Is it egotistical to think that a God would die for you?

Jesus is different from that of everyone else, and I don't have any problem accepting that Jesus was born without sin.That said, this particular explanation borders on the bizarre. The Bible tells us that Eve sinned, and that women inherited the punishment God assigned to Eve, yet we are to somehow believe that no one inherited any sin from Eve.And then what about Enoch who was so righteous that he never died? How did he manage that? How did Elijah?Is there any textual support for your position? Is you position simply one you believe is necessary to support your belief in a simple straight forward mechanism for original sin?Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Although it was Eve who sinned first, scripture always refers us back to Adam and not Eve, as the one responsible for passing on the sin nature. This is at least moral responsibility as the man is given the role of authority above the woman and therefore the responsibility, but when it comes to explaining how Jesus could have been born without sin it's also the only explanation that makes sense. I haven't studied this enough to know whether we're talking about IMPUTED sin through the male line -- Adam's sin imputed to all of us as Christ's righteousness is imputed to believers -- or actual inherited sin, but either way scripture indicates that it only counts through the male line. Considering the parallel with Jesus' righteousness I'd say it is probably imputed. Those incidents are presented as a matter of God's sovereign will. Although they were exceptionally righteous men, (as were Noah and Job who did die), they could not have been sinless because they were children of Adam. Some think they will be the "two witnesses" of Revelation who eventually get killed, because they do have to die, but I'm not sure about that. We are told that the last generation living when Christ returns will be instantaneously transformed and rise to meet Him in the air, apparently not having to experience death, although in themselves that generation will certainly not be sinless. Some things we aren't going to understand until it's all over. I'd guess that it's through Christ's death in our place that this is possible but it's still God's sovereign choice to do it that way. I think it comes from the Reformers but I'd have to research it. But I did give jar some texts to support the scriptural claim that we inherit sin "through one man," that is, Adam, leaving out the phrases that say that just as all inherit sin in Adam so now through Christ we inherit life.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

duplicateEdited by Faith, : No reason given.

Before you can know to obey you first need to know right and wrong. Odd that anyone should have to spell out something so obvious.Until Adam and Eve ate from the Tree of Knowledge they had no way to know they should obey God over the Serpent, particularly since the Serpent character told the truth and the God character did not. Bullshit. Utter bullshit.The fact that God created a Tree that would prevent death shows that death already existed or the God character again is simply asinine.Actually the God character in the story says as soon as you eat from the Tree you will die, but we know that didn't happen.The God character in the story was afraid though that man would now eat from the Tree of Life and so become immortal as well as having the same knowledge of what's right and what's wrong as God and so the God character chased them out of the Garden of Eden. But that did not change Adam and Eve in anyway OR introduce death. That is simply not in the story.In the story Adam and Eve would have died anyway UNLESS they ate from the Tree of Life.You really do need to learn to read what is actually written Faith. More bullshit Faith. The Old Testament says what it says. The New Testament cannot in any way alter the meaning of what was already written.Further, they did not die from eating from the Tree of Knowledge, they die because the God character in the story prevents them from eating from the Tree of Life.Honestly, the God character in the story is an immoral ass who creates an attractive nuisance, denies Adam and Eve the tools needed to know they should obey the God character and then punishes them for doing what He set them up to do.If there are any sins in the Genesis 2&3 fable it is the God character sinning.And that still has jack shit to do with any "sin nature".

Just a thought Faith. We don't need an absolute answer for everything. There is plenty of mystery and ambiguity in the Christian faith.I understand the concept of original sin this way. Everyone of us is born without knowledge of right and wrong. All we are born with is an instinct for survival.That instinct for survival that we have at birth is a necessary part of survival. We cry when we need food or attention etc. It is all about us. So essentially we are born selfish.As we grow and learn to distinguish right from wrong, selfish from unselfish, we are forced to make choices. With these choices we establish a pattern for our choices. We can continue to think selfishly or we can alter that basic instinct and start to think unselfishly.Over an extended period of time our selfish or unselfish thoughts become habit and become part of who we are. As a Christian I believe that it is Gods Spirit in us that nudges us in the direction of unselfishness but we have the free will to ignore those nudges and maintain our selfish nature.

