Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Importance of Original Sin
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 196 of 1198 (634717)
09-23-2011 2:01 PM
Reply to: Message 193 by Straggler
09-23-2011 12:03 PM


Re: Creation Story and Original Sin
Hi Straggler,
Straggler writes:
Disobeying God is a sin.
Is this your definition of sin?
Would you be so kind as to point out in the story in the 3rd chapter of Genesis where it is said the man sinned when he ate the fruit from the forbidden tree?
I am not asking what you believe but rather what the text says.
Straggler writes:
It is for this that mankind is punished.
Well no, mankind is punished because he will not trust God and receive the free gift offered by God.
That is why is was necessary for God to come to Earth in the form of a man we call Jesus to offer Himself a sacrifice that mankind could be restored to a right relationship with God like the man in the garden had prior to his disobeying God.
So yes if you choose not to receive that free gift you will suffer the consequences.
If you were on a ship and fell overboard and was not able to save yourself and someone threw you a rope you would have the choice of taking hold of the rope or not taking hold of the rope.
If you took hold of the rope you could be pulled to safety.
If you did not take hold of the rope you could not be pulled to safety.
Whose fault would it be if you drowned?
Would it be the fault of the person who provided the rope?
Or would it be your fault for not taking hold of the rope?
Mankind is in the same position today. The man in the garden threw all of us overboard.
God provided a way of escape from that condition at Calvary.
He offered a rope whereby mankind could be saved.
But if mankind will not take hold of the offer of God he will perish.
Will it be God's fault even though He provided a way of escape?
Or will it be mankinds fault if he does not escape?
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 193 by Straggler, posted 09-23-2011 12:03 PM Straggler has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 197 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-23-2011 2:22 PM ICANT has seen this message but not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 197 of 1198 (634719)
09-23-2011 2:22 PM
Reply to: Message 196 by ICANT
09-23-2011 2:01 PM


Re: Creation Story and Original Sin
If you were on a ship and fell overboard and was not able to save yourself and someone threw you a rope you would have the choice of taking hold of the rope or not taking hold of the rope.
If you took hold of the rope you could be pulled to safety.
If you did not take hold of the rope you could not be pulled to safety.
Whose fault would it be if you drowned?
Would it be the fault of the person who provided the rope?
Or would it be your fault for not taking hold of the rope?
Suppose that a thousand voices of my comrades screamed: "It's a trap! If you take hold of the rope you will die!" Would I be at fault for believing them rather than trusting in the one anonymous person who dropped the rope?
---
But once more I fear that we are wandering off topic.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 196 by ICANT, posted 09-23-2011 2:01 PM ICANT has seen this message but not replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 198 of 1198 (634727)
09-23-2011 2:53 PM
Reply to: Message 194 by purpledawn
09-23-2011 12:43 PM


Re: Right Relationship
Hi PD,
purpledawn writes:
The Jewish religion began with Abraham
And what does that have to do with the relationship of the man who was formed from the dust of the ground and God?
purpledawn writes:
One's relationship with God is right when one is behaving appropriately.
Do you have text to support that assertion?
quote:
Romans 3:19 Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God.
3:20 Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.
3:28 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.
Ephesians 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
2:9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.
Hebrews 9:11 But Christ being come an high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building;
9:12 Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us.
1 Peter 1:18 Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers;
1:19 But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot:
1:20 Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you,
1:21 Who by him do believe in God, that raised him up from the dead, and gave him glory; that your faith and hope might be in God.
1:22 Seeing ye have purified your souls in obeying the truth through the Spirit unto unfeigned love of the brethren, see that ye love one another with a pure heart fervently:
1:23 Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.
All these scriptures refute your assertion.
purpledawn writes:
It is clear that the importance of the creation story to some Christians is a later development, not something that Jesus or Paul presented.
The story has been part of God's message to mankind every since He told the story to Moses and told him to write it down. Moses spent 40 days with God on mount Sinai during which time He told Moses many things.
All the things God told Moses on mount Sinai He told Moses to write.
So yes the story is important and that is why we have a record of it.
God formed man from the dust of the Ground and gave him one command which was not to eat the fruit of a specific tree.
That man disobeyed God and was cast out of the presence of God. Because of that all mankind is separated from a Holy and Just God.
Isaiah said the best you got to offer God is as filthly rags.
quote:
Isaiah 64:6 But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away.
That is the reason God had to come down to Earth in the form of a man we call Jesus and offer Himself a sacrifice for mankind to restore us to a right relationship with God.
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 194 by purpledawn, posted 09-23-2011 12:43 PM purpledawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 201 by purpledawn, posted 09-24-2011 10:48 AM ICANT has replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1940 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 199 of 1198 (634731)
09-23-2011 3:12 PM
Reply to: Message 180 by purpledawn
09-23-2011 8:37 AM


Re: Christianity Doesn't Need Original Sin
purpledawn writes:
The topic isn't really about whose to blame for why man is the way he is.
If it's about why original sin is important to Christianity (which is about where I picked the thread up) then it is about whose to blame.
That all stand guilty before God is central to Christianity and OS assists in establishing that.
-
My position and I think jar's is that the A&E story was created to try and explain why man is the way he is. It isn't describing an actual event.
If it isn't an actual event then it explains nothing. The bible might as well say "man is guilty before God, the bible says it, that settles it" because in doing so you've explained about as little.
-
Paul wanted to say that we have always been the way we are, so he used the creation story for a visual. I don't have an issue with that.
I don't see that - he nestles this element into a mechanistic explanation. This isn't about your non-Christian take on Paul, it's about the Christian take - which is mechanistic, like I say.
-
Jesus didn't use the idea of original sin to spread the good news. Paul used Adam to make an argument that we've always been able to sin, but he could still make that argument without the creation story. Someone could still make that argument today by using evolution. Not as interesting a story, but it could be done.
Lay the onus for a mans sin on himself by some other means then. In broad lines..
(Whether or not you agree that is what Paul is doing isn't the issue - Christianity holds that position and utilises OS to do it)
-
The Doctrine of Original Sin came into play through reinterpretation of the creation story by Greek church fathers. Message 25
I'm looking at Paul..
-
Jesus came for the lost sheep of Israel, not the Gentiles. The creation story wasn't essential to Judaism and wasn't essential to Jesus' message. His message would be the same without it.
Off topic? The topic is whether it's important to Christianity - not your view on Jesus' mission in so far as it relates to Judaism.
-
The OT doesn't support that the messiah was coming to save people from their sinful nature.
Per above.
-
I agree that apologetics and evangelicals probably need the concept, but Jesus didn't and I don't feel Paul did either.
Per above. Jesus appears to have 'needed' the great commission. The great commission 'needs' the gospel. Man guilty before God is part of the gospel (the bad news requiring the good). Ergo..
Edited by iano, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 180 by purpledawn, posted 09-23-2011 8:37 AM purpledawn has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 205 by Bailey, posted 09-25-2011 3:45 PM iano has replied

