Trinity - Bible Teaching or Doctrine of Man

Tiribulus · May 27, 2010, 8:15pm

[quote]dmaddox wrote:
<<< If God told them to not eat the fruit because they would surely die, which was truth, how is that a win/win situation?[/quote]
For the record there was nothing magically poisonous about that fruit either. It wasn’t the fruit that killed them. It was disobedience. God, in His perfect wisdom chose something as stupidly inconsequential as a bite of food to demonstrate the starkly absolute nature of his law and commandments. There are no small, “not really that bad” infractions. Like James said. to paraphrase: “If you sin at all you are guilty of everything”.

I have no idea by what exact mechanism the first temptation and consequent sin of man came into being. I do know that Paul told Timothy that the woman was deceived and the man was not. Also, the deception was that they were told that they would be as God, knowing good and evil" which was actually a half truth. They DID know good and evil, but not as God did. God has perfect judgment BETWEEN good and evil, but has never experienced it himself being incapable of committing evil. What they wound up with was the actual experience of now both good and evil and fallen judgment in the process. A very bad deal on it’s face.

However, without the introduction of sin there would have been no Gospel and no opportunity for God to exhibit His infinite love, grace and mercy. In 1st Peter 1:12 Peter makes the astonishing statement concerning the Old Testament saints that "It was revealed to them that they were not serving themselves, but you, in these things which now have been announced to you through those who preached the gospel to you by the Holy Spirit sent from heaven-- things into which angels long to look. (NASB, my favorite translation) Emphasis mine.

Things into which angels long to look. Think about that. Angels. Sinless magnificent beings created directly by the hand of God and who stand in his presence day and night (so to speak) long to look into the intricacies of our salvation. That is FAR OUT!!! It also goes a long way in explaining the purpose of sin in God’s plan. He is so majestically glorified in his accomplishment of salvation that the angels, who are already living a tremendous life, clamor for a view.

blacksheep · May 27, 2010, 9:09pm

stated,

“…The JW’s started as an system of beliefs opposed to historical Christian teaching as demonstrated by the opposition to the Deity of Christ which causes the opposition to the trinity, to salvation by grace, and and host of other doctrines.This divorce from plain, historical Christian doctrine resulted in the “trail of errors” of the JW church…”

“…we see JW as a corruption of the Christian faith, not a correction or improvement. The lineage of Doctrine we hold in our Christian faith goes back to Christ himself. We take the revealed truth literally and do not rely on a “updated” translation, but on the actual primary historical documents themselves - the plain teaching that we can discover for ourselves, not the “calibrated” teachings of men…”

As believers in the truth of the gospel as it is in Jesus christ, may we all remember the words of the apostle Paul to the Church, concerning all false teachings.

We are not to “…give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which minister questions, rather than godly edifying…” (I Tim. 1:4). Those that promote controversies are accused of “…vain jangling; Desiring to be teachers… understanding neither what they say, nor whereof they affirm” (I Tim. 1:6-7). “Vain jangling” is an intresting term which means “empty prattle, vain speaking, fruitless discussion.” The context seems to show that it is the primary characteristic and activity of false teachers. Paul pointed out that fables and endless genealogies is their stock and trade. It is all meaningless discussion, empty argument, and purposeless talk. False teachers had turned aside from the truth and were so ignorant they could not even understand their own words.

The false teachers were “…proud, knowing nothing but doting about questions and strifes of words whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmising, Perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds and destitute of the truth…” (I Tim. 6:4-5).“Proud” means “conceited, puffed up.” “Knowing nothing” means “ignorant.” “Doting” is a strange and unique word and possibly can be translated “being sick (mentally)” and by extension, “having a morbid craving for.” “Questions” means “contro-versies,” and “strifes of words” or “arguments.” In a few words Paul said a false teacher is (1) conceited, (2)ignorant, (3) sick, and (4) argumentive.

