God of OT and God of NT

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
161

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:<<< Genisis
22 And the LORD God said, “The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.”

IÃ?¢??m not talking about theology here. IÃ?¢??m just noting that in genisis, immortality was available to adam in eve, but they didnÃ?¢??t take it.[/quote]They would have already lived forever. Disobedience is what introduced them to death in the first place. What God is referring to is His unwillingness that they continue on the earth in their new state of living death. I don’t know what would have happened had they been allowed to do so, but they weren’t. God would have brought a magnificently self glorifying result in any case. The point is that death was not part of their reality in any way until they decided to think autonomously and reach conclusions without God. We now do that necessarily because we’re born dead and only new born again life in Christ can remedy that. Even then it comes tough. Autonomy dies hard.

Forlife, God bless his pitiful soul, actually has a point here too though. From what we’re told it’s plausible they were eating of the tree of life all along. Whatever the implications of that would have been.

162

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:<<< Yes, I do. However, sin is sin (there is different kinds of sin, but it is still sin). I guess my understanding is different because of my understanding of venial and mortal sin.[/quote]Was Adam’s sin mortal or venial?
[/quote]

That distinction would be between Original and Actual sin, I’ll look to see if I can find anything on the other stuff but off the top of my head since mortal brings death to the soul, i would suspect Mortal, but don’t hold me to that until I do further research.

163

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:<<< Yes, I do. However, sin is sin (there is different kinds of sin, but it is still sin). I guess my understanding is different because of my understanding of venial and mortal sin.[/quote]Was Adam’s sin mortal or venial?
[/quote]

That distinction would be between Original and Actual sin, I’ll look to see if I can find anything on the other stuff but off the top of my head since mortal brings death to the soul, i would suspect Mortal, but don’t hold me to that until I do further research.[/quote]

Too late, I already held you to it.

164

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:<<< Yes, I do. However, sin is sin (there is different kinds of sin, but it is still sin). I guess my understanding is different because of my understanding of venial and mortal sin.[/quote]Was Adam’s sin mortal or venial?[/quote]That distinction would be between Original and Actual sin, I’ll look to see if I can find anything on the other stuff but off the top of my head since mortal brings death to the soul, i would suspect Mortal, but don’t hold me to that until I do further research.[/quote]Take your time. For you Chris, I have all the time in the world.

165

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:<<< Genisis
22 And the LORD God said, “The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.”

IÃ??Ã?¢??m not talking about theology here. IÃ??Ã?¢??m just noting that in genisis, immortality was available to adam in eve, but they didnÃ??Ã?¢??t take it.[/quote]They would have already lived forever. Disobedience is what introduced them to death in the first place. What God is referring to is His unwillingness that they continue on the earth in their new state of living death. I don’t know what would have happened had they been allowed to do so, but they weren’t. God would have brought a magnificently self glorifying result in any case. The point is that death was not part of their reality in any way until they decided to think autonomously and reach conclusions without God. We now do that necessarily because we’re born dead and only new born again life in Christ can remedy that. Even then it comes tough. Autonomy dies hard.

Forlife, God bless his pitiful soul, actually has a point here too though. From what we’re told it’s plausible they were eating of the tree of life all along. Whatever the implications of that would have been.
[/quote]

That isn’t how the sentence is structured, at least the way it is translated (that’s NIV I think). It isn’t written as an ongoing process of eating the fruit. Besides a life that is conditional on a specific action that you would die without isn’t immortality. It is a constant delaying of death, there is a difference. Immortality is unconditional life.

And yes I understand the theological repercussions, but like I said, I was just kinda of pondering the possibility of immortality.

Why do you guys gotta try to burst a bubble?

166

[quote]byukid wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:<<< Yes, I do. However, sin is sin (there is different kinds of sin, but it is still sin). I guess my understanding is different because of my understanding of venial and mortal sin.[/quote]Was Adam’s sin mortal or venial?
[/quote]

That distinction would be between Original and Actual sin, I’ll look to see if I can find anything on the other stuff but off the top of my head since mortal brings death to the soul, i would suspect Mortal, but don’t hold me to that until I do further research.[/quote]

Too late, I already held you to it.[/quote]

Lol.