  
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2492 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 200 of 1198 (634736)
09-23-2011 3:37 PM
Reply to: Message 195 by ICANT
09-23-2011 1:21 PM


Re: Creation Story and Original Sin
I did not ask anything about the serpent talking to the woman.
Where does the text say the man was tricked into disobeying God?
It does not nor does the man claim he was deceived or tricked by the serpent.
He blamed God for his disobedience.
Where in the text does it say that Adam slept the night before? Where in the text does it say that Adam and Eve drank water? Where in the text does it say that Adam and Eve breathe air?
Just because something is not in the text does not mean it can not be inferred from the text.
As for "blaming God", God created the talking snake and sent it to Eve to tell her it was okay to eat the fruit. Then God backs out on that and accuses them of breaking the rules.
Of course Adam is going to blame God. God deserves the blame.
Normal snakes do not talk.
Where do you find that this serpent did not have the ability to talk?
As far as that goes how do you know that all animals at that time did not talk?
So, you want to play "It's not in the text" with the snake tricking them but you are willing to assume that ALL ANIMALS COULD SPEAK at this time?
Really?
Is this your religion or a children's book? Is there a difference?
The serpent under discussion was formed from the ground in the same light period that the Heavens and the Earth was created. He had legs and could walk until God cursed him and told him he would crawl on his belly the rest of his life.
BTW Science says snakes used to have legs.
If the serpent could walk why couldn't he talk? No magic involved.
So, snakes had legs and then had them removed. And snakes could talk and then.... didn't have that removed.
So, why don't snakes still talk? Why don't all the animals still talk?
Seriously, are you just arguing for the fun of arguing or do you actually believe this nonsense?
1 John 4:1 Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.
Did Adam have the book of John to refer to? I don't think so.
From Adam's perspective there's NO REASON to NOT BELIEVE anything any talking animal tells him. They are all messengers of God and incapable of deception because the very concept of deception does not even exist.
The man was commanded not to eat the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
He was told if he did he would die.
The man chose to eat the fruit and suffer the consequences.
The only thing involved was his disobeying a direct command.
Did man die? No.
Was man commanded to eat the fruit? Yes.
Was the fruit placed there specifically for man to eat it? Yes.
Did God therefore want man to eat the fruit? Yes.
To NOT eat the fruit would be to go against the will of God.
God created the tree, gave it fruit, put it in the garden, put Adam in the garden, created a talking snake and told it to go tell Adam and Eve to eat the fruit.
There's no sin here at all.
That broken relationship brought about the necesity of the sacrifice at Calvary to restore mankind to the same relationship the man in the garden enjoyed prior to his disobedience.
Prior to his "disobedience" man had no knowledge of evil.
Do you have knowledge of evil?
Your claim is falsified.
Everyone who has been born again has been restored to a right relationship with God.
So no one who is born again can have an intelligent opinion on good and evil.
Good to know.
I assume you are born again, since you position is clearly not intelligent.
The first man was formed from the dust of the ground.
The dust of the ground was already an eternal existing substance so from the beginning of mankind he was an eternal being.
I read somewhere you can not create or destroy energy or matter but they are interchangable. So everything has always existed in some form just not nesecerally in the form we observe it today.
Translation: God is a liar
Good to know. I'll be sure to quote you on that.
God told the man not to eat of a specific tree, and if he did he would die.
Yeah, that's what you say. But then you also say that God is a liar. So, it's sort of hard to believe you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 195 by ICANT, posted 09-23-2011 1:21 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 203 by purpledawn, posted 09-24-2011 1:36 PM Nuggin has not replied
 Message 208 by ICANT, posted 10-06-2011 10:54 AM Nuggin has not replied

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3457 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 201 of 1198 (634846)
09-24-2011 10:48 AM
Reply to: Message 198 by ICANT
09-23-2011 2:53 PM