Five negative results of this argumentive nature are (1)“envy,” (2) “strife” (“dissension, quarreling”), (3)“railings” (“blasphemies, slander, malicious talk”), (4)“evil surmising” (suspicions"), and (5)“disputings” (“constant frictions” or “incessant quarrelings”). All of this is evil and disruptive and has no place in the company of believers. These are the stock-in-trade of “men of corrupt minds.” This term means these men were incapable of moral judgment and therefore were "destitute of the truth. "The false teacher believed the lies he spouts in foolish and perverse arguments. This brings him to intellectual and moral deprivation.

False teachers are “…unruly and vain talkers and deceivers…” (Titus 1:10). “Unruly” means “rebellious, insubor-dinate.” This rebelliousness is against God’s Word and God’s messengers. They are “vain talkers” meaning “empty-headed babblers” and “deceivers” which means “misleaders” who teach things without substance. “They profess (claim) that they know God but in works they deny (disown) him being abominable, and disobedient and unto every good work reprobate” (Titus 1:16).False teachers stand condemned by their own conduct. Paul said they were (1) “abominable” or “detestable, repulsive;” (2) “disobedient;” and (3)“reprobate” meaning “unfit, unqualified, worthless, useless, rejected after testing.”

Concerning these false teachers, we are to avoid their “foolish questions, and genealogies and contentions and striving…for they are unprofitable and vain” (Titus 3:9). “Avoid” (Gk. periistaso, literally, “to turn oneself about so as to face the other way.” (1) “Questions” may be translated “controversies, speculations.” (2) “Genealogies” refers to O.T.
genealogical lists. Jewish false teachers would insert stories and myths (as JW with the date, 1914 or the Arch Angel Michael and Jesus) between names, attributing fictitious exploits to people in the lists. (3) “contentions” may be translated “arguments, dissensions.” (4) “Strivings” meaning “quarrels or legalistic battles.” These are unprofitable and “vain” (useless, futile)…

blacksheep · May 27, 2010, 9:34pm

With the above in mind,

“And whosoever shall not receive you nor hear your words when ye depart out of that house or city shake off the dust of yourfeet” (Matt. 10:14).

The apostles were not to waste time where neither they nor their message were welcome. They must leave and symbolically shake the dust from their feet, making it clear they had been rejected and were no longer responsible for what happened. This warning of Jesus underscored the nature of their task as “fishers of men” (Matt. 1:17). A fisherman catches all manner of fish, some suitable for his purpose and some not. By the same token the “fishers of men” in the kingdom of God bring a message of good news-and judgment! Those who will not hear, will not see, or will not receive, must be left to themselves. This was essentially Jesus message in Mark 4:11-12.

The shaking of dust from one’s feet recalls the Jewish custom of carefully removing the dust from shoes and clothes afterpassing through Gentile territory into Jewish land. Because non-Jews were regarded as ceremonially unclean, this actionsymbolized the Jewish estimate of the Gentiles (cf. Acts 13:51). Thus, the disciples would be treating these Jewish households as the Jewish treated Gentiles. This was a very serious rebuke. To reject the message was to reject Jesus. The disciples had to let the people know the deadly effects of rebellion and sin.

Believers are not to try to force the holy and beautiful spiritual things God has given them on rebellious sinners. Consequently, Jesus admonished believers against giving what is holy or sacred to dogs or throwing pearls to pigs (Matt. 7:6).As the pearls represent what is holy, so the dogs and swine represent the unholy. The O.T. laid down strict prescriptions for the disposal of sacrifical meat (for example, Ex. 29:33; Lev. 2:3; 22:10-16; Num. 18:8-19). To give dogs the food which had been sacrificed to God would be a gross blasphemy. Dogs and swine were used as scavengers in those days and were synbols of evil and uncleanness (cf. I Sam. 17:43; Lev. 11:7; Phil. 3:2; II Pt. 2:22; Rev. 22:15). The pearls refer to the holy nature of the gospel and its provisions and gifts. The dogs and swine refer to rebels who persistently reject the gospel. However, care must be taken not to be too quick to identify people as dogs and swine unless they show an unholy reaction.

