Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 82 (8871 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 11-15-2018 6:10 PM
270 online now:
Coragyps, GDR, PaulK, Percy (Admin), Phat (AdminPhat) (5 members, 265 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: paradigm of types
Post Volume:
Total: 842,007 Year: 16,830/29,783 Month: 818/1,956 Week: 321/331 Day: 49/50 Hour: 0/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
...
789
10
1112Next
Author Topic:   Bible Inerrancy stands against all objections
Aussie
Member
Posts: 216
From: Sanford, FL USA
Joined: 10-02-2006
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 136 of 166 (842464)
11-01-2018 1:35 PM
Reply to: Message 96 by PaulK
10-28-2018 3:52 AM


Re: Discussing Bible contradictions to examine Bible Inerrancy
Let us also note that there are significant discrepancies in the Nativity stories, the genealogies of Jesus and - quite damningly - the accounts of the post-resurrection appearances. To name just three examples from the Gospels and Acts.

If you hadn't said this, I was going to jump all over it. I predict Faith is going to ignore your questions as long as possible, then dismiss them out of hand with a thoughtless, one-sentence post.

Faith, please PLEASE answer this carefully! These are important questions that get to the heart of your position on Biblical inerrancy. This could answer a hundred questions in one fell swoop.

Thanks!


"...heck is a small price to pay for the truth"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by PaulK, posted 10-28-2018 3:52 AM PaulK has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 143 by Faith, posted 11-01-2018 4:45 PM Aussie has not yet responded

    
Aussie
Member
Posts: 216
From: Sanford, FL USA
Joined: 10-02-2006
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 137 of 166 (842465)
11-01-2018 1:58 PM
Reply to: Message 103 by ringo
10-28-2018 3:53 PM


Re: Martin Luther told us humans not to compromise scripture with (heliocentric) science.
No it doesn't. The idea of no death is barely plausible but not supported by the text. The idea of a "fall" is directly contradictory to the text.

To be fair to Faith, Scripture does support her assertion. You have to go to the book of Romans, chapter 5 to find it though. In the passage the author is comparing Adam's legacy to that of Jesus. " Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned..." I don't have the whole passage memorized, but you see the point.

This is where the hucksters like Ken Ham and Kent Hovind say the lions, hyenas, and T-Rex were vegetarian; because to be a carnivore you have to kill, but there is no death yet. Although plants are also living things that must be destroyed for the continued survival of another. So, weird thing that.


"...heck is a small price to pay for the truth"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by ringo, posted 10-28-2018 3:53 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 138 by Faith, posted 11-01-2018 3:15 PM Aussie has not yet responded
 Message 146 by ringo, posted 11-02-2018 11:40 AM Aussie has responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 30028
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 138 of 166 (842482)
11-01-2018 3:15 PM
Reply to: Message 137 by Aussie
11-01-2018 1:58 PM


Re: Martin Luther told us humans not to compromise scripture with (heliocentric) science.
Not really weird. Plants don't bleed. They were specifically made for eating but animals only became food for humans after the Flood, although many had become carnivores at the Fall, preying on each other. The "hucksters" are being true to scripture when they say all animals were vegetarian before the Fall. There is another clue in the fact that at the New Creation "the lion will lie down with the lamb" and all animals will again eat plants.

Thank you by the way for pointing out that I am right about the Fall and it is found in Romans 5, which i have quoted many times.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 137 by Aussie, posted 11-01-2018 1:58 PM Aussie has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 140 by jar, posted 11-01-2018 3:20 PM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 145 by ringo, posted 11-02-2018 11:36 AM Faith has not yet responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 30028
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 139 of 166 (842483)
11-01-2018 3:19 PM
Reply to: Message 134 by Aussie
11-01-2018 1:19 PM


Re: Discussing Bible contradictions to examine Bible Inerrancy
What version of the Scripture that we actually have is certifiably inerrant?

None. Inerrancy is attributed only to the original autographs, which are of course no longer in existence.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 134 by Aussie, posted 11-01-2018 1:19 PM Aussie has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 141 by jar, posted 11-01-2018 3:24 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
jar
Member
Posts: 30934
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 1.3


Message 140 of 166 (842484)
11-01-2018 3:20 PM
Reply to: Message 138 by Faith
11-01-2018 3:15 PM


Faith, have you ever honestly read the Bible?
Faith writes:

Not really weird. Plants don't bleed. They were specifically made for eating but animals only became food for humans after the Flood, although many had become carnivores at the Fall, preying on each other. The "hucksters" are being true to scripture when they say all animals were vegetarian before the Fall. There is another clue in the fact that at the New Creation "the lion will lie down with the lamb" and all animals will again eat plants.