True, we don't need an absolute answer for everything but the fact is that the scriptures fit together in amazingly complete ways when you believe in the whole thing as God's word. But sure, there will always be questions we can't answer. Just not anywhere near as many as your version of Christianity supposes.Your concept of original sin says we have choices that the orthodox understanding says we don't have, for the simple reason that original sin renders us unable to choose the best. We need to be born again --which is a supernatural work of God's grace -- to begin to reverse the effects of the Fall in us and acquire any of the character of Jesus Christ, that unselfishness you seem to think we can just choose to cultivate. Even if some people in their natural state have such an ability beyond the rest of us, it's still only the flesh, but as scripture says, "it's the spirit that gives life, the flesh profits nothing." Scripture also says that all our (natural, human, fleshly) RIGHTEOUSNESSES, all our BEST impulses, aren't of any value in God's kingdom, only that which is of His Spirit counts. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

They did die just as God said they would. First they lost their comfortable connection with God -- first they died spiritually in other words. And the seeds of death and disease began to work in their bodies as well, until they did finally die physically too, which would not have happened if they hadn't disobeyed. "The wages of sin is death" says scripture. Without sin there is no death.I repeat: Christians are to understand the Old Testament according to its interpretation in the New.Had they eaten of the Tree of Life after the Fall they would have become immortal, yes, immortally EVIL, like Satan. That's what God was protecting them from by preventing access to that tree. The Tree of Life is finally given to us when we've been cleansed of sin through Jesus' death, so that ultimately we can be immortally good rather than evil.You really don't know how to read scripture at all, jar.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Those of you who are promoting belief in these concepts might enjoy another viewpoint. (Or probably not.)From Atlas Shrugged, by Ayn Rand: I consider the twin concepts of 'the fall' and 'original sin' to be the most evil concepts ever concocted in the fevered and duplicitous minds of shamans. The quotation above is a good summary of why.

Hi Faith, There is no place in the Bible where God told the woman not to eat of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil and if she did she would die.Here is the command given:

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 woman did not exist at this time.The man is the only one given the command.

quote:

---

Genesis 3:6 And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.

---

The man was not present when the woman had the conversation with the serpent and her eating of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.The woman's eyes was not opened by her eating of the fruit.When the woman gave the fruit to the man and he chose to eat the fruit then their eyes was opened

quote:

---

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

---

Since the woman was not commanded by God to not eat the fruit there was no disobedience involved by her eating the fruit.The man disobeyed God's command to him not to eat the fruit which separated all mankind from God. We do not inherit sin. We do inherit a sin nature.
We are separated from God because of the disobedience of the man that was formed from the dust of the ground.An example I like to use.I have a ranch that has a beautiful 5 bedroom house on it. I invite you to come to live on my ranch. Everything is supplied for you and all you have to do is look after my ranch. But there is one stipulation to the deal. There is one of the bedrooms that has a sign on the door stating if you open this door you will be expelled from the ranch.You enjoy the ranch but one day you look at that door and the curiosity gets the best of you and you just have to open the door that you were forbidden to open. When you open the door you see a beautiful room so you close the door. You think no one will ever know you opened that door.But about an hour later a big moving van pulls up to the front of the house and several men come in and take all your belongings and put them in the van. They order you into the van and take you and your belongings to the entrance to the ranch unloads all your stuff and tells you are on your own.Do you or any of your descendants have any right to come live on my ranch?The only way you are any of your descendants would ever be able to live on my ranch would be if I made a deal with you or your descendants.Well God placed man in a paradise and told him to dress keep it.
Man broke the rules.
God kicked the man out of His paradise.
The only way any of his descendants can live in God's paradise is if He makes a way for them to do so.Which is exactly what He did at Calvary.Everyone here makes fun of Jesus death as it was no sacrifice and in reality it was not. Mankind was not given the opportunity to live in God's paradise by the death of that physical body.When Jesus hung on the cross and took the sins of mankind on Himself God the Father turned His back on God the Son. They were separated for the space of 3 hours so that all who believe and accept the promise of God could be in a right relationship with God.

quote:

---

27:45 Now from the sixth hour there was darkness over all the land unto the ninth hour.

​

27:46 And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?