So brethren, in following the very words of our Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ, give the message of the gospel to those we come in contact with. If they reject it, go on to others, not going back to those who rejected it. But if you discern that those that had been previously exposed to the gospel are truly inquisitive, then by all means “And of some have compassion, making a difference: And others save with fear, pulling them out of the fire…” (Jude 22-23).

honest_lifter · May 27, 2010, 9:20pm

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:

[quote]honest_lifter wrote:

Thank you! OK, do you feel you could go through life w/o sinning? Do you think that choice is physically possible?[/quote]

yes - it is a possibility, because Christ proved it was possible. But the Bible is very clear that we all do eventually choose to sin. (for all have sinned) Some sin the first time they are presented with the choice, some go for many decisions before they come to the choice that they fail to make correctly, but we all have the potential for living sinlessly. That is why our condemnation is individual, just as our salvation must be effected individually - because our choice to sin was made as an individual.

[/quote]

I was thinking about this. About how we could agree on the same scripture but reach different conclusions. Question: You said that the Bible is very clear that we all do eventually choose to sin. Where do you base you use of the word choose in that sentence from? (picky i know, but i think very important)

honest_lifter · May 27, 2010, 9:22pm

[quote]haney1 wrote:

[quote]honest_lifter wrote:

This stuck out to me. I apologize if this is out of context, and if it is, please just let me know.

What about her would have made her the target? How would Satan have known? He can’t read minds.[/quote]

purely anecdotal, but here are my reasons

for eve to see the tree she the fruit on that tree, she had to be near it.
She added rules to what God actually said. Which technically makes eve the inventor of the first religion.
I doubt Adam showed any interest in it.
Eve never told Adam where it came from but he knew what it was.
That would mean Adam wasn’t tempted by the fruit, but he was accepting eve’s fate as his own.

Once again this is just opinion based on my personal choices, as well as the choices of people around me, coupled with a few observations and alot of speculation.

I don’t think he read her mind, but I think she tipped her hand a little bit.[/quote]

If I could single out point 2. What rules did she add?

Tiribulus · May 27, 2010, 9:23pm

@ blacksheep:
Which way are you going with this? I’m not denying the clear principle you point out of which I have been long aware. I’m just wondering who exactly you’re addressing here. An internet forum brings a unique situation because everybody has to willingly take proactive steps to be here. It’s not like pushing yourself on somebody in the “real” world. People have to choose to participate on all sides. If somebody doesn’t want to hear, all they have to do is refrain from clicking the link for this or any other thread.

mse2us · May 27, 2010, 9:23pm

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
mse2us - please don’t take this the wrong way. The point of exploring/explaining the history of the JW’s is to highlight several important facts - The JW’s started as an system of beliefs opposed to historical Christian teaching as demonstrated by the opposition to the Deity of Christ which causes the opposition to the trinity, to salvation by grace, and and host of other doctrines. This divorce from plain, historical Christian doctrine resulted in the “trail of errors” of the JW church.

This trail of errors has been repeatedly corrected and updated over the last 100 years, but it is precisely this constant calibration of beliefs that highlights for those of us on the outside just how twisted the belief structure of the JW has been and continues to be.

please understand, none of us doubt the sincerity and honesty of the average JW. I admire the intensity and study you have obviously put into understanding your faith. We are merely outside observers looking in at your experience and making observations.

But you also have to understand that we see JW as a corruption of the Christian faith, not a correction or improvement. The lineage of Doctrine we hold in our Christian faith goes back to Christ himself. We take the revealed truth literally and do not rely on a “updated” translation, but on the actual primary historical documents themselves - the plain teaching that we can discover for ourselves, not the “calibrated” teachings of men.

