Are we prisoners of sin

So that is what is inside the women's restroom, the Garden of Eden. Also it explains all those immortal women.Trying to steer this back on topic, can we agree that there is no evidence that sin is anything other than a mental construct? That the concept of sin is inherently linked to religion and thus must be taken "on faith"?

Yeah, that's why there's always a line to get inside!!!Edited by SammyJean, : No reason given.

quote:

---

The connection that Jesus had was with Adam who was the only other man to have ever lived who was, for a time, sinless.
Like Adam, Jesus was not conceived in sin, his father was God and not any man.

---

The connection was concocted by Paul. Jesus never claimed not to have sinned. If he hadn't sinned he would not have needed to be baptized by John (Mark 1). If no sins were committed, Jesus would not have needed a baptism of repentance.

quote:

---

I must say though that Adam & Eve had every reason not to trust the serpent. For one, Adam lived for a long enough time to be able to name all the animals. He knew snakes could not talk ( but the snake never spoke to Adam, it only spoke to Eve) so when eve told him what had happened, he should have known immediately that something wasnt right.

---

You're adding to the story. The Adam and Eve story really doesn't have anything to do with what Jesus taught about repentance. Paul taught the idea of a sinful nature and created the connection with Adam. Mankind received the knowledge of good and evil, not the nature of good and evil. The snake is just a snake. The story was a device to explain why mankind is the way it is. It was appropriate for the time.The sinful nature, original sin, conceived in sin etc., are not concepts that God or Jesus presented to mankind. They are concepts developed after the death of Jesus by Paul or later religious leaders.Giving life to Paul's personification of sin, doesn't help believers understand what Jesus taught and doesn't mean that all people have difficulty behaving correctly.

Disclaimer: I am a laymen when it comes to deep biblical study so my questions may seem stupid. Sorry in advance. I have 2 points and 2 questions.Points:It seems incorrect to say that Adam "was without sin for a time" since he had no other laws he could not break except for eating from the tree. It seems like he had nothing else to commit a "sin" with.Also, "sin" itself does not exist until after Adam and Eve disobey. So, I don't understand why you say that Adam was "without sin for a time" when sin itself does not exist.Questions:(1) How could Adam be "without sin" when sin itself does not exist?It's like being "not married" before marriage exists as a union.(2) If Adam doesn't know what a "sin" is, or that it is a "bad" thing, how can he be considered a sinner at all? Wouldn't a sinner be someone who consciously goes against a known rule for selfish reasons?Using my marriage analogy - (for lack of a better one): Lets say hypothetically marriage was mandatory, and anyone not married was breaking the law. However, I was not in a union with anyone during a time when "marriage" as a union didn't exist, and obviously not a law.How could I be considered a "law breaker" if, not only does the law not exist, but the union itself does not exist?

---

"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

I dont agree with that for the reason that even non religious people have a consciencethis conscience tells them when they've made a mistake or a bad decision...the conscience is a part of each of us and it didnt take any religion to tell us about it.Actually in the bible the word sin comes from a verb (Hebrew- chata’ & Greek- hamarta′no) literally meaning miss, In the biblical sense it means'to miss the mark of the perfect standard of God'. So i dont think you can say that it is purely a religious concept.Humans make errors, its a fact of life not an abstract idea.

hi purpledawn, You left out the part where John tried to prevent Jesus from being baptized? According to John, Jesus did not need to be baptized.Math 3:14 But the latter tried to prevent him, saying: I am the one needing to be baptized by you, and are you coming to me? 15 In reply Jesus said to him: Let it be, this time, for in that way it is suitable for us to carry out all that is righteous. Then he quit preventing him. 16 After being baptized Jesus immediately came up from the water; and, look! the heavens were opened up, and he saw descending like a dove God’s spirit coming upon him. The sinful nature of mankind was not invented by Paul...the Jews had a whole system of worship that revolved around the need to atone for sin via the sacrificial blood of animals. Sacrifices had been practiced for thousands of years before the Apostle Paul explained sin to christians. Mankind did not receive any knowledge of good and bad... they simply abandoned Gods guidance and became independent of his perfect standards. The world we see today is a result of that decision. How did Paul personify sin??? Edited by Peg, : No reason given.

hi onfire, There is no other way to say it. He was only given 1 law in the garden of Eden. It was pretty simple...all the trees were for him but that 1 tree in the middle belonged to God and he wasnt to touch it. For along time he obeyed that simple rule thus living by Gods rulership. Its like saying someone was free of a parking fine until they got a parking fine.
Adam lived perfectly sinless until the time that he committed sin. Once he committed sin, he was sinful. Im not sure i understand where your question is coming from??? Maybe you dont believe that sin exists??? can you elaborate on what you mean? its seems you know more then you think.this is exactly right what you are saying. Adam DID go against a known rule for selfish reasons. And in doing so he made himself an enemy of his father...this lead to his death because his life was wholly dependent on God.When he sinned, he left God and no longer lived by Gods rulership. In Adams case, a law DID exist. He chose not to obey and thus became a law breaker.

quote:

---

You left out the part where John tried to prevent Jesus from being baptized? According to John, Jesus did not need to be sacrificed.

