 02:03 AM
:B :B :B

We are going in circles, a doggoned boring circle. You keep asking the same question, and when answered, would not accept that EVE DESIRED THE FORBIDDEN FRUIT BECAUSE GOD ENDOWED HER WITH DESIRE, WHICH IN ITSELF IS NEUTRAL (NOT GOOD NOR BAD), AND NOT BECAUSE GOD PUT IN HER SINFUL NATURE (INCLINATION TOWARDS EVIL).


Don't you see? I keep asking the same question because the only answer to it proves that Adam and Eve were created with a sin nature. Eve desired the forbidden fruit because she desired to be her own god and make her own rules. 1 John 2:16 confirms that. Neutral desires do not result in sin. Bad desires result in sin.

Braver
Mar 9th 2005, 02:11 AM
Ahem...

The only way? Your way is the only way?

Let me shed some light on your, understanding, no no, please, I really love to do so, I like to help those in need...

I shall liken Desire as unto Fire. Fire in itself is just that, Fire, it is neither good, nor bad. It can be used for good, or it can be used for bad. You can use fire to warm yourself, cook things, protect yourself from wild animals, etc.

You can also use fire to kill, to burn people's houses, in short to do evil.

Now do you understand what is meant by "Desire in itself is neutral, neither good nor bad"?

So stop asking the same question again and again as if people have not answered your question before.

Furthermore...

Yes, the Bible does declare that the Tree is put so that man may exercise his Free Will. This is declared IMPLICITLY...

Duane Morse
Mar 9th 2005, 02:15 AM
Do you believe that God made everything "very good"? Sinful nature is very bad, not very good.

Are you sure what 'very good' actually means?
I know you think you do, but it could mean many things, some of which may be rather opposite to your definition.

Braver
Mar 9th 2005, 02:21 AM
Oh? Then pray tell, what does "very good" mean?

Why must we do this when discussing the Scripture? Why must we "exposit" on every simple words that have clear and simple meaning? It's getting boring, this happens because one attempts to understand it the Calvinist way.

See something wrong with that? Say no, then I am out of this thread for good, I shall never post here again.

Duane Morse
Mar 9th 2005, 02:37 AM
The term 'very good' can also be applied relative to a level of completeness, as well as relative to a level of 'good or evil', don't you think?Sometimes the simplest things are what get in the way, because 'simple things' can sometimes be very complex as well.

Toolman
Mar 9th 2005, 03:03 AM
Oh? Then pray tell, what does "very good" mean?

Why must we do this when discussing the Scripture? Why must we "exposit" on every simple words that have clear and simple meaning? It's getting boring, this happens because one attempts to understand it the Calvinist way.

See something wrong with that? Say no, then I am out of this thread for good, I shall never post here again.
Braver,

If you don't want to discuss the topic then excuse yourself and get out. If you can't control your frustration then perhaps you should take a break and come back when you are less wound up.

2 Timothy 2:24-25 - And a servant of the Lord must not quarrel but be gentle to all, able to teach, patient, in humility correcting those who are in opposition, if God perhaps will grant them repentance, so that they may know the truth,

Braver
Mar 9th 2005, 03:31 AM
When God describes something as "very good", do you believe it is a relative term?

I am done with this thread.

Excuse me, people.

Doma
Mar 9th 2005, 05:26 AM
Come on now, all biblical imagery isn't litteral. It does all serve the truth though.

Jesus is the bread of life.
We eat of his flesh. Drink of His Blood.
He provides living water.
The tree of life at the end of Reveltations, is it not Jesus Christ?
The Adam and Eve story is indeed real to me, it happened, but not to consider a deeper meaning behind or besides magical fruit trees, is a little short-sighted.

No line of thought fell for here. You can't fictionalize the bible. You also can't presume there aren't mysteries beyond a surface reading of it.

Jesus defines what His meat and drink are elsewhere, and see this:

http://www.kingdom-gospel.com/interpret.html



"About the time of the end, a body of men will be raised up who will turn their attention to the Prophecies, and insist upon their literal interpretation, in the midst of much clamor and opposition." Sir Isaac Newton 1642-1727

Newton prophesied this very debate. He said there would be 2 groups of people:

1. a body of men will be raised up who will turn their attention to the Prophecies, and insist upon their literal interpretation

2. the midst of much clamor and opposition

So which of these 2 groups, which do exist, do you tend to be? Remember he prophesied these 2 groups hundreds of years ago! Newton was a scientist who studied prophecy. He knew that the truth of the end times would continue to unfold the closer we got to the real deal. But this truth is not upon prophecy alone but is on ALL scripture.