I hope that this does not sound harsh or judgemental - if so, I humbly apologize - I merely mean to express my thoughts in kindness. [/quote]
I appreciate your opinion Irish. Your are right our beliefs are different than mainstream Christianity and no we don’t deny the deity of Jesus because Jesus is a mighty god but the Bible shows that he is not God Almighty. Both you and Dmaddox say that the most popular teachings of Christianity have been around for centuries and because of that this makes them true. Unfortunately Irish that is the exact opposite of what the Bible says.

I gave the example of the wheat and the weeds illustration a couple of post ago. This illustration applies to the dominant Christian teachings that have been around for centuries.
Jesus said he would let the wheat grow with the weed until the conclusion of the system of things. Weeds alway overtake what every it grows with and dominants the other crop.

After the apostles died false teaching started to infiltrate Christian teachings and as I mentioned in one post Justin Marty as well as Origen Adamantius (185â??254) were two Christians who were Greek philosophers in the second century A.D. and thought that Christianity would be more appealing if it was blended with Greek philosophy and mythology into. For example, the immortality of the soul is one such teaching. Plato (428-348 B.C.), the Greek philosopher and student of Socrates, taught that the body and the “immortal soul” separate at death. The Evangelical Dictionary of Theology notes that Origen, an early and influential Catholic theologian, was influenced by Greek thinkers: “Speculation about the soul in the subapostolic church was heavily influenced by Greek philosophy. This is seen in Origen’s acceptance of Plato’s doctrine of the preexistence of the soul as pure mind (nous) originally, which, by reason of its fall from God, cooled down to soul (psyche) when it lost its participation in the divine fire by looking earthward” (1992, “Soul,” p. 1037).

Truly a weed like teaching that began in the second century A.D. and is the dominant belief of Christians.

God’s being worshiped in three or triads of god’s as I’m sure you know, began centures before the trinity teaching became official doctrine of the catholic church. It’s a historical fact that both Babylon and Egypt worshipped triad of god’s. Such as Osiris, Isis, and Horus for the Egyptians and of Sin, Shamash, and Ishtar for the Babylonians.

Even the Catholic Encyclopedia admits that that trinity teaching did not develop until the fourth century.

The New Catholic Encyclopedia (1967 edition, Vol. XIV, pp. 306, 304)states:
It is not, as already seen, directly and immediately the word of God." It also admits (on page 299): “The formulation ‘one God in three persons’ was not solidly established, certainly not fully assimilated into Christian life and its profession of faith, prior to the end of the 4th century. But it is precisely this formulation that has first claim to the title the Trinitarian dogma. Among the Apostolic Fathers, there had been nothing even remotely approaching such a mentality or perspective.”

“In Scripture there is yet no single term by which the Three Divine Persons are denoted together. The word ‘Trias’ (of which the Latin ‘Trinitas’ is a translation) is first found in Theophilus of Antioch about 180 AD… Shortly afterwards it appears in its Latin form of ‘Trinitas’ in Tertullian” (The Catholic Encyclopedia, 1912, Vol. 15, p. 47).

Another weed like teaching that began in ancient Babylon and Egypt, was not part of the christian congregation during the time of the apostles and infiltrated the Christian congregation after the death of the apostes and is now the dominant belief among Christians.

Irish, these are just some of the weeds that were planted and grew for centuries and eventually overtook the wheat and became the teachings that most of Christianity now believe.

The illustration at Matthew states that at the conclusion of the system of things the weeds will be separated from the wheat. Once they are separated they would be distinguishable by their teachings.

Irish notice what the book of Daniel states about knowledge and the time of the end.

Daniel 8:17(NIV):
"17 As he came near the place where I was standing, I was terrified and fell prostrate. “Son of man,” he said to me, “understand that the vision concerns the time of the end.”

Daniel 12:4(NIV):
“4 But you, Daniel, close up and seal the words of the scroll until the time of the end. Many will go here and there to increase knowledge.”