167

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:That isn’t how the sentence is structured, at least the way it is translated (that’s NIV I think). It isn’t written as an ongoing process of eating the fruit. Besides a life that is conditional on a specific action that you would die without isn’t immortality. It is a constant delaying of death, there is a difference. Immortality is unconditional life.

And yes I understand the theological repercussions, but like I said, I was just kinda of pondering the possibility of immortality.

Why do you guys gotta try to burst a bubble?[/quote]I don’t know if they were eating the fruit of the tree of life or not. It’s not a mortally important point, but is interesting to consider. If someone were to come up with something I hadn’t seen demonstrating one way or another then fine. Also, I’m just giving my honest views. Please don’t take me as attacking you somehow if you do.

168

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:<<< Genisis
22 And the LORD God said, “The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.”

IÃ???Ã??Ã?¢??m not talking about theology here. IÃ???Ã??Ã?¢??m just noting that in genisis, immortality was available to adam in eve, but they didnÃ???Ã??Ã?¢??t take it.[/quote]They would have already lived forever. Disobedience is what introduced them to death in the first place. What God is referring to is His unwillingness that they continue on the earth in their new state of living death. I don’t know what would have happened had they been allowed to do so, but they weren’t. God would have brought a magnificently self glorifying result in any case. The point is that death was not part of their reality in any way until they decided to think autonomously and reach conclusions without God. We now do that necessarily because we’re born dead and only new born again life in Christ can remedy that. Even then it comes tough. Autonomy dies hard.

Forlife, God bless his pitiful soul, actually has a point here too though. From what we’re told it’s plausible they were eating of the tree of life all along. Whatever the implications of that would have been.
[/quote]

That isn’t how the sentence is structured, at least the way it is translated (that’s NIV I think). It isn’t written as an ongoing process of eating the fruit. Besides a life that is conditional on a specific action that you would die without isn’t immortality. It is a constant delaying of death, there is a difference. Immortality is unconditional life.

And yes I understand the theological repercussions, but like I said, I was just kinda of pondering the possibility of immortality.

Why do you guys gotta try to burst a bubble?[/quote]

There’s no mention of them being commanded not to eat the tree of life, prior to being cast out.

As a Christian you are assured immortality in any case…so consider your bubble intact :wink:

169

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:<<< Yes, I do. However, sin is sin (there is different kinds of sin, but it is still sin). I guess my understanding is different because of my understanding of venial and mortal sin.[/quote]Was Adam’s sin mortal or venial?[/quote]That distinction would be between Original and Actual sin, I’ll look to see if I can find anything on the other stuff but off the top of my head since mortal brings death to the soul, i would suspect Mortal, but don’t hold me to that until I do further research.[/quote]Take your time. For you Chris, I have all the time in the world.
[/quote]I know you’re not sneakin off on me there Chris.

170

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:<<< Yes, I do. However, sin is sin (there is different kinds of sin, but it is still sin). I guess my understanding is different because of my understanding of venial and mortal sin.[/quote]Was Adam’s sin mortal or venial?[/quote]That distinction would be between Original and Actual sin, I’ll look to see if I can find anything on the other stuff but off the top of my head since mortal brings death to the soul, i would suspect Mortal, but don’t hold me to that until I do further research.[/quote]Take your time. For you Chris, I have all the time in the world.
[/quote]I know you’re not sneakin off on me there Chris.
[/quote]

Just don’t have the answer yet. But, all resources point to it being original sin, and original sin does not have a division of mortal and venial. It was Adam’s choice as the father of all mankind to freely reject G-d’s sanctifying grace. And, now we have baptism.

171

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:<<< Just don’t have the answer yet. >>>[/quote]I’m a patient man (sometimes) Dearest Christopher and won’t hold you to anything you’ve said to this point. I’m betting we can count on way less than one hand the people here beside you and I who understand the significance of this dialog. You DO understand as I knew you would. It’s now clear why I went to such irritating lengths to establish that we were both talking about literal people and literal history.