Scripture must be taken literally or else it is not divinely inspired. It's an all or nothing thing. This does not mean there are not parts that are not literal. In such cases the Bible tells us, such as this:

Mt:13:3: And he spake many things unto them in parables...
Mt:21:33: Hear another parable...
Mt:22:1: And Jesus answered and spake unto them again by parables, and said,
Mk:3:23: And he called them unto him, and said unto them in parables...
Mk:4:2: And he taught them many things by parables, and said unto them in his doctrine,
Mk:12:1: And he began to speak unto them by parables...
Lk:5:36: And he spake also a parable unto them...
Lk:6:39: And he spake a parable unto them...
Lk:8:4: ... he spake by a parable:
Lk:12:16: And he spake a parable unto them, saying...
Lk:13:6: He spake also this parable...
Lk:14:7: And he put forth a parable...
Lk:15:3: And he spake this parable unto them, saying,
Lk:18:1: And he spake a parable...
Lk:19:11: ... he added and spake a parable...
Lk:20:9: Then began he to speak to the people this parable...
Lk:21:29: And he spake to them a parable...
Jn:10:6: This parable spake Jesus unto them: but they understood not what things they were which he spake unto them.

Another example is the book of Revelation. According to Watchman Nee in "Aids to 'Revelation' ", there are about 30 symbols, and half of them are explained within it's own text. Examples include:

Lampstands are churches 1:20
Fire, Horns, & Eyes represent the Holy Spirit 4:5 & 5:6
Incense are prayers 8:3-4
The dragon is satan 12:9
Beast is a king 17:12 and others are explained, that I have not listed here.

ChristopherE
Mar 9th 2005, 06:15 AM
You can draw from the explained imagery in the bible to give meaning to the instances of the same imagery used elsewhere. It's all about taking the entire Word as a whole. That's what I meant with inferring that one should not stop with a surface reading:



Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.


I don't know what you're trying to paint me out as but I'm really not interested in discussing Newton or studying your website. Your own website is not a witness to what you're trying to say here, just say what you want here and it will be taken into consideration.

I am interested in discussing the Word and studying the scripture. If you're interested in pursuing the topic, you can answer the one question I posed. If not, that's fine, we can let the thread continue in it's: question -> answer -> answer unaccepted -> question posed again until the only desired answer is given, which apparently will be never.
:tongue2:

jasonlevene
Mar 9th 2005, 04:56 PM
Ahem...

The only way? Your way is the only way?

Let me shed some light on your, understanding, no no, please, I really love to do so, I like to help those in need...

I shall liken Desire as unto Fire. Fire in itself is just that, Fire, it is neither good, nor bad. It can be used for good, or it can be used for bad. You can use fire to warm yourself, cook things, protect yourself from wild animals, etc.

You can also use fire to kill, to burn people's houses, in short to do evil.

Now do you understand what is meant by "Desire in itself is neutral, neither good nor bad"?


No I do not understand because fire doesn't have the free will ability to choose whether it wants to be used for good or for evil. But that is besides the point. Well maybe it is the whole point. Eve desired the 'deadly' tree of knowledge fruit because she wanted to be her own god and make her own rules by being as knowledgeable of good and evil as God. This is not my answer to the question: this is the bible's answer. There is no such thing as a neutral desire. You either want to or you don't want to. Eve didn't want to at first because of God's commandment but then she wanted to after she'd heard Satan's lie. If you've got another explanation as to how Satan's lie could provoke Eve into desiring something she acknowledged as 'deadly', then I'm all ears.

Braver
Mar 10th 2005, 08:57 AM
Last, last post, I promise...

Fire doesn't have free-will ability. Desire also doesn't have free-will ability.

Fire is what it is, FIRE. Desire is what it is, DESIRE.

Is it that difficult to see their parallel?

jasonlevene
Mar 10th 2005, 01:56 PM
Last, last post, I promise...

Fire doesn't have free-will ability. Desire also doesn't have free-will ability.