Daniel 12:9:
"9 And he went on to say: “Go, Daniel, because the words are made secret and sealed up until the time of the end. 10 Many will cleanse themselves and whiten themselves and will be refined. And the wicked ones will certainly act wickedly, and no wicked ones at all will understand; but the ones having insight will understand.”

Can you see what the above passages and the wheat and the weeds illustration have in common? Both talk about the time of the end. The wheat and the weeds won’t become distinguishable until the time of the end and the understanding of the book of Daniel which is key to understanding that Jesus was made king in heaven in 1914 will be kept secret until the time of the end.

My point is don’t be so sure based on the fact that this form of Christianity has been around for centuries and is the most popular form of Christianity. You really need to open your heart and mind to see that the main and most popular christian doctrines like the two I mentioned above were not taught in the original christian congregation when the apostles were alive and were planted as weeds once the apostles fell asleep in death.

mse2us · May 27, 2010, 9:25pm

[quote]haney1 wrote:

[quote]BackInAction wrote:

But why didn’t God create them without the desire to want to be like God? I believe it was their desire that led them to this. This desire was created by God and then sparked by God through temptation.
[/quote]

disclaimer: I am not taking a literal stance on Gen. 1 with this post, neither am I denying it
Now that is a fascinating question. I would take the counter argument that the desire didn’t exist at first, but was instead planted by the serpent. In fact, I would argue that eve had no understanding of what it would enable her to become with out the serpent. She even added rules to the command to not eat the fruit when she said “and you must not touch it, or you will die”.

God only told them not to eat it, he never said anything about touching it.
[/quote]
You’re exactly right Haney1 except for the part when you said God said don’t touch it. He did actually say don’t touch it. But the other part is right on the money.

IrishSteel · May 27, 2010, 9:34pm

Not quite sure what you are asking for, you don’t agree that we choose to sin individually?

haney1 · May 27, 2010, 9:36pm

[quote]mse2us wrote:

[quote]haney1 wrote:

[quote]BackInAction wrote:

But why didn’t God create them without the desire to want to be like God? I believe it was their desire that led them to this. This desire was created by God and then sparked by God through temptation.
[/quote]

disclaimer: I am not taking a literal stance on Gen. 1 with this post, neither am I denying it
Now that is a fascinating question. I would take the counter argument that the desire didn’t exist at first, but was instead planted by the serpent. In fact, I would argue that eve had no understanding of what it would enable her to become with out the serpent. She even added rules to the command to not eat the fruit when she said “and you must not touch it, or you will die”.

God only told them not to eat it, he never said anything about touching it.
[/quote]
You’re exactly right Haney1 except for the part when you said God said don’t touch it. He did actually say don’t touch it. But the other part is right on the money.[/quote]

I am going to use the NIV since that is the default on Biblegateway, but I believe they all say it this way.

Genesis 2:15-17
15 The LORD God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it. 16 And the LORD God commanded the man, “You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; 17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die.”

Gen 3:3
3but from the fruit of the tree which is in the middle of the garden, God has said, ‘You shall not eat from it or touch it, or you will die.’

Now in chapter 2 God never said don’t touch, he only said don’t eat. We would agree that her touching it wouldn’t have been the sin, but it was the act of partaking of it.

I agree with trib that there was nothing special about it, it was the obedience thing.

so do you have any reason why we should attribute The don’t touch command to God?