Too funny.

And where is the evidence to support such utter ridiculous assertions Faith?

Where is there a Fall in the Bible?

Where is there evidence animals became carnivore after the Flood?

For that matter, which Biblical Flood are you pointing to or are you still denying the fact there are two mutually exclusive Biblical Flood stories in the Bible?


My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios     My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 138 by Faith, posted 11-01-2018 3:15 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 30934
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 1.3


Message 141 of 166 (842485)
11-01-2018 3:24 PM
Reply to: Message 139 by Faith
11-01-2018 3:19 PM


Faith provides more evidence of the dishonesty of Biblical Inerrancy.
Faith writes:

Inerrancy is attributed only to the original autographs, which are of course no longer in existence.

And since they do not exist and no one knows what they said then the whole basis of Biblical Inerrancy is shown to be utter fraud and dishonesty and willful ignorance.

It is simply a con job to fool the rubes; but at least it is a Constitutionally Protected fraud.

Edited by jar, : appalin spallin


My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios     My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 139 by Faith, posted 11-01-2018 3:19 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 30028
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 142 of 166 (842487)
11-01-2018 3:57 PM
Reply to: Message 132 by LamarkNewAge
11-01-2018 12:58 AM


Re: Making sense of every last word/sentence/paragraph of Paul is complicated.
Re: Your title, Paul is certainly very hard to understand, even the apostle Peter says so, but that's why we should consult many commentators and listen to the best preachers on his writings.

============================================
You have written way too much for me to deal with, LNA, and you don't make much effort to spell out what the point is you are trying to make with all your quotations.

I'm not sure how much this quote from your guy Mason covers of what you are trying to say:

Mason writes:

6:14 The first hint that Paul will turn the death/life theme against the regime of the Mosaic law.

but I get the impression it may sum it up pretty well. If so, there seems to be a consistent error going on here, as if Paul is supposedly saying something objective was changed about the Law when Christ came, as if the Law itself were now of no force at all or something like that?

My answer to that is that only believers are free from the Law, those who are now "in Christ" and receive His merciful payment of our debt to the Law so that we are now under grace and no longer subject to condemnation. But unbelievers are not under His grace; they are still under the debt to the Law and still under God's wrath, as all of us are until we are saved. As Jesus said, He came not to abolish the Law but to fulfill it. He fulfilled it by obeying it, and then by dying in the place of all those who believe in Him He paid our debt to it in full so that we are free from it.

So Paul is not "turning the death/life theme against the regime of the Mosaic Law" as such, he's saying only that Jesus died to pay our debt to it. The Law itself is holy, it is spiritual, but it is very hard on human flesh since we are sinners by nature. The Law remains in force, it governs the universe, it governs all humanity, except for those in Christ who have been mercifully saved from its condemnation.

ABE: Need to explain that believers too continue to face consequences in this life for our disobedience of the Moral Law, we will only be completely free of it after we die./abe

{I sometimes compare the Moral Law of God to the concept of Karma in Hinduism though I know the comparison is far from exact. The idea is that karma describes a universal moral law that runs everybody's life, and individuals accumulate a debt to it, accumulate "bad karma" by bad actions, and this accumulated debt becomes the basis for whatever life after death the person is going to experience. There is a rough similarity in this idea to the biblical moral law, but Hinduism doesn't have much to offer to save anybody from karmic debt. Meditation practices, which can be quite arduous, supposedly may lead to extinguishing a person's karmic debt but those practices are open to very few and are very hard to accomplish. You can only try to be good and hope that will give you enough good karma to balance it out or something like that, but I get the impression that there is always a sense that you can never really be good enough. Anyway, Christianity has the only offer of a real solution to our condemnation under the universal Moral Law of God, and that is that the Son of God bore our sin debt for us by dying in our place, so that giving ourselves in complete trust to Him saves us from it.}

If this does not answer what you think you are saying, please be very specific in your answer, and much briefer if you can, and please spell it out in your own words, don't just throw a lot of quotes at me, and please no bare links. Thanks.