EDIT: I am tentatively honored Chris, but to God be the glory. If I didn’t know you like I do I’d be tempted to think you were stumped on this one and for you that takes some doing. I mean that. Whatever comes out of this I also mean it when I commend you for your literalist view of Genesis. That is enormously telling of where you are. I assure you I mean that in a positive way.

172

Just an updated statement of my admiration for your steadfast quest for thoroughness and accuracy Chris. I know when I get your answer it’ll be the greatest answer anyone could ever hope for.

173

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Just an updated statement of my admiration for your steadfast quest for thoroughness and accuracy Chris. I know when I get your answer it’ll be the greatest answer anyone could ever hope for.[/quote]

It is original sin.

174

[quote]orion wrote:
Here are my alternative theories:

Our God who managed Earth up to 2000 years ago was a total prick so upper management decided to replace him.

God does rule the universe but has found another anthill to fuck up so he is really busy right now and we should hope he does not remember us.

[/quote]

Nice work.

What kills me is that some of the posters here know ALL ABOUT GOD - his omnipotence, what he can and can’t do, on and on, what it says in Ezekiel versus the book of Tyrone, blah, blah, blah - but their wizard in the sky still hasn’t healed any amputees.

Their ain’t no god. Case closed! If there is he clearly doesn’t give a shit about the little creatures on earth. OH - but that’s his plan! Men have free will . . . . . . . .

175

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Just an updated statement of my admiration for your steadfast quest for thoroughness and accuracy Chris. I know when I get your answer it’ll be the greatest answer anyone could ever hope for.[/quote]It is original sin.[/quote]I’ve heard a bunch of explanations for this. Please elaborate a bit.

176

[quote]saveski wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:
Here are my alternative theories:

Our God who managed Earth up to 2000 years ago was a total prick so upper management decided to replace him.

God does rule the universe but has found another anthill to fuck up so he is really busy right now and we should hope he does not remember us.

[/quote]

Nice work.

What kills me is that some of the posters here know ALL ABOUT GOD - his omnipotence, what he can and can’t do, on and on, what it says in Ezekiel versus the book of Tyrone, blah, blah, blah - but their wizard in the sky still hasn’t healed any amputees.

Their ain’t no god. Case closed! If there is he clearly doesn’t give a shit about the little creatures on earth. OH - but that’s his plan! Men have free will . . . . . . . .
[/quote]

So you’re argument is effective:

  1. If there are no amputees healed, then
  2. there is cannot be a G-d.
  3. There is no amputees healed.
  4. Therefore, there cannot be a G-d.

Well, I suppose that is an okay argument. The argument though also consists of ‘if there is a G-d that would mean that there is healed amputees.’ That argument is a little far fetched of an argument.

So you’re argument is A > B or ~B < ~A, well I come to prove ~B, that there is not not a G-d. Four reasons:

  1. The Universe began to exist
  2. The Universe is fine tuned.
  3. Objective morality.
  4. Jesus of Nazareth.
177

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]saveski wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:
Here are my alternative theories:

Our God who managed Earth up to 2000 years ago was a total prick so upper management decided to replace him.

God does rule the universe but has found another anthill to fuck up so he is really busy right now and we should hope he does not remember us.

[/quote]

Nice work.

What kills me is that some of the posters here know ALL ABOUT GOD - his omnipotence, what he can and can’t do, on and on, what it says in Ezekiel versus the book of Tyrone, blah, blah, blah - but their wizard in the sky still hasn’t healed any amputees.

Their ain’t no god. Case closed! If there is he clearly doesn’t give a shit about the little creatures on earth. OH - but that’s his plan! Men have free will . . . . . . . .
[/quote]

So you’re argument is effective:

  1. If there are no amputees healed, then
  2. there is cannot be a G-d.
  3. There is no amputees healed.
  4. Therefore, there cannot be a G-d.

Well, I suppose that is an okay argument. The argument though also consists of ‘if there is a G-d that would mean that there is healed amputees.’ That argument is a little far fetched of an argument.

So you’re argument is A > B or ~B < ~A, well I come to prove ~B, that there is not not a G-d. Four reasons:

  1. The Universe began to exist
  2. The Universe is fine tuned.
  3. Objective morality.
  4. Jesus of Nazareth.[/quote]1. Jesus of Nazareth. The rest of the order isn’t terribly important.
178

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]saveski wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:
Here are my alternative theories:

Our God who managed Earth up to 2000 years ago was a total prick so upper management decided to replace him.