---

You're quoting a different author. The Book of Mark does not have that statement and it's irrelevant anyway since the outcome is the same. Jesus needed the baptism of repentance. Which means he needed to repent of any sins to that point. So again, if no sins were committed or could have been accidentally committed Jesus would not have been persistent. Why do you think God was pleased with Jesus? Just because be got wet? No, because he repented.

quote:

---

The sinful nature of mankind was not invented by Paul...the Jews had a whole system of worship that revolved around the need to atone for sin via the sacrificial blood of animals. Sacrifices had been practiced for thousands of years before the Apostle Paul explained sin to christians.

---

I didn't say that Paul invented it, I said he taught it. Odds are Paul was teaching about one half of man's nature: the selfish half. Human nature according to Judaism is a dual nature. The selfish nature is necessary for survival. Within civilization the selfish nature has to be curbed so people can live in harmony.God did not require sacrifices, only repentance. All sacrifices weren't about sin, plus the sin offering was only for unintentional sins. Death was only for malicious and intentional sins.If God or Jesus felt that mankind was incapable of not intentionally harming others, then no one would have been considered righteous and yet there were many righteous people in the Bible. Jesus said he came for the lost, not the righteous.Unfortunately when people talk about sinful nature or being a prisoner of sin, they aren't really talking about survival. The need to survive is an instinct. That's why I asked cedre earlier to list what is considered a sin today.Given that idea behind the "sinful nature", in the first century the extremely poor would be more apt to "sin" than those whose survival needs are met. So in that sense, yes mankind would be guided by the need to survive. This is where the idea of mercy comes into play. The spirit of the law as opposed to the letter of the law.In the first century a poor person might need to steal food to survive. Which is worse, stealing food to survive or stealing food when it isn't necessary to one's survival?In today's world where the laws of the land are not made by religion, what constitutes "sin"? Christianity has no laws to break.

quote:

---

How did Paul personify sin???

---

Personification
treating an abstraction as if it were a person, endowing it with human-like qualities Sin and grace have been personified in this verse. They are presented as royalty. People reign. Actions can't reign. Here sin is presented as a paymaster. Again giving sin human qualities the capability to produce, seize and put to death. Which Paul obviously didn't mean literal death since he was writing. Sin portrayed as a jailer.Personification is a literary device. That's why I keep saying that sin is not a thing, it is just a name for a particular action. So sin cannot literally hold us prisoner.Edited by purpledawn, : Added text.

quote:

---

I dont agree with that for the reason that even non religious people have a conscience

​

this conscience tells them when they've made a mistake or a bad decision...the conscience is a part of each of us and it didnt take any religion to tell us about it.

---

But does the conscience come preprogrammed. I would say no. If it did we wouldn't have to train our children in what is right and wrong.Adam and Eve didn't know what was right and wrong supposedly. Only after they had eaten from the tree with the knowledge of good and evil did they know that it was wrong to go against what God said. We tell our children not to touch something, but they don't know that it is wrong to go against what we say until the first time they do and suffer the consequences. That is why if no consequences are suffered the child continues to disobey.A conscience doesn't come preprogrammed with the current laws.

How does that not still make it a religious concept in a biblical sence? Doesn't your stated translation of sin still equal "miss" or a mistake. Then when you throw in the biblical sense part, "to miss the mark of the perfect standard of God" that it then becomes a religious concept. Take out the biblical sense part sin = miss or, humans make mistakes.

Dear purpledawn you have approached scripture all wrongly and in so doing have incurred much confusion for yourself. Indeed even in the day of Jesus there were folks who misread the scriptures and ended up overlooking the true meaning of its texts as a consequence, in Mathew 22:29 for example certain Sadducees begged to differ with Jesus regarding some statement he had made, here is Jesus’ reply to these men: Jesus answered: You are completely wrong! You don't know what the Scriptures teach. And you don't know anything about the power of God. So misunderstanding scriptures and failing to grasp God’s power is nothing new it has always existed under the sun, and one does not have to read the New Testament for too long before coming across more examples of how scripture was misunderstood one way or another.The obvious fact is that a natural man with his natural abilities will in no way understand the teachings of the scriptures unless God himself intervenes and make it plain to him

1Corinthians 2:14 For the natural man is not able to take in the things of the Spirit of God: for they seem foolish to him, and he is not able to have knowledge of them, because such knowledge comes only through the Spirit.