Edited by Faith, : added paragraph about karmic debt

Edited by Faith, : Add "ABE" comment

Edited by Faith, : Add first sentence.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 132 by LamarkNewAge, posted 11-01-2018 12:58 AM LamarkNewAge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 150 by LamarkNewAge, posted 11-02-2018 11:24 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 30028
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 143 of 166 (842489)
11-01-2018 4:45 PM
Reply to: Message 136 by Aussie
11-01-2018 1:35 PM


Interim note
I am having computer problems, specifically my keyboard stopped functioning and even replacing it doesn't fix the problem so it's probably in the computer itself. Anyway I'm now using the public computer in my apartment building which I only use for a few hours at a time.

I need to read other sources on inerrancy to respond to some of the posts here, and I don't know how far I will get. The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy refers to books by Sproul and Geisler for more in-depth discussion so maybe I can get those.

However, my position at the moment can be summed up pretty easily just by saying that if James Boice, Norman L. Geisler, John Gerstner, Carl F. H. Henry, John Warwick Montgomery, J. I. Packer, Francis Schaeffer, and R. C. Sproul all signed the Chicago Statement I'm happy to take them as my authorities.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 136 by Aussie, posted 11-01-2018 1:35 PM Aussie has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 144 by PaulK, posted 11-01-2018 5:59 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 14488
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 144 of 166 (842494)
11-01-2018 5:59 PM
Reply to: Message 143 by Faith
11-01-2018 4:45 PM


Re: Interim note
Please do read your sources, and bring their arguments here. I will enjoy further demonstrating why your reliance on them is foolishly wrong.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 143 by Faith, posted 11-01-2018 4:45 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
ringo
Member
Posts: 15577
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 145 of 166 (842514)
11-02-2018 11:36 AM
Reply to: Message 138 by Faith
11-01-2018 3:15 PM


Re: Martin Luther told us humans not to compromise scripture with (heliocentric) science.
Faith writes:

... animals only became food for humans after the Flood....


Then why did Abel sacrifice meat?

And our geese will blot out the sun.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 138 by Faith, posted 11-01-2018 3:15 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 15577
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 146 of 166 (842515)
11-02-2018 11:40 AM
Reply to: Message 137 by Aussie
11-01-2018 1:58 PM


Re: Martin Luther told us humans not to compromise scripture with (heliocentric) science.
Aussie writes:

You have to go to the book of Romans, chapter 5 to find it though. In the passage the author is comparing Adam's legacy to that of Jesus. " Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned..."


According to the story, Adam was the first man so yes, he did "bring sin into the world." How else would it begin? And yes, he did "bring death into the world" - for humans. That's a simple mathematical necessity, not a basis for doctrine.

And our geese will blot out the sun.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 137 by Aussie, posted 11-01-2018 1:58 PM Aussie has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 147 by Aussie, posted 11-02-2018 12:59 PM ringo has acknowledged this reply

  
Aussie
Member
Posts: 216
From: Sanford, FL USA
Joined: 10-02-2006
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 147 of 166 (842526)
11-02-2018 12:59 PM
Reply to: Message 146 by ringo
11-02-2018 11:40 AM


Re: Martin Luther told us humans not to compromise scripture with (heliocentric) science.
According to the story, Adam was the first man so yes, he did "bring sin into the world." How else would it begin? And yes, he did "bring death into the world" - for humans. That's a simple mathematical necessity, not a basis for doctrine.

I hear you, and trust me, I'm with you 100%. The story itself is an absurdity in my opinion; and to try to shoehorn doctrine into an already absurd story is truly a spectacular leap of blindness. The only point I was making there was that in the Creationist mind it seems perfectly consistent to say there was no death before Adam's sin, according to the author of Romans. The text doesn't mention "For humans," specifically, so they extend it to all living creatures, except plants for some weird reason. As if they don't also die.


"...heck is a small price to pay for the truth"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 146 by ringo, posted 11-02-2018 11:40 AM ringo has acknowledged this reply

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 30028
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 148 of 166 (842561)
11-02-2018 6:55 PM
Reply to: Message 133 by Percy
11-01-2018 12:56 PM


Re: Replying to several of your messages...
I'm merely pointing out that you're wrong to say that, "Bible inerrancy is a principle that goes back to the earliest times." It doesn't. At most it goes back to the latter half of the 19th century.