Re: Right Relationship
quote:
PurpleDawn writes:
The Jewish religion began with Abraham
And what does that have to do with the relationship of the man who was formed from the dust of the ground and God?
There was no real relationship with Adam. The God of the OT and the NT is the God of Abraham, not the God of Adam.
quote:
purpledawn writes:
One's relationship with God is right when one is behaving appropriately.
Do you have text to support that assertion?
Ezekiel 18:21-22
But if a wicked man turns away from all the sins he has committed and keeps all my decrees and does what is just and right, he will surely live; he will not die. None of the offenses he has committed will be remembered against him. Because of the righteous things he has done, he will live.
Ezekiel 18:24
But if a righteous man turns from his righteousness and commits sin and does the same detestable things the wicked man does, will he live? None of the righteous things he has done will be remembered. Because of the unfaithfulness he is guilty of and because of the sins he has committed, he will die.
quote:
All these scriptures refute your assertion.
They don't really. A sentence can be misleading. Paul makes very long drawn out arguments. One has to find the point of his argument.
We have to remember that Paul was the apostle to the Gentiles. He was trying to bring these people into the family of the God of Abraham. Paul's overall point is that the Jews weren't chosen because of their stellar behavior. Abraham believed in the one God and God chose to protect Abraham and his descendants. But...within that chosen group those who were in right standing with the God of Abraham were the ones who were behaving.
Paul presents the Gentiles as adopted into that family. His argument is that they weren't adopted in because of stellar behavior, but through belief just like Abraham. (Romans 4) But...being part of the family also means one has to behave according to the rules of the family. All are loved, but all are to behave or suffer the consequences. (Romans 6-7)
Getting into God's family takes belief, but being in right standing with God takes right behavior. Unbelief gets one removed from the family, not wrong behavior. (Romans 11)
Therefore I glory in Christ Jesus in my service to God. I will not venture to speak of anything except what Christ has accomplished through me in leading the Gentiles to obey God by what I have said and done, by the power of signs and miracles, through the power of the Spirit. (Romans 15:17)
Now we may have a different idea of what right standing means, but either way the message is the same. If one feels that right standing means in the family, then belief gets us there. If one feels that right standing means God isn't angry with us, then right behavior gets us there.
quote:
The story has been part of God's message to mankind every since He told the story to Moses and told him to write it down. Moses spent 40 days with God on mount Sinai during which time He told Moses many things.
But it hasn't. Tradition says that Moses wrote the Torah not the writings in the Bible. Even before Jesus was born some Jews knew the Torah wasn't as old as tradition led them to believe.
In the book entitled "A History of the Jews" by Paul Johnson, Johnson notes that intellectual Jewish Reformers, about 170 bce, understood that the Law they had was not very old and did not go back to the time of Moses and they found the Torah full of fables. (Page 101)
Like all creation stories, it is a nice tradition to pass on, but of all the 613 commands that the Jews pulled from the Torah, not one came from the A&E story. Only one came from the Genesis 1 story and that was to be fruitful and multiply. Don't really need a law for that.
quote:
That is the reason God had to come down to Earth in the form of a man we call Jesus and offer Himself a sacrifice for mankind to restore us to a right relationship with God.
Yes Jesus came to restore right relationship with God, but through repentance. That's why his message was to repent and be baptized. Right behavior cancels out the memory of wrong behavior. His death did not restore right relationship with God, just as the animal sacrifices didn't restore right relationship with God. Repentance is the key and always has been in the Bible. There is no indication that Jesus or Paul were trying to restore all humanity to a "Garden of Eden" state.
Jesus wanted the members of the family to start behaving better and Paul wanted Gentiles adopted into the family and behaving better once they were in.
The creation story isn't necessary for that message. There's nothing in the Bible that presents God as a being who wanted man not to be able to make mistakes.
That's why I feel the absence of the creation story wouldn't impact the message of Jesus or Paul.
The idea of the Original Sin issue came from the idea that flesh is bad and spiritual is good. If the creation story wasn't part of the Bible, they could still have developed that idea. The Greeks did and they didn't have our creation story.
I do agree that the creation story is important to those who feel it was an actual event, but it doesn't change the value of one's belief if one sees it as a myth.
IMO, we are adopted into the family because of true unconditional belief, not because we want to avoid supposed consequences. Abraham didn't believe to avoid consequences. We behave to avoid consequences.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 198 by ICANT, posted 09-23-2011 2:53 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 202 by ICANT, posted 09-24-2011 11:32 AM purpledawn has seen this message but not replied
 Message 204 by ICANT, posted 09-25-2011 8:45 AM purpledawn has seen this message but not replied
 Message 210 by jaywill, posted 10-18-2011 6:57 AM purpledawn has replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 202 of 1198 (634851)
09-24-2011 11:32 AM
Reply to: Message 201 by purpledawn
09-24-2011 10:48 AM


Re: Right Relationship
Hi PD,
purpledawn writes:
IMO, we are adopted into the family because of true unconditional belief,
I agree with this statement.
purpledawn writes:
We behave to avoid consequences.
What consequences are you talking about?
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 201 by purpledawn, posted 09-24-2011 10:48 AM purpledawn has seen this message but not replied

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3457 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


(1)
Message 203 of 1198 (634864)
09-24-2011 1:36 PM
Reply to: Message 200 by Nuggin
09-23-2011 3:37 PM


Creation Myth
If you feel the creation story is a myth, why continue to ask questions as though it is real?
quote:
Just because something is not in the text does not mean it can not be inferred from the text.
Yes, you can infer what you want with any story, but then you are adding to the story just as others do.
According to the story, God did not send the snake to Eve; and Adam wasn't tricked.
If you feel this is a myth, then you should understand that the characters in the story are consistent with the characteristics of humans.
quote:
Is this your religion or a children's book? Is there a difference?
This is a tribal story. Even within the Bible writings we can see that religion wasn't quite the same in the tribal days as it is today.
quote:
Seriously, are you just arguing for the fun of arguing or do you actually believe this nonsense?
This is the religious side of the forum, he can believe it is real all he wants. This thread isn't about proving that the story is fact or fiction. You believe it is myth as I do, but he believes it is fact. Other Christians believe it is a myth and are still Christians. Writings don't have to be factual to be used to teach.
I don't see that your line of discussion makes a case either way.
Do you feel that if the story is fact is it more important to the concept of original sin than if it is fiction or vice versa?
Origen, one of the early christian scholars, felt the creation stories were myth, but that didn't stop him from inferring certain things from the story and using Adam to represent a type when it comes to original sin.
De Principiis (Book IV) by Origen
16. ... Now who is there, pray, possessed of understanding, that will regard the statement as appropriate, that the first day, and the second, and the third, in which also both evening and morning are mentioned, existed without sun, and moon, and stars the first day even without a sky? And who is found so ignorant as to suppose that God, as if He had been a husbandman, planted trees in paradise, in Eden towards the east, and a tree of life in it, i.e., a visible and palpable tree of wood, so that anyone eating of it with bodily teeth should obtain life, and, eating again of another tree, should come to the knowledge of good and evil? No one, I think, can doubt that the statement that God walked in the afternoon in paradise, and that Adam lay hid under a tree, is related figuratively in Scripture, that some mystical meaning may be indicated by it. ...
As in Philo, in Origen Adam is still a type: the type of the "earthly" man, and the type of the sinner who repented. We cannot ascribe to him the classical notion of original sin developed by Augustine. Paul's sentence, "In Adam we all sinned" does not have the same meaning in Origen and in Augustine. In Origen it means the universality of sin. In Augustine it means the inheritance of sin.
Models From Philo In Origen's Teaching on Original Sin
IMO, there is much more to the development of the idea of original sin than the creation stories. It takes some reading.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 200 by Nuggin, posted 09-23-2011 3:37 PM Nuggin has not replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 204 of 1198 (634975)
09-25-2011 8:45 AM
Reply to: Message 201 by purpledawn
09-24-2011 10:48 AM