IrishSteel · May 27, 2010, 9:37pm

[quote]mse2us wrote:

My point is don’t be so sure based on the fact that this form of Christianity has been around for centuries and is the most popular form of Christianity. You really need to open your heart and mind to see that the main and most popular christian doctrines like the two I mentioned above were not taught in the original christian congregation when the apostles were alive and were planted as weeds once the apostles fell asleep in death.
[/quote]

Thanks mse2us, and I do want to have this conversation, but the starting point will have to be the 5 points I raised earlier. Let’s start there and move forward. We can both give each other our conclusions all day, so let’s start with the basics and build up - agreed?

dmaddox · May 27, 2010, 9:42pm

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
Here’s my points on the divinity of Jesus:

The OT prophesied a DIVINE Messiah: The Jews knew that the coming Messiah was GOD himself:
biblical passages include several Messianic Psalms - Psalm 2, Psalm 110 for examples. Isaih 7:14 gives the name of the Messiah as Immanueal = GOD WITH US. Isaiah 9:6 is a messianic prophecy declaring the deity of the Messiah “wonderful counselor, mighty God”. Micah 5:2 established that the Messiah existed since eternity (a Divine trait)
Jesus is called Jehovah - and I’ll just use LORD and not Lord for the JW’s sake: Psalm 23:1 - Jehovah is my Shepherd links to John 10:11 where Jesus calls himslef the Shepherd and supported by the writer of Hebrews on hebrews 13:20 where he states " brought up from the dead the great Shepherd of the sheep through the blood of the eternal covenant, even Jesus our Jehovah". Isaiah 6:5 recounts that Jehovah was lifted up and the Apostle John says in John 12:41 that Isaiah saw Christ’s glory. Most compelling of all is Jeremiah 23: 5-6 where Jehovah declares “and this is His name by which He will be called, Jehovah our righteousness.” And the final absolutely cannot be ignored proof - Joel 2:32 “whosoever calls upon the name of Jehovah will be saved” - links to Acts 2:21 and Romans 10:13 where the only name we can call on for salvation is Jesus the Messiah - thus Jesus is Jehovah. (there cannot be two names, unless they are the same person).
Jesus possess all of the incommunnicable traits of God:

Eternal - Alpha and omega, beginning and the end - also see Micah 5:2
omnipresent - matthew 18:20 and matthew 28:20
omniscient - john 16:30, john 21:17, Revelation 2:23
omnipotent - Philippians 3:21, hebrews 1:3
immutable - hebrews 1:20-12, Hebrews 13:8

and finally Colossians 2:9 - for in Him all the Fulness of Deity dwells in bodily form.

Jesus does the work of God:

Created all things - John 1:3, Colossianss 1:16 and 17
Acts as divine providence - john 17:2, Ephesians 1:22
Forgives sins - Matthew 9:2-7. Mark 2:5-10
Raises the dead and conducts final judgement - John 5:22, Acts 10:42, Acts 17:31 and 2 Timothy 4:1

Jesus received worship - (Moses’ Law - worship no other gods") - Matthew 14:33, john 9:38, Matthew 28:9-18
and back the point that dmaddox has been trying to make - Hebrews 1:6 “and let all the angels of God (thus excluding Jesus as an angel) WORSHIP Him” - only one being is worthy of worship and that is God himself.

now - there are two other points - the Bible declares him to be God and He claims to be God, but those points have been endlessly debated here - I think my preceeding 5 points more than establish that Jesus is the Divine Messiah and thus God[/quote]

Quoted for mse2us.

haney1 · May 27, 2010, 9:43pm

[quote]honest_lifter wrote:

[quote]haney1 wrote:

[quote]honest_lifter wrote:

This stuck out to me. I apologize if this is out of context, and if it is, please just let me know.

What about her would have made her the target? How would Satan have known? He can’t read minds.[/quote]

purely anecdotal, but here are my reasons

for eve to see the tree she the fruit on that tree, she had to be near it.
She added rules to what God actually said. Which technically makes eve the inventor of the first religion.
I doubt Adam showed any interest in it.
Eve never told Adam where it came from but he knew what it was.
That would mean Adam wasn’t tempted by the fruit, but he was accepting eve’s fate as his own.

Once again this is just opinion based on my personal choices, as well as the choices of people around me, coupled with a few observations and alot of speculation.