And i'll say again that the Fundamentalist Movement which was a reaction to nineteenthy-century Modernism/Liberalism goes back only that far but bible inerrancy is one of the "fundamentals" of the faith that they sought to affirm that does go back to the beginning.

That is what the Chicago Statement says, in Article XVI: "WE AFFIRM that the doctrine of inerrancy has been integral to the Church's faith throughout its history. WE DENY that inerrancy is a doctrine invented by scholastic Protestantism, or is a reactionary position postulated in response to negative higher criticism." [This latter statement is what is implied in equating it with the Fundamentalist Movement as you are doing.]

Even Martin Luther argued that Bible passages must be tested to determine whether they were the true word of God, see, for example, Reformers Did Not Affirm Inerrancy.

It is disputed however, and the signers of the Chicago Statement are Reformed Theologians who would know Luther's writings well. I tried to find out more about this but this computer is very slow and my eyes give out rapidly so I'm going to have to content myself with simply affirming the authoritative status of the Statement signers. I would suggest that perhaps Luther was mostly referring to the Apocrypha which were accepted by Roman Catholicism, and saying that they don't meet the tests. But that is just a guess and in any case I'm sticking with the Chicago Statement.

Faith writes:

Yes, the writers of the document do not provide the kind of support that you would desire,...

They don't provide support for their affirmations that anyone would desire, not just me. In particular they provide no support for Biblical inerrancy, they just declare it.

That is what a statement does, it declares.

The Infallibility, Inerrancy, Interpretation section describes a multiplicity of ways that the inerrant Bible is errant. It calls the Bible a "human production" written from the perspective of the author.

But inspired by God.

They provide no support that the authors were inspired by God, nor even describe what the effects of being "inspired by God" mean, nor even that there is any such thing as "inspired by God."

It does declare it, however. Under that title you refer to, Infallibility, Inerrancy, Interpretation the first sentence is "Holy Scripture, as the inspired Word of God witnesses authoritatively to Jesus Christ, may properly be called infallible and inerrant."

Faith writes:

They are very very clear that it is all inspired by God without overriding the writer's personality and culture etc.

Repeating what you're ignoring, they called the Bible a "human production." There is no claim, let alone any support for this claim they didn't make, that their human errant qualities were removed while engaged in this "human production."

What the CSBI says in Article VIII is "WE AFFIRM that God in His work of inspiration utilized the distinctive personalities and literary styles of the writers whom he had chosen and prepared. WE DENY that God, in causing these writers to use the very words that He chose, overrode their personalities." That is, He guided their writing without overriding their own personalities.

When precision was not a goal it was "no error not to have achieved it." It also says:

quote:
Scripture is inerrant, not in the sense of being absolutely precise by modern standards, but in the sense of making good its claims and achieving that measure of focused truth at which its authors aimed.

In other words, the Bible is inerrant not by modern standards but by whatever they want to claim were the standards of nearly 2000 years ago.

Something like that, but I'd say "by standards they recognize in the scripture itself."

I'm not going to comment on your misreading of the errors of transmission except to reiterate that God does not promise that copies and translations will be error-free, only the original autographs, and that nevertheless the thousands of MSS of copies and translations we possess are shown by textual criticism to refer back to an inerrant original. Article X of the CSBI says "WE AFFIRM that inspiration, strictly speaking, applies only to the autographic text of Scripture, which in the providence of God can be ascertained from available manuscripts with great accuracy." In the section Transmission and Translation the inerrancy of the original is established by the discipline or science of "textual criticism as a means of detecting any slips that may have crept into the text in the course of its transmission. The verdict of this science, however, is that the hebrew and Greek text appear to be amazingly well preserved, so that we are amply justified in affirming, with the Westminster Confession, a singular providence of God in this matter and in declaring that the authority of Scripture is in no way jeopardized by the fact that the copies we possess are not entirely error-free.

In other words the inspiration of the original authographs can be established by textual criticism applied to the copies.

You go on and on claiming you didn't misread anything but proving that you did and I'm not going to say more about that.

It is not synonymous with the particular theological movement called Fundamentalism.