Fire is what it is, FIRE. Desire is what it is, DESIRE.

Is it that difficult to see their parallel?

Unlike fire, desire [either good or bad] is what makes the free-will ability free. Eve's sin was driven by the evil desire of becoming her own god and making her own rules. She desired the forbidden tree of knowledge fruit because she wanted to be as knowledgeable of good and evil as God. C'mon Braver, if I'm wrong tell me where I'm wrong.

Pouye
Dec 14th 2007, 02:23 AM
And hello to you too Matt14. Here's a quick summation of what I believe:

Adam and Eve were created with both a sin nature and a desire to remain obedient to God. They sinned because they succumbed to the sin nature and were condemned to mortality as a result. They represent us all as we are all sinners. Jesus came in flesh that was vulnerable to the sinful nature which compelled him to desire evil [a way out of the cross] in Gethsemane. He rejected that desire however by submitting to God's will and enduring the suffering and agony of the cross-thus defeating and killing the sinful nature which died along with him. He as a result raised himself in immortality and he offers the free gift of immortality to all those [the Church] wishing to follow him and eat of his flesh on the cross: the true tree of life.

I know this seems far fetched and even 'blasphemous' but the one question that corroborates it all is:

Why did Adam and Eve choose to sin?

You see if the sin nature came about after Adam and Eve's sin, why did Satan's lie provoke Eve into seeing the tree of knowledge as desirable? Unless as 1 John 2:16 points out, the sinful nature was inherent in man at creation. And it makes perfect sense. If Adam and Eve had freewill, how could they only have the good to choose from? That's like having a multiple choice test with only one question to choose from. In order for free will to be legitimate, one must desire both evil and good and choose which to gratify. Hence the sin of Adam and Eve.

There's much more to this but I promised to keep it brief so there you go.

Hope it helps.

I find this interesting, but I wonder why you would call it "sin nature". Your argument is very logical, and I can see your points clearly. However, if Adam and Eve were created with a "sin nature", then they were already condemned before the fall if you define "sin nature" as a nature that sin already inherently indwells. The Greek word for it is "sarx", which is translated as "flesh".

The Bible tells us that Jesus was born of "sarx" (flesh) - Rom. 1:3
Jesus was born of a woman, and took on human flesh (sarx).

Catholics have recognized a problem with Jesus taking on human flesh, believing that after the fall, all human beings are "tainted" (if you will) with sin. In other words, sin is a "thing" that is inherently attached to the nature of human beings at conception. To remedy this problem (having Jesus born with a "sinful nature/sin nature"), they have cleansed Mary (Miriam) by declaring that she must have been sinless (free from sin nature) at her birth.

Protestants have recognized this problem, as well. Instead of cleansing Mary, they have built a doctrine that simply states that "sin nature" is not passed down from the mother, but from the father. This has a multitude of problems, since we know that genetically, a woman is a product of both the genes of her mother AND father. Not only that, but if human cloning ever becomes possible, a clone of a woman would most certainly be without a "sin nature" because there would be no father involved. To me, the whole idea seems utterly false -- a cop out to try to solve a problem that does not need to be solved!

The Bible is clear that Jesus was just like us. He was:

"But when the fullness of the time came, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the Law, so that He might redeem those who were under the Law, that we might receive the adoption as sons."
Galatians 4:4-

The Bible goes to great lengths in many passages to remind us that Jesus was not only just like us, but He was born into the same "human problem". He was tempted in every way, as humans are. He suffered, He wept, He was frustrated, and He probably hit His thumb with a hammer a few times as a carpenter. Jesus was definitely special (because He was also fully God), but His flesh (sarx) was no different from our flesh (sarx). Theologians like to point out that Jesus' flesh was different from ours in one point -- that His flesh was different in the "fact" that He didn't have a "sin nature". I take this to mean that Jesus wasn't fully human -- for without a "sin nature", Jesus couldn't be tempted at all -- let alone in every way! You have to have something to tempt for temptation to be really temptation.