Re: Right Relationship
Hi PD,
In Message 202 in response to this message I asked you a question I need an answer too in order to respond to this message properly. You did not answer the question as you only acknowledged the message, so I ask again.
quote:
purpledawn writes:
IMO, we are adopted into the family because of true unconditional belief,
I agree with this statement.
purpledawn writes:
We behave to avoid consequences.
What consequences are you talking about?
Could you please tell me what consequencecs we behave in order to avoid?
As soon as I get the answer to this question I will be able to address your post.
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 201 by purpledawn, posted 09-24-2011 10:48 AM purpledawn has seen this message but not replied

  
Bailey
Member (Idle past 4369 days)
Posts: 574
From: Earth
Joined: 08-24-2003


(1)
Message 205 of 1198 (635009)
09-25-2011 3:45 PM
Reply to: Message 199 by iano
09-23-2011 3:12 PM


Re: Christianity Doesn't Need Original Sin
The topic isn't really about whose to blame for why man is the way he is.
If it's about why original sin is important to Christianity (which is about where I picked the thread up) then it is about whose to blame.
That all stand guilty before God is central to Christianity and OS assists in establishing that.
How can we be sure this isn’t the central message of early Catholicism or perhaps your imagination rather than one of their competitors such as Christianity, or are we simply going to conflate them all in typical apologetic fashion?
My position and I think jar's is that the A&E story was created to try and explain why man is the way he is. It isn't describing an actual event.
If it isn't an actual event then it explains nothing. The bible might as well say "man is guilty before God, the bible says it, that settles it" because in doing so you've explained about as little.
Completely false dichotomy - santa needn’t be corporeal for children to behave properly.
Paul wanted to say that we have always been the way we are, so he used the creation story for a visual. I don't have an issue with that.
I don't see that - he nestles this element into a mechanistic explanation. This isn't about your non-Christian take on Paul, it's about the Christian take - which is mechanistic, like I say.
Fortunately, you're saying so doesn't actually make it so.
That Paul needs sin to accomplish death is central to his message, otherwise his resurrection fails. It's fairly simple - God can forgive a sin if a repentant heart requests, yet how can one be resurrected if they don't complete their death?
Paul doesn’t seem to have employed the creation myth to really support a consistent tradition of sinning. Much less did he use it to support any ‘mechanical’ view describing penal substitution or the likes. He usually personifies sin, which then allows it to accept a certain amount of responsibility for itself. Keep in mind, Paul most always builds to a climactic point.
And so, we’re then ‘held captive’ by sin in a similar manner as Eve was deceived by the serpent - not in cahoots with it by way of a necessarily malicious motivating impulse as some would have us believe. Sin is then classically represented as a means, not an end and in this way Paul stays consistent with the early tradition, rather than restructuring the narrative to fit a later doctrinal interpolation. More importantly, this allows sin to take its lowly place within Pauline eschatology, serving as an effective steppingstone to death - its wages by Paul’s measure, standing tall as his primary point.
And this sets the stage for the emergence of the good news - not only that Joshua is the Anointed King of all Yisraelites and Gentiles, rather than Tiberius Claudius Nero - Caesar Augustus Germanicus or the likes as another gospel proclaimed, but that all will be subjected to a resurrection in the fashion of that which which issued the decree of Joshua’s reign.
The much later substance, if such diatribe could be called so, concerning the original sin doctrine is found to be classical latin interpolations, probably best viewed through a lens of medieval feudalism. This is apparently what happens when you process timeless truths through the blender of Augustine, Anselm, Aguinas, Luther, Calvin, etc., and then completely ignore that they hashed up revisionist creations. Fortunately for the benefit of humanity, the historical evidence speaks for itself and the stumbling of apologists simply provides the icing for the cake, as eternal repetition doesn’t actually modify reality.
Jesus didn't use the idea of original sin to spread the good news. Paul used Adam to make an argument that we've always been able to sin, but he could still make that argument without the creation story. Someone could still make that argument today by using evolution. Not as interesting a story, but it could be done.
Lay the onus for a mans sin on himself by some other means then. In broad lines..
(Whether or not you agree that is what Paul is doing isn't the issue - Christianity holds that position and utilises OS to do it)
The issue is you haven’t provided any evidence that early Catholicism or Christianity supports your position, and you’ve provided even less that your representing Paul’s theological exegesis accurately.
The Doctrine of Original Sin came into play through reinterpretation of the creation story by Greek church fathers. Message 25
I'm looking at Paul..
Try it with your eyes open ..
Jesus came for the lost sheep of Israel, not the Gentiles. The creation story wasn't essential to Judaism and wasn't essential to Jesus' message. His message would be the same without it.
Off topic? The topic is whether it's important to Christianity - not your view on Jesus' mission in so far as it relates to Judaism.
That you find Joshua’s message irrelevant to your alleged version of Christianity is very revealing.
I agree that apologetics and evangelicals probably need the concept, but Jesus didn't and I don't feel Paul did either.
Per above. Jesus appears to have 'needed' the great commission. The great commission 'needs' the gospel. Man guilty before God is part of the gospel (the bad news requiring the good). Ergo..
Now your just trying to connect random dots ..
CalgonTM - take meh away.
One Love