I never said it was. I've merely repeated what history says, that Biblical inerrancy was simply one component of the fundamentalist movement. It came into being at the same time as the fundamentalist movement. That doesn't make it synonymous with fundamentalism. You are rebutting a silly claim, twice now, that you made up yourself.

Well but it did NOT "come into being" at that time, it was treated by the opponents of the modernist/liberal revisionism as long pre-existing that revisionism. That was the whole point of spelling out the "fundamentals," to state what had been accepted FROM THE BEGINNING as fundamental to the faith, anbd that includes Bible inerrancy. You did misread all this.

As for Science I'll just say again, God blessed the West with true science among many other blessings, because of the West's adherence to Biblical Christianity. It doesn't matter whether the scientist is an atheist or a believer, the science is a gift from God to the Christian west. We're losing all that now though because of the erosion of Christianity in the west over the last century or so.

Your claiming that I'm personally taking credit for knowledge of God's will just shows your abysmal ignorance of the true history of western civilization, which is all I'm referring to, not something special to me personally.

No, I'm afraid you are wrong. St. Augustine wanted things both ways. In Chapter 18 of On Grace and Free Will he criticizes those who believe that "faith suffices to a man, even if he lead a bad life, and has no good works," then goes on to argue that both faith and works are necessary for salvation.

Yes, works that are the fruit of faith can be said to be "necessary' to salvation" because both must be evident. But because this is so often misconstrued Justification by Faith Alone is emphasized to show its absolute preeminence. Works FOLLOW Faith and are necessary to salvation in the sense that if they don't follow then we can conclude there was no faith.

ALSO affirming stuff that is now rejected in current theology. No, it isn't that I've read that much of Augustine, but I have listened to some presentations and discussions of his work that make this point.

You listened to discussions and presentations making this point, but supported by what? Did they, like you, just make the point and move on? Or did they provide support for their point? If the latter then what did they say?

They quoted Augustine on a variety of topics, showing that in one place he was very consistenly in tune with what the later Reformers affirmed, and in other places he appeared to say something else.

In other threads you've argued that your faith is based on evidence, but in this thread you're arguing that declaring what you believe is sufficient to rise over all objections.

I could not have become a believer without what I took to be solid evidence, though I'd say that it was just about all witness evidence. I believed what many believable honest people said. And then I had some supernatural experiences of my own, and God answered my prayers and that too is evidence.

The death penalty is certainly good, it is justice where applied correctly.

Let the record show that the person supposedly blessed with divine grace praises the death penalty, while the spiritual but religiously bereft person thinks the death penalty bad.

Yes let the record show it, do.

Stoning was the method of the times in which the Law was given, before there was any kind of seat of government, before there were courts and sitting judges.

Now you're blessing stoning without any due process?

Of course there was due process. The leaders would have heard the case, Moses in the beginning, along with other elders, there would have been witnesses, two being the minimum required by the Law, there were simply no formal institutions at the time as we have now, no jail cells, etc.

The method of murder, even murder supposedly justified by a legal process, is not important. What's important is that it is murder.

That is insane. The death penalty is justice, not murder.

And it is considered to have been an especially effective means of enacting the death penalty because it involved the entire community in the act in order to impress upon all of them the importance of the law and the dire consequences of disobeying it.

It is most enlightening to discover that the most religious are also the most in favor of killing people.

Rather, most intellectually astute in understanding the difference between crime and justice, and most in favor of justice and Law and protection of society against criminal influences.

You've never been able to support your "original observations.

I disagree, but I also no longer care whether you consider my arguments supported or not. in any case my geological (and biologicaltoo) observations ARE original, which is the ONLY point I was making.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 133 by Percy, posted 11-01-2018 12:56 PM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 149 by JonF, posted 11-02-2018 9:10 PM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 153 by PaulK, posted 11-03-2018 6:13 AM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 154 by Percy, posted 11-03-2018 11:34 AM Faith has responded
 Message 155 by Paboss, posted 11-04-2018 2:39 AM Faith has not yet responded

    
JonF
Member
Posts: 4251
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 1.8


Message 149 of 166 (842570)
11-02-2018 9:10 PM
Reply to: Message 148 by Faith
11-02-2018 6:55 PM


Re: Replying to several of your messages...
Unsupported affirmations are not evidence.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 148 by Faith, posted 11-02-2018 6:55 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
LamarkNewAge
Member
Posts: 1276
Joined: 12-22-2015
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 150 of 166 (842571)
11-02-2018 11:24 PM
Reply to: Message 142 by Faith
11-01-2018 3:57 PM


Re: Making sense of every last word/sentence/paragraph of Paul is complicated.
quote:

If this does not answer what you think you are saying, please be very specific in your answer, and much briefer if you can, and please spell it out in your own words, don't just throw a lot of quotes at me, and please no bare links. Thanks.