So where am I going with this? I think it is reasonable to believe that flesh (sarx) has an inherent capability to choose between God and not God. With this volition comes desires. Desires stem from the whole being -- emotional, physical, mental, and spiritual. Desires are the vehicle by which free will is channeled into actions. James spells it out here:

"Let no one say when he is tempted, “I am being tempted by God”; for God cannot be tempted by evil, and He Himself does not tempt anyone. But each one is tempted when he is carried away and enticed by his own lust. Then when lust has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and when sin is accomplished, it brings forth death." James 1:15-

The word used in this passage for "lust" is the Greek word, "epithumia". It basically can mean: desire, longing; lust, passion; covetousness

I find it very encouraging that this word is not always used in the negative (to desire wrong), but is also often used of good desires, as well:

"I'm torn between two desires: Sometimes I want to live, and sometimes I long to go and be with Christ." Philippians 1:23- (underline mine)

Here the Greek clearly demonstrates the neutrality of this word "desire" (epithumia). To have a desire does not mean that the desire is evil. How that desire "plays out" determines whether or not the desire "gives birth to sin" as James tells us in 1:15 (see above).

The Bible tells us that Eve desired the fruit (and we assume Adam did, as well, since he also took it and ate):

"And when the woman saw that the tree [was] good for food, and that it [was] pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make [one] wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat." Genesis 3:6- (underline mine)

There is that longing/desire. It existed pre-fall, too. I believe that desire is simply an aspect of volition (or possibly volition is made possible because of desire). In other words, you cannot separate volition from desire/longing because if you never longed for anything, you would not have any capacity to weigh one choice over another. Without desire or longing, all choices would simply be random. Here is an example:
"Do you want/desire chocolate or vanilla?"
If you take out any desire, you get no preference -- and the choice would need to be made by the one asking you the question. In the above question, the one asking "Do you want chocolate or vanilla?" could also ask, "Do you want neither, then -- or how about both?" If all of these questions were answered, "No preference", then the person asking has to make a decision to either give you neither, both, one or the other (the four possibilities). There is a fifth possibility -- "Do you want something else?", but it is not implicitly part of the original logical proposition.

Now I will go on to define sin.

Sin, although used sometimes as a noun and sometimes as a verb in the Scriptures, is really not something that can be "passed on" to someone else. How can I say this so boldly? Because God said it:

"Then another message came to me from the LORD: “Why do you quote this proverb in the land of Israel: ‘The parents have eaten sour grapes, but their children's mouths pucker at the taste’? As surely as I live, says the Sovereign LORD, you will not say this proverb anymore in Israel. For all people are mine to judge—both parents and children alike. And this is my rule: The person who sins will be the one who dies." Ezekiel 18:1-

This is God's rule. He goes on in this chapter to explain in great detail that nobody can be guilty of the sin and resulting punishment of another. Sin is not passed on, nor is the punishment of sin. There is a verse that indicates this, but God is setting the record straight by saying that His previous words were misinterpreted to mean something that is not true.

So what is sin? Is desire sin? I have already shown that desire is an inherent part of volition -- and volition/choice can, by its very definition, can allow a person/angel/being to choose between things that please God and things that do not please God. Desire, then, is not sin. James tells us that desire of things not pleasing to God gives birth to sin, but the capacity to choose/desire is not sin -- rather, it is how desire is directed and where it leads.

I would like to point out that volition isn't just a choice between right and wrong, but it has lots of possibilities. A choice between vanilla and chocolate is not a choice between something that pleases God and something that does not please Him. The choice to help your neighbor next door or help your church is again a choice between two good things. The possibilities become very complex, and sometimes it is difficult to measure the "ethics" of choice.

I would define sin as thinking, saying, doing anything that displeases God. Sometimes my motives are sinful, but my actions are "good". God looks to the heart, and He judges both actions and motives -- and this is why God is the only being qualified to be the Judge. Since I have defined sin this way, I think I'm safe in saying that I do not believe people have a "sin nature" when they are conceived. I also do not believe Jesus had a "sin nature". Rather, I believe all human beings (including the incarnatated Jesus Christ) have flesh (sarx), and they have the capacity to choose to do things that please God or not please God. The moment any human being chooses to do something that truly displeases God (and this is up to God to judge), they are guilty of breaking the whole law of God (see James 2:10). God set the rules -- the one who sins is the one who dies -- and the wages of sin is death.

Thoughts?

Rock

ProjectPeter
Dec 14th 2007, 01:28 PM
This thread is pretty near 3 years old and many of the members involved aren't even around any longer to respond. So we'll just close this one and if you guys want to post a new thread on the matter... please feel free to do so.