---

That 3 hours of darkness when God the Father had abandoned God the Son made it possible for mankind to be restored to the position the man that was formed from the dust of the earth had with God as they strolled in the garden having perfect fellowship.Some would say, how is that possible. God is sovereign and can do anything He desires to do.It takes no more faith to believe that the eternal God exists and can do what He says He will do than it takes to believe that there was an absence of anything and out of that absence of anything came everything that has existed and exists in the universe today.God Bless,

I see the question of "originality" has reared its lovely head again Whenever this happens, I like to drag out an old gimmick known in the racket as Socrates Is Praying For Icewater and, ask a little question ... WHO WAS THE FIRST LIAR?To resolve this quandary, we should look at the oldest case we have on record where two characters made statements which disagreed radically with one another; and then look at what the actual outcome was to see who wasn't telling the truth. Yeah? Exhibit 1Exhibit 2Exhibit 3AppendixSo, you be the judge. . . .Extra credit: If there be any mathematicians amongst you, let them form an opinion as to how and why Methuselah died

Hi Coyote, Could you supply a scriptural text that talks of 'the fall' you are referring too?I assume you are talking of 'the fall' of mankind.If that is what you are referring too, I can not find it in the Bible text.Could you supply a scriptural text that mentions 'original sin'?I find 'original sin' no place in the Bible text.You are correct that they were concocted in the minds of mankind, as they are not in the Bible.The first man formed from the dust of the ground had the ability to choose to believe and do whatever he chose to do. His descendants have the same ability.The problem is that mankind today was separated from God by the choice the man formed from the dust of the ground made when he disobeyed God and ate the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.God provided the solution for that problem by offering mankind a free full pardon (it's called justification) through the sacrifice made at Calvary.God Bless,

I see the question of "originality" has reared its lovely head again
Whenever this happens, I like to drag out an old gimmick known in the racket as Socrates Is Praying For Icewater and, ask a little question ... WHO WAS THE FIRST LIAR?To resolve this quandary, we should look at the oldest case we have on record where two characters made statements which disagreed radically with one another; and then look at what the actual outcome was to see who wasn't telling the truth. Yeah? Exhibit 1Exhibit 2Exhibit 3AppendixSo, you be the judge. . . .

Sorry but that is NOT what the story actually says Faith, you are just once again making shit up and misrepresenting what the Bible actually says.There is nothing in the story that says they lost any connection with God and in fact, God continues to visit them, to talk to them, to make clothes for them, to bless them. There is nothing in the Genesis 2&3 fable that says or implies that the wages of sin is death. Again Faith you are just making shit up and misrepresenting what the Bible says. There is nothing in the Genesis 2&3 fable that implies that they would have or ever were evil, and in fact it shows just the opposite. Once they had the tools to know they had done wrong they were sorry and afraid.As the God character says:

quote:

---

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

​

23 Therefore the Lord God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken.

​

24 So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life."

---

There is nothing there about becoming evil or that Satan is evil. In fact the Old Testament says that Satan is obedient and only does what God tells Satan to do.The difference Faith is that I read what is actually there while you misinterpret what is actually there.

Goodmorning ICANT
You say that the first created man and women in Genesis 1 (who it never specifically names Adam and Eve) did not eat of the tree, were never commanded to eat from the tree and are the characters who in Genesis 5 go on to live named as Adam and Eve and beget all their sons and daughters. Yet the man and women in Genesis 2 (who are specifically named Adam and Eve) were the ones to eat the fruit which the man was commanded not to do and then died. Is that a fair synopsis of your argument?
If that is the case then how could the man and women from Genesis 1 be givin the blame and an inherited sinful nature from the actions of the man and women from Genesis 2? In your example of a farm house you only have 1 man who disobeys. Inorder for it to acuratly portray your position you need 2 people in your example. 1 person who is never given a command to enter the room and another who is commanded not to enter the room. Then when the 2nd man disobeys he is killed and the first man thrown out for actions he had no part in.In other words if the Adam from Genesis 5 is the the man from Genesis 1, then he is not at fault for the actions of Adam from Genesis 2.