I noticed that you have typed alot of paragraphs (in your various responces to me), I feared that (my)quoting and responding to them might get lost in the discussion, especially if it got to the point where the discussion would be considered cluttered and bloated.

That is why I decided to skip them, but I wouldn't mind responding to all of them.

(At the risk of leaving several more of your paragraphs without a response, I will try to get to one of my main points, though there were several I was working on)

HERE I WILL MAKE ONE ARGUMENT.

The argument is whether Paul felt that the SIN OF ADAM was the reason for (literal)death, or if people and animals becoming dead (through old age or whatever) was part of the creation.

I argue that Paul could have felt that death existed before "sin".

1 cor 15

https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/...rinthians-Chapter-15

quote:

20 But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept.

21 For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead.

22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.


The body is discussed.

quote:

glory.

42 So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption:

43 It is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power:

44 It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body.

45 And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.

46 Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual.

47 The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is the Lord from heaven.

48 As is the earthy, such are they also that are earthy: and as is the heavenly, such are they also that are heavenly.

49 And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly.


Paul seems to see nature itself as responsible for death,right?

Paul never ceases to attack the law (perhaps he feels that there was a natural law that required death)

quote:

56 The sting of death is sin; and the strength of sin is the law.

The existence of (literal) death (of the body) was part of creation itself.

Romans 8

quote:

18 For I reckon that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us.

19 For the earnest expectation of the creature waiteth for the manifestation of the sons of God.

20 For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope,

21 Because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God.

22 For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now.

23 And not only they, but ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body.


Created to die (though commanded, from the beginning, not eat meat and to not kill)?

What about sin/death being connected?

That was spiritual talk, not literal.

Paul felt that sin kept a person from heaven. (naturally he wasn't usually looking at the "sins" according to the Law of Moses but was eyeing Christian rules generally)

Paul wanted conversion to Christianity

Romans 8

quote:

13 For if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die: but if ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live.

14 For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.

15 For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father.


After Paul called Law of Moses followers "carnally minded" and saying they are among those "who after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh", Paul said:

(Romans 8)

quote:

10 And if Christ be in you, the body is dead because of sin; but the Spirit is life because of righteousness.

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.


You are spiritual and destined for eternal life if you become Christian.

All those "Biblical people" (Israelites, Jews, pagans) before the time of Christ are dead meat (though Paul, in Romans 2, said they might be judged as good followers of The Law).

Or were the followers of THE LAW spiritual?

Paul said this (Romans 7):

quote:

5 For when we were in the flesh, the motions of sins, which were by the law, did work in our members to bring forth fruit unto death.

6 But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter.

7 What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.

8 But sin, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence. For without the law sin was dead.

9 For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died.

10 And the commandment, which was ordained to life, I found to be unto death.

11 For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it slew me.

12 Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good.

13 Was then that which is good made death unto me? God forbid. But sin, that it might appear sin, working death in me by that which is good; that sin by the commandment might become exceeding sinful.

14 For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin.


Sin kills if you are follower of the Law of Moses.

But you live if you are a Christian?

Literally, no?

Paul, in verse 9, said he was alive (when he was a lawless sinner?) then he became a practizing Jew, and died?

Now, he argues that he will live forever.

Romans 5

quote:

17 For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.)

18 Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.

19 For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.


But, Adam was the only man that existed from the beginning.

Everybody dies.

Christianity promises eternal life to its followers.

So why not present non-Christians as representing sin and death?

Why not present the ages before Jesus Christ as full of death?

It might be figurative.

(Paul seemed to present death as a consequence of nature and that means the creative works of God, which were existing BEFORE ADAM WAS)

Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 142 by Faith, posted 11-01-2018 3:57 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
Prev1
...
789
10
1112Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2018