I'm not here to mock or condemn what you believe, tho my intentions are no less than to tickle your thinker.
If those in first century CE had known what these words mean ... 'I want and desire mercy, not sacrifice'
They surely would not have murdered the innocent; why trust what I say, when you can learn for yourself?
Think for yourself.
Mercy Trumps Judgement,
Love Weary

This message is a reply to:
 Message 199 by iano, posted 09-23-2011 3:12 PM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 206 by iano, posted 09-26-2011 8:30 AM Bailey has replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1940 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 206 of 1198 (635057)
09-26-2011 8:30 AM
Reply to: Message 205 by Bailey
09-25-2011 3:45 PM


Re: Christianity Doesn't Need Original Sin
iano writes:
That all stand guilty before God is central to Christianity and OS assists in establishing that.
Bailey writes:
How can we be sure this isn’t the central message of early Catholicism or perhaps your imagination rather than one of their competitors such as Christianity, or are we simply going to conflate them all in typical apologetic fashion?
I'm not familiar enough with the central messages of early Catholicism to know. The main Christian denominations stand behind the notion of mans guilt before God and point to the Fall as a foundational element in that being so.
-
Completely false dichotomy - santa needn’t be corporeal for children to behave properly.
The requirement on scripture to provide satisfactory explanation lasts somewhat longer than it takes kids to outgrow Santa.
I did ask purpledawn for an alternative explanatory framework for the Christian notion of man-to-blame but none was forthcoming.
-
Fortunately, you're saying so doesn't actually make it so. That Paul needs sin to accomplish death is central to his message, otherwise his resurrection fails. It's fairly simple - God can forgive a sin if a repentant heart requests, yet how can one be resurrected if they don't complete their death?
Indeed
(although quite how a sinful heart would come to repentance might not be so simple)
Paul doesn’t seem to have employed the creation myth to really support a consistent tradition of sinning. Much less did he use it to support any ‘mechanical’ view describing penal substitution or the likes. He usually personifies sin, which then allows it to accept a certain amount of responsibility for itself. Keep in mind, Paul most always builds to a climactic point. And so, we’re then ‘held captive’ by sin in a similar manner as Eve was deceived by the serpent - not in cahoots with it by way of a necessarily malicious motivating impulse as some would have us believe.
Whilst I can't see how Eve could have had a malicious motivating impulse (since she had no knowledge of evil - from whence malicious motivating impulses)), that knowledge is available to the rest of us.
I'd agree Paul comes to a climactic point with Romans 7 man and that this man is one who realizes himself 'held captive' by evil. Not all men come to this realization though and the means whereby men continue in their sin appears to involve willful suppression of truth.
From whence the charge of being indeed 'in cahoots' with sin.
Sin is then classically represented as a means, not an end and in this way Paul stays consistent with the early tradition, rather than restructuring the narrative to fit a later doctrinal interpolation. More importantly, this allows sin to take its lowly place within Pauline eschatology, serving as an effective steppingstone to death - its wages by Paul’s measure, standing tall as his primary point.
I'm not sure I see the advantage of his being consistent with early tradition. Unless one is supposing early tradition necessarily better on target.
Nor am I sure what you mean by 'sin an end' since sin is generally seen as but a fulcrum about which salvation is or isn't brought about (in a person). Which is arguably near an end than sin.
And this sets the stage for the emergence of the good news - not only that Joshua is the Anointed King of all Yisraelites and Gentiles, rather than Tiberius Claudius Nero - Caesar Augustus Germanicus or the likes as another gospel proclaimed, but that all will be subjected to a resurrection in the fashion of that which which issued the decree of Joshua’s reign.
From the above comment, resurrection isn't seen as for all. At least not resurrection unto eternal life.
The much later substance, if such diatribe could be called so, concerning the original sin doctrine is found to be classical latin interpolations, probably best viewed through a lens of medieval feudalism. This is apparently what happens when you process timeless truths through the blender of Augustine, Anselm, Aguinas, Luther, Calvin, etc., and then completely ignore that they hashed up revisionist creations. Fortunately for the benefit of humanity, the historical evidence speaks for itself and the stumbling of apologists simply provides the icing for the cake, as eternal repetition doesn’t actually modify reality.
The phrase..
quote:
Fortunately, you're saying so doesn't actually make it so.
..springs to mind.
-
Lay the onus for a mans sin on himself by some other means then. In broad lines.. (Whether or not you agree that is what Paul is doing isn't the issue - Christianity holds that position and utilises OS to do it)
The issue is you haven’t provided any evidence that early Catholicism or Christianity supports your position, and you’ve provided even less that your representing Paul’s theological exegesis accurately.
Man guilty/at fault through connection with Adam.
quote:
An interpretation of Augustine of Hippo's notion of original sin was strongly affirmed by the Protestant Reformer John Calvin. Calvin believed that humans inherit Adamic guilt and are in a state of sin from the moment of conception..
Before Calvin developed a systematic theology of Augustinian Protestantism, Martin Luther asserted that humans inherit Adamic guilt and are in a state of sin from the moment of conception.
The Anglican Church also continues in the reformation understanding of Original Sin. In the Thirty-Nine Articles, Article IX "Of Original or Birth-sin" states: Original Sin standeth not in the following of Adam, (as the Pelagians do vainly talk) but it is the fault and corruption of the Nature of every man,
Man guilty from the get go. Do you require that I evidence Christianity holding man guilty for his own sin?
-
That you find Joshua’s message irrelevant to your alleged version of Christianity is very revealing.
What I find irrelevant to Christianities view is purpledawn's non-Christian view.
-
Per above. Jesus appears to have 'needed' the great commission. The great commission 'needs' the gospel. Man guilty before God is part of the gospel (the bad news requiring the good). Ergo..
Now your just trying to connect random dots ..
More thumbnail than random I'd be arguing..