God does rule the universe but has found another anthill to fuck up so he is really busy right now and we should hope he does not remember us.

[/quote]

Nice work.

What kills me is that some of the posters here know ALL ABOUT GOD - his omnipotence, what he can and can’t do, on and on, what it says in Ezekiel versus the book of Tyrone, blah, blah, blah - but their wizard in the sky still hasn’t healed any amputees.

Their ain’t no god. Case closed! If there is he clearly doesn’t give a shit about the little creatures on earth. OH - but that’s his plan! Men have free will . . . . . . . .
[/quote]

So you’re argument is effective:

  1. If there are no amputees healed, then
  2. there is cannot be a G-d.
  3. There is no amputees healed.
  4. Therefore, there cannot be a G-d.

Well, I suppose that is an okay argument. The argument though also consists of ‘if there is a G-d that would mean that there is healed amputees.’ That argument is a little far fetched of an argument.

So you’re argument is A > B or ~B < ~A, well I come to prove ~B, that there is not not a G-d. Four reasons:

  1. The Universe began to exist
  2. The Universe is fine tuned.
  3. Objective morality.
  4. Jesus of Nazareth.[/quote]1. Jesus of Nazareth. The rest of the order isn’t terribly important.
    [/quote]

True any of those arguments by themselves prove a monotheistic G-d exists. The first (Kalam Cosmological argument) and last point to the G-d of Abraham, and the last directly points to the Abrahamic G-d revealed through Jesus Christ.

179

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Just an updated statement of my admiration for your steadfast quest for thoroughness and accuracy Chris. I know when I get your answer it’ll be the greatest answer anyone could ever hope for.[/quote]

It is original sin.[/quote]So after patiently waiting while you diligently researched this from the 29th of March until the 1st of May. After I complimented you beforehand on my anticipation of a stellar and definitive answer to this VERY important question, these 4 words are all I get? I am disappointed Christopher I gotta say. Ya really let the air outta my balloon.

180

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Just an updated statement of my admiration for your steadfast quest for thoroughness and accuracy Chris. I know when I get your answer it’ll be the greatest answer anyone could ever hope for.[/quote]

It is original sin.[/quote]So after patiently waiting while you diligently researched this from the 29th of March until the 1st of May. After I complimented you beforehand on my anticipation of a stellar and definitive answer to this VERY important question, these 4 words are all I get? I am disappointed Christopher I gotta say. Ya really let the air outta my balloon.
[/quote]

I am sure; however, there are two categories of sin: original and actual. However, I did a few minutes of research pretty much every day, arguing and debating different sources and persons in order to get you an answer. Pardon me; I know I took liberties with the time to get this answer.

Original sin would fall into the category of original sin, for us. Original sin is not an actual sin, in the instance that by its definition it is categorically original, for us. That does not speak on the case of Adam. This is where most sources stopped, I looked at Augustine and found some stuff and I talked to everyone I could about this, as I was fascinated.

Although this is no assurance of truth, as I have no authority myself, it is a well-researched subject on my part, as far as my abilities would allow.

It would seem that the Original Sin was in fact mortal, in the sense of death, for Adam and the first woman, Eve, that which expelled them from the Garden of Eden. First, one has to determine what is a mortal sin that which the Church teaches of mortal sin is that it is three parts. None can be missing, such as that; it is 1) a grave matter, 2) full knowledge, 3) deliberate. In order to prove that original sin is mortal, one has to prove that it meets all three.

First, we know it is a grave matter as Eve admits that the consequence of eating of the fruit is “sure death.” Second, by stating that she knows that by disobedience of authority and eating the apple is against God’s commandment she has shown her full knowledge. Third, we know it is deliberate because of St. Augustine’s commentary on the particular sin, “the deliberate sin of the first man is the cause of original sin” (De nupt. et concup., II, xxvi, 43).

And, unless my intellect has failed me, that which is possible because of my weak intellect, I do suppose that is the correct answer.