Hi rueh,A good morning to you. It does not make any difference what I say. The only thing that matters is what the Hebrew text says.

quote:

---

Genesis 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

---

According to the context of that verse the word translated 'man' should have been translated 'mankind', as there was male and female and man would only refer to the male. Notice also it does not say He only created 1 of each. It says He created them, there could have been more than 1 of each. They were created at the same time.This mankind was created in the image/likeness of God.This mankind was created (ברא ) not formed (יצר ).

quote:

---

Genesis 5:1 This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him;

​

5:2 Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created.

---

This mankind was created in the image/likeness of God.The translators called this man Adam. Adam is the transliteration of the Hebrew word אדם which is translated man.To get Adam out of the Hebrew word they have to use the vowels added to the Masoretic text that was finished in 915 AD.Pay close attention to what they were called. They were both called Adam, by the translators. There was no Eve, only Adams.

​

The story in Genesis 1:2 - 2:3 is much younger than the story in Genesis 2:4 - 25. Therefore the mankind created in the image/likeness of God in Genesis 1:27 was not the first mankind on earth.

​

rueh writes:

​

Yet the man and women in Genesis 2 (who are specifically named Adam and Eve) were the ones to eat the fruit which the man was commanded not to do and then died. Is that a fair synopsis of your argument?

​

The man in Genesis 2:7 was never named Adam. The transliteration of the Hebrew word for man/mankind was translated as Adam by the translators.

​

So yes this man that was formed from the dust of the ground was the man placed in the garden and the one who was commanded not to eat the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. He disobeyed that command and ate the fruit causing the universe and all it's present and future inhabitants to be under the penalty of sin which is death. Death is separation and that man was separated from God in the day he ate the fruit as well as he died physically in the day he ate the fruit, as he did not exist at Genesis 1:2.

​

The man formed from the dust of the ground in Genesis 2:7 called the woman that was made from a rib from his body Eve in Genesis 3:20. The name Eve appears 4 times in the Bible. Genesis 3:20 when the man called his wife Eve. In Genesis 4:1 concerning the birth of Cain. In 2 Corinthians 11:3 Paul mentions Eve being beguiled by the serpent. In 1 Timothy 2:13 Paul states man was formed first and then Eve. He goes on in the next verse to state the man was not deceived.

​

rueh writes:

​

If that is the case then how could the man and women from Genesis 1 be givin the blame and an inherited sinful nature from the actions of the man and women from Genesis 2?

​

They were not given blame. You seem to believe that what people do is what determines where they will spend eternity.

​

All mankind was separated from God when the perfect man who was formed from the dust of the ground disobeyed a direct command from God. Not only was mankind separated from God but the universe and everything in it.

​

That is the reason John told us in John 3:16 "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life".

​

The world there includes the entire universe which Peter tells us will melt with fervent heat. 2 Peter 3:10.

​

Which requires a New Heaven and a New Earth to begin to exist as John tells us will happen in Revelation 21:1.

​

rueh writes:

​

In your example of a farm house you only have 1 man who disobeys. Inorder for it to acuratly portray your position you need 2 people in your example. 1 person who is never given a command to enter the room and another who is commanded not to enter the room. Then when the 2nd man disobeys he is killed and the first man thrown out for actions he had no part in.

​

I can't find any place where I said the person would die in my example.

​

My example was concerning the person being able to stay on my ranch in the house on the ranch with everything they needed supplied by me. Their entire family could have been present, husband, wife, 10 kids, 2 dogs and 3 cats. The restrictions would have still applied, but the only one that would have breached the contract would have been the one I made the deal with.

​

But when I expelled them from my ranch my question was, would any of that persons descendants have a right to live on my ranch?

​

They would not unless I made such an offer and they accepted my offer.

​

God expelled mankind from His paradise, so what person that came after than man could claim a right to reside in that paradise?

​

God made mankind an offer that all could reside in His paradise. To do so all one has to do is accept the offer God made.

​

rueh writes:

​

In other words if the Adam from Genesis 5 is the the man from Genesis 1, then he is not at fault for the actions of Adam from Genesis 2.

​

If a man has sex with a woman who produces a child that he is the father of and he goes his way never seeing the child or providing for the child, does the child suffer loss because of the actions of the father?

​

That is the same way mankind suffers loss due to the transgression of the perfect man formed from the dust of the ground.

​

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."