This message is a reply to:
 Message 205 by Bailey, posted 09-25-2011 3:45 PM Bailey has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 207 by Bailey, posted 10-01-2011 5:23 PM iano has not replied

  
Bailey
Member (Idle past 4369 days)
Posts: 574
From: Earth
Joined: 08-24-2003


Message 207 of 1198 (635793)
10-01-2011 5:23 PM
Reply to: Message 206 by iano
09-26-2011 8:30 AM


Original Sin as the Benchmark and Brainchild of Augustine and Catholicism ..
iano writes:
weary writes:
iano writes:
That all stand guilty before God is central to Christianity and OS assists in establishing that.
How can we be sure this isn’t the central message of early Catholicism or perhaps your imagination rather than one of their competitors such as Christianity, or are we simply going to conflate them all in typical apologetic fashion?
I'm not familiar enough with the central messages of early Catholicism to know.
Then who keeps getting on your keyboard and fleshing out Catholic doctrines??
iano writes:
weary writes:
Completely false dichotomy - santa needn’t be corporeal for children to behave properly.
The requirement on scripture to provide satisfactory explanation lasts somewhat longer than it takes kids to outgrow Santa.
I did ask purpledawn for an alternative explanatory framework for the Christian notion of man-to-blame but none was forthcoming.
Irrelevant.
You argued if the story contains mythological elements, it explains nothing - a statement which is demonstrably untrue.
Perhaps more than a say so or a hashed up catholic conviction should be forthcoming if you are suggesting the meanings of wisdom traditions are deserted and somehow lose effectiveness once integrated with mythological elements.
iano writes:
weary writes:
Fortunately, you're saying so doesn't actually make it so. That Paul needs sin to accomplish death is central to his message, otherwise his resurrection fails. It's fairly simple - God can forgive a sin if a repentant heart requests, yet how can one be resurrected if they don't complete their death?
Indeed
(although quite how a sinful heart would come to repentance might not be so simple)
Nevertheless, how a sinful heart may come to repentance appears more simple than advertised by some apologists.
weary writes:
iano writes:
Paul doesn’t seem to have employed the creation myth to really support a consistent tradition of sinning. Much less did he use it to support any ‘mechanical’ view describing penal substitution or the likes. He usually personifies sin, which then allows it to accept a certain amount of responsibility for itself. Keep in mind, Paul most always builds to a climactic point. And so, we’re then ‘held captive’ by sin in a similar manner as Eve was deceived by the serpent - not in cahoots with it by way of a necessarily malicious motivating impulse as some would have us believe.
Whilst I can't see how Eve could have had a malicious motivating impulse (since she had no knowledge of evil - from whence malicious motivating impulses)), that knowledge is available to the rest of us.
I'd agree Paul comes to a climactic point with Romans 7 man and that this man is one who realizes himself 'held captive' by evil. Not all men come to this realization though and the means whereby men continue in their sin appears to involve willful suppression of truth.
From whence the charge of being indeed 'in cahoots' with sin.
Here you've conflated a possibility of performing sinfully out of naivety with the conscious decision to perform sinfully.
Again you undermine the scripture in an attempt to misrepresent Paul. Bravo. Yet, the point remains, Paul's binding dilema culminates with the universal condition of death; sin is simply the vehicle that gets him there. He clearly understands the condition of sin had been dealt with thoroughly and consistently through out the various radical prophetic traditions.
That said, while Paul - and so Christianity, may need sin to accomplish death, no one needs 'original sin' to accomplish a resurrection. On the contrary, a resurrection was displayed in opposition to the sinful act of sacrificing an innocent human.
In this sense, Christianity needs the universal condition of death, yet sin ..
Not so much.
iano writes:
weary writes:
Sin is then classically represented as a means, not an end and in this way Paul stays consistent with the early tradition, rather than restructuring the narrative to fit a later doctrinal interpolation. More importantly, this allows sin to take its lowly place within Pauline eschatology, serving as an effective steppingstone to death - its wages by Paul’s measure, standing tall as his primary point.
I'm not sure I see the advantage of his being consistent with early tradition. Unless one is supposing early tradition necessarily better on target.
It's not a matter of whether maintaining consistency with an earlier tradition is more advantageous, regardless of the alleged accuracy of the target. The point is Paul utilized an extant tradition to establish the framework of his eschatalogy.
You're attempts to perform similarly appear to fail.
This seems due in part to your refusal to maintain consistency with history and Paul's message (your 'extant tradition' which you're constantly restructuring to support your whim). However, you can overcome the challenge, just have faith.
Nor am I sure what you mean by 'sin an end' since sin is generally seen as but a fulcrum about which salvation is or isn't brought about (in a person). Which is arguably near an end than sin.
I stated 'sin is then classically represented as a means, not an end' - pay attention.
iano writes:
weary writes:
And this sets the stage for the emergence of the good news - not only that Joshua is the Anointed King of all Yisraelites and Gentiles, rather than Tiberius Claudius Nero - Caesar Augustus Germanicus or the likes as another gospel proclaimed, but that all will be subjected to a resurrection in the fashion of that which which issued the decree of Joshua’s reign.
From the above comment, resurrection isn't seen as for all. At least not resurrection unto eternal life.
Again you restructure Paul's message in the style of Augustine or Anselm, however the booklet of 1st Timothy, whose authorship is at times attributed to Paul, is very clear that God 'is the Savior of all men, especially of those who believe'.
You will no doubt argue He wouldn't dare save all mankind, just the 'especially' ones (after all, that is why the word "especially" is there, right?). Some even go so far as to say that the Greek word behind 'especially' means just that.