As this verse points out scripture cannot be understood properly if approached naturalistically, in other words God has forbid that just anyone should understand the deep meanings of scripture unless he is guided by the Spirit of truth,

John 16:13 However, when he, the Spirit of true knowledge, has come, he will be your guide into all true knowledge: for his words will not come from himself, but whatever has come to his hearing, that he will say: and he will make clear to you the things to come.

it is the Spirit of God that reveals the truth behind God’s word and natural man will always get a blurred image fail try as they may to understand the scriptures,

1Co 2:13 Every word we speak was taught to us by God's Spirit, not by human wisdom. And this same Spirit helps us teach spiritual things to spiritual people.

When wicked men get hold of scripture the best they can do with it is to corrupt it

2Co 2:17 For we are not as the many, corrupting the word of God: but as of sincerity, but as of God, in the sight of God, speak we in Christ.

The above isn’t necessarily a topic related to the key subject of the thread but I deemed it necessary to include to clear up all these accusations made to adulterate the true meaning of the bible with falsehoods.Edited by Cedre, : No reason given.

but now you are adding something that is not a christian teaching.
If Jesus was not perfect as the scriptures say, then his sacrifice cannot save anyone. Yet we are told that his sacrifice covers the sins of all mankind and thru his sacrifice all mankind can be reconciled again to God.Mark may omit that detail, but other christian writers do not.
You cannot get a full picture if you dont take all scripture into account.

the conscience was pre programmed for Adam & Eve. They had a strong sense of what was right and wrong which is why, when they disobeyed, they hid themselves from God because they were afraid. Their inbuilt conscience told them that they had done wrong. They did not need to be told, they just knew.We are a little different in that, Adam and Eve had complete dependence on God for a time, we never did. We have always lived independently from Gods laws and so we have had to learn them.But there are still aspects of Gods standards lodged in our conscience. Murder, stealing, rape, incest, fraud ect...these are universally accepted standards of right and wrong. They are aspects of our conscience that never forgot Gods standards. Thats true to a degree. Kids are not pre programmed to know right and wrong, we have to teach them...this shows we do not live by instinct like other aninmals.But once they do know what they can and cant do, their conscience is what guides their decisions. they grow to know that some thigns are really bad and should be avoided...this is the same conscience that guided Adam and Eve except that God instructed them in good and bad because, just like parents today, he chose the standards of good and bad. Then when they rebelled, they chose for themselves what was good and bad and no longer lived by Gods standards...they chose their own.

if you want to use the word 'sin' in a non religious sense, you would say that it was to make an error/mistake according to some law or rule.if you use it in a religious sense, you would say that you have made an error according to Gods law.So it really depends on what sense you are using the word...but it is not purely a religious idea is what I was trying to say, it simply means to make an error according to some stated lawEdited by Peg, : No reason given.

Purpledawn in a few of your posts you repeat the idea that Jesus did not come to rescue everyone, since according to you some people are already righteous and so is not in need of any saving. Is this what th bible teaches though? Let’s find out:

Joh 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth on him should not perish, but have eternal life.

Note here it says that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish but have eternal life. Thus whosoever does not believeth in Him on the other hand will perish, and miss eternal life this is not an exclusive verse it is inclusive. Who did Jesus come to save

Matthew 9:12-13 But when he heard it, he said, They that are whole have no need of a physician, but they that are sick. But go ye and learn what this meaneth, I desire mercy, and not sacrifice, for I came not to call the righteous, but sinners.
Now read
John 3:17 For God sent not the Son into the world to judge the world; but that the world should be saved through him.

John 3:17 is another inclusive verse, the whole world is included, if Jesus only meant to save certain people then he would have said so above but he didn’t.Now regard the following verses Rom 3:23 for all have sinned, and fall short of the glory of God; Thus everyone is in want of salvation, what is the meaning of Matthew 9:12, The Pharisees considered themselves to be righteous and most likely reasoned that if Jesus’ claims about himself were true that he was sent down by God then he rather should have mingled with them instead of those folks they considered sinners. But we know according to the revelation given to Paul by God that no man is righteous Rom 3:10 as it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one; Jesus was simply demonstrating the purpose of his coming, that he did not come to spend hours reasoning with religious folk in synagogues but that he came to go into the world and meet the sinner at his level.Now consider 1Kings 8:46 If they sin against thee (for there is no man that sinneth not), and thou be angry with them, and deliver them to the enemy, so that they carry them away captive unto the land of the enemy, far off or near;; Ecc 7:20 Surely there is not a righteous man upon earth, that doeth good, and sinneth not. So yes everyone has sinned and fallen short of God’s glory, thus we are going to die (the second death the condemns to hell) Ezekiel 18:4 Behold, all souls are mine; as the soul of the father, so also the soul of the son is mine: the soul that sinneth, it shall die.Edited by Cedre, : No reason given.