As far as I can tell, this is how one goes about straining at gnats in order to swallow a camel, however it's usually the best those who believe in eternal torment can do with these scriptures. Let's demonstrate how easy it is to deflate such weak reasoning. At the 10th verse of the 6th chapter of Galatians, the reader finds the following admonishment ..
quote:
Therefore, as we have opportunity, let us do good to all, especially to those who are of the household of faith.
So, is Paul saying that we are only to do good to the 'household of faith' or is he saying we are to do good to 'all', but especially the 'household of faith'? Obviously, the ones who choose to perform are to do good to both groups.
In like manner, Joshua is - in fact, asserted to be Savior of all mankind and Savior of those who know they are saved. He is the Savior of both groups. The Greek word in both passages is the same Greek word - malista, which means 'most of all'.
So then, we are admonished through scripture to do good to all, most of all to the household of faith, and Joshua is declared Savior of all, most of all to those who already have an earnest of the promise within them.
At this point, the less inclusive apologist usually begins to try to interpret 'all men' or 'all mankind', etc., (depending upon the translation) as meaning 'all sorts of men' such as some Europeans, some Americans, some Africans, etc..
IOW, God may save some out of all mankind, but He won't save 'all of mankind' (if they can help it). Now they realize that's not what the passage plainly says, but they feel they believe that's what the passage means, even though none of the leading bibles translate the phrase that way. However, the Jehovah Witness' bible translates it 'all sorts of men' ..
So perhaps you find yourself in agreement with a group notorious for putting their own interpretations right in the bible ..
If not only catholics and murderers.
iano writes:
weary writes:
The much later substance, if such diatribe could be called so, concerning the original sin doctrine is found to be classical latin interpolations, probably best viewed through a lens of medieval feudalism. This is apparently what happens when you process timeless truths through the blender of Augustine, Anselm, Aguinas, Luther, Calvin, etc., and then completely ignore that they hashed up revisionist creations. Fortunately for the benefit of humanity, the historical evidence speaks for itself and the stumbling of apologists simply provides the icing for the cake, as eternal repetition doesn’t actually modify reality.
The phrase..
quote:
Fortunately, you're saying so doesn't actually make it so.
..springs to mind.
Yes, this is your issue - you ignore facts and nullify historical realities that compete with your adopted idea of an acceptable theological framework, rather than making any earnest attempt to reconcile what is actually written in scripture with them.
iano writes:
Lay the onus for a mans sin on himself by some other means then. In broad lines.. (Whether or not you agree that is what Paul is doing isn't the issue - Christianity holds that position and utilises OS to do it)
weary writes:
The issue is you haven’t provided any evidence that early Catholicism or Christianity supports your position, and you’ve provided even less that your representing Paul’s theological exegesis accurately.
Man guilty/at fault through connection with Adam.
quote:
An interpretation of Augustine of Hippo's notion of original sin was strongly affirmed by the Protestant Reformer John Calvin. Calvin believed that humans inherit Adamic guilt and are in a state of sin from the moment of conception..
Before Calvin developed a systematic theology of Augustinian Protestantism, Martin Luther asserted that humans inherit Adamic guilt and are in a state of sin from the moment of conception.
The Anglican Church also continues in the reformation understanding of Original Sin. In the Thirty-Nine Articles, Article IX "Of Original or Birth-sin" states: Original Sin standeth not in the following of Adam, (as the Pelagians do vainly talk) but it is the fault and corruption of the Nature of every man,
Man guilty from the get go. Do you require that I evidence Christianity holding man guilty for his own sin?
No old friend. You said you're unfamiliar with early catholicism and then proceed to quote it's arguably greatest theologian to support something you say is other than catholicism. You then admit Calvin engineered the 'systematic theology of Augustinian Protestantism', while attempting to deny he did so. I require you to stop lying - Augustine was Catholic.
Calvin was just a plain demented murderer and your inability to acknowledge this doesn't appear to be serving you well.
Perhaps the realization that Luther was a devout anti-semite may?
iano writes:
weary writes:
That you find Joshua’s message irrelevant to your alleged version of Christianity is very revealing.
What I find irrelevant to Christianities view is purpledawn's non-Christian view.
Incorrect - you stated 'Jesus mission in so far as it relates to Judaism' was irrelevant to your christian tradition. Message 199
Also, your view isn't interchangeably or necessarily 'Christianities view' as your slight of hand presents.
Either way though, Purpledawn has simply exposed your catholic musings as non-christian.
iano writes:
weary writes:
iano writes:
Per above. Jesus appears to have 'needed' the great commission. The great commission 'needs' the gospel. Man guilty before God is part of the gospel (the bad news requiring the good). Ergo..
Now your just trying to connect random dots ..
More thumbnail than random I'd be arguing..
Abstract and misleading either way
Not to mention oppressive
One Love
Edited by Bailey, : sp.
Edited by Bailey, : gr.
Edited by Bailey, : metanoia

I'm not here to mock or condemn what you believe, tho my intentions are no less than to tickle your thinker.
If those in first century CE had known what these words mean ... 'I want and desire mercy, not sacrifice'
They surely would not have murdered the innocent; why trust what I say, when you can learn for yourself?
Think for yourself.
Mercy Trumps Judgement,
Love Weary

This message is a reply to:
 Message 206 by iano, posted 09-26-2011 8:30 AM iano has not replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 208 of 1198 (636406)
10-06-2011 10:54 AM
Reply to: Message 200 by Nuggin
09-23-2011 3:37 PM


Re: Creation Story and Original Sin
Hi Nuggin,
Nuggin writes:
Just because something is not in the text does not mean it can not be inferred from the text.
Where do you get the idea that there was a dark period from the time the man was formed from the dust of the ground until he died.
The text does say he would die the same day he ate the fruit. Genesis 2:17.
Nuggin writes:
Where in the text does it say that Adam and Eve drank water?
It does not say they drank water nor does it say drinking water was required.
Nuggin writes:
Where in the text does it say that Adam and Eve breathe air?
Genesis 2:7
Nuggin writes:
As for "blaming God", God created the talking snake and sent it to Eve to tell her it was okay to eat the fruit.
What text says or infers God sent the snake to Eve to tell her anything?
Nuggin writes:
So, you want to play "It's not in the text" with the snake tricking them but you are willing to assume that ALL ANIMALS COULD SPEAK at this time?
Really?
Well the text does say the snake was subtil than all the other beasts of the field. The word translated subtil comes from the Hebrew word ﬠרום which means shrewd, and sensible as well as subtil. The translators just chose to use subtil.
How can a snake be sensible, if the snake was as our modern day snakes?
What did my question, "As far as that goes how do you know that all animals at that time did not talk?" have to do with whether I believe all animals could talk or not?
Nuggin writes:
Is this your religion or a children's book? Is there a difference?
I don't have a religion. I am a bought and paid for slave of Emmanuel because I choose to be.
Nuggin writes:
Seriously, are you just arguing for the fun of arguing or do you actually believe this nonsense?
I actually believe the snake could walk.
I do not believe the snake could talk. But I believe that the devil spoke through the snake just as a ventriloquist does with dummies.
And yes I do sometimes argue for the fun of arguing. Especially when I am making fun of what someone has said that is totally off the wall.
Nuggin writes:
They are all messengers of God and incapable of deception because the very concept of deception does not even exist.
Where do you get this nonsense from?
Nuggin writes:
Did man die? No.
Yes the man died the same day he ate the fruit. He did not exist when darkness came in Genesis 1:2 as the Earth was covered with water.
Nuggin writes:
Was man commanded to eat the fruit? Yes.
Was the fruit placed there specifically for man to eat it? Yes.
Where do you get this nonsense from?
quote:
Genesis 2:16 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:
2:17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.
The man was commanded not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
So do you dispute this text as you asserted he was commanded to eat the fruit?
The tree was not placed there specifically for man to eat from but was placed there to give man a choice.
The man chose to eat the fruit.
Nuggin writes:
Did God therefore want man to eat the fruit? Yes
God wanted to give man a choice.
God still gives mankind a choice. Mankind can choose accept the offer of a free full pardon or not accept that pardon and spend eternity with the devil and his angels in the lake of fire.
Nuggin writes:
There's no sin here at all.
You can call what the man did anything you would like to call it.
But according to what the text says when he ate the fruit he disobeyed a direct command given to him by God. The result of that disobedience he was chased out of the garden and died the same day.
Nuggin writes:
Prior to his "disobedience" man had no knowledge of evil.
Do you have knowledge of evil?
Your claim is falsified.
Did the man know he was not supposed to eat the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil?
Sure he did as he was given a command not to eat the fruit in Genesis 2:17.
quote:
Romans 4:15 Because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, [there is] no transgression.
There was a transgression as there was a command not to eat the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
There was a consequences for eating the fruit.
Nuggin writes:
So no one who is born again can have an intelligent opinion on good and evil.
Good to know.
Where does being born again restoring a person to a right relationship with God remove mankinds knowledge of good and evil?
Nuggin writes:
The first man was formed from the dust of the ground.
The dust of the ground was already an eternal existing substance so from the beginning of mankind he was an eternal being.
I read somewhere you can not create or destroy energy or matter but they are interchangable. So everything has always existed in some form just not nesecerally in the form we observe it today.
Translation: God is a liar
Good to know. I'll be sure to quote you on that.
Just make sure you quote all my words in the quote you are replying to anytime you quote your translation applying it to me.
But while we are on the subject of eternal:
Genesis 1:1 says "in the beginning", can you give me a date for that event occuring?
If you can't then you have not refuted my saying eveything has always existed in some form.
Nuggin writes:
Yeah, that's what you say. But then you also say that God is a liar. So, it's sort of hard to believe you.
You are the one that is saying God is a liar.
Now since you have said that I said God is a liar present your evidence where I made that statement or print a retraction.
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 200 by Nuggin, posted 09-23-2011 3:37 PM Nuggin has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 209 by frako, posted 10-08-2011 5:15 AM ICANT has not replied

  
frako
Member (Idle past 305 days)
Posts: 2932
From: slovenija
Joined: 09-04-2010


Message 209 of 1198 (636599)
10-08-2011 5:15 AM
Reply to: Message 208 by ICANT
10-06-2011 10:54 AM


Re: Creation Story and Original Sin
I don't have a religion. I am a bought and paid for slave of Emmanuel because I choose to be.
Umm blasphemer, i am the one true god *cough-cough* i created you and you are my slave and you have to choose me as your master!
Now come to my house and do my laundry, clean the place up, do my grocery shopping, wash my car, keep the fireplace burning, prepare me food, get a job and support my lifestyle........
Or il send you to hell!
Its your choice do you love me cause i love you!
OFF TOPIC - Please Do Not Respond to this message by continuing in this vein.
AdminPD
Edited by AdminPD, : Warning

Christianity, One woman's lie about an affair that got seriously out of hand
Jesus was a dead jew on a stick nothing more

This message is a reply to:
 Message 208 by ICANT, posted 10-06-2011 10:54 AM ICANT has not replied

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1940 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 210 of 1198 (637820)
10-18-2011 6:57 AM
Reply to: Message 201 by purpledawn
09-24-2011 10:48 AM


Re: Right Relationship
There was no real relationship with Adam. The God of the OT and the NT is the God of Abraham, not the God of Adam.
What do you mean by this PD ?
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 201 by purpledawn, posted 09-24-2011 10:48 AM purpledawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 211 by purpledawn, posted 10-18-2011 8:36 AM jaywill has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024