I don’t think he read her mind, but I think she tipped her hand a little bit.[/quote]

If I could single out point 2. What rules did she add?[/quote]

The do not touch part. Only eve said that, not God. Atleast the Bible doesn’t give him credit for saying it.

honest_lifter · May 27, 2010, 10:58pm

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
Not quite sure what you are asking for, you don’t agree that we choose to sin individually?[/quote]

Well, obviously I don’t agree that we can choose to sin. I put earlier, based on Romans 5:12 that our hand was forced, and we inherited sin.

My question, hopefully put more direct here is this: Romans 3:23 says “for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God”. Why do you add the word choose in there?

JoabSonOfZeruiah · May 27, 2010, 11:13pm

Will read and post tonight, nice post tiribulus

honest_lifter · May 28, 2010, 12:25am

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]honest_lifter wrote:

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
I meant what is your next question based on my answer - was trying to keep the flow moving.

So your question would then be - why do i believe my choice to sin as an agent of free will is my responsibility and not that of Adam’s

Well, you just gave the answer in your verse. Adam sinned and now sin was a reality in the world - the first sin was committed and now it was no longer just an option, but sin now existed as a cold hard fact. So Adam’s choice allowed sin to enter God’s creation. The penalty for anyone who choses to sin is death. Death was only a concept, now it had become a reality - the first animals were killed to provide covering for Adam and Eve.

and the balance of the verse proves my point - Death now comes to all men, because all men sin. I chose to sin, death is my punishment just as it was for Adam. Christ is the Perfect man without sin and thus his death was true sacrifice because he never had to die.

And so you prove my statement is accurate - I chose to sin[/quote]

Thank you! OK, do you feel you could go through life w/o sinning? Do you think that choice is physically possible?[/quote]

It’s possible, but highly unlikely. [/quote]

I will ask a similar question: Why do you feel we can. What is your basis for that?

honest_lifter · May 28, 2010, 12:32am

[quote]haney1 wrote:

[quote]honest_lifter wrote:

[quote](indulge me in my assumption) I think you and HL are missing the bigger picture in my question. Eve knew what would happen if she did it, but she still did it. My 13 year old step daughter knows what will happen when she starts talking back, but for some reason she still does it. I find Eve’s as well as my daughters choice to be interesting.

Also not all things are tempting to all people. For instance God could tell me to never eat fish and I could easily comply with that. Fish has never been appealing to me, I have ate it twice in my life and both times were when I was much older. I only did it because my wife asked me to try it.

since I have laid to rest some of the other questions concerning free will, I have turned my attention to Eve and her reasoning for doing it. So forgive the rambling, I rarely get to bounce this idea off of someone.[/quote]

This is a perfect example of the direct correlation between faith and actions.

It intrigues you that she would do this even knowing the truth. However, does this not just suggest that she didn’t have true faith in what God had said? [/quote]

I would say no. I am sure she had faith that God would do what he said, just like my 13 year old daughter knows what I will do when she tests me. I would say it is a direct correlation to eve wanting something she couldn’t have. Just like my daughter talks back because she wants to express herself in a tone that lifts her up.

So I would say Eve wanted what she couldn’t have and just needed a little nudge in that direction. Most likely the reason why she was the target.

Just my opinion, but I do think about this line of thought often.[/quote]

Just to establish a base thought: Do you believe that we need works to receive our final reward (heavenly or earthly, whatever the case may be)? Not that works are ALL that gets us that reward, but just that they are required.

JoabSonOfZeruiah · May 28, 2010, 1:43am

[quote]honest_lifter wrote:

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
Not quite sure what you are asking for, you don’t agree that we choose to sin individually?[/quote]

Well, obviously I don’t agree that we can choose to sin. I put earlier, based on Romans 5:12 that our hand was forced, and we inherited sin.

My question, hopefully put more direct here is this: Romans 3:23 says “for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God”. Why do you add the word choose in there?[/quote]

Because of Adam and Eves sin we all suffer the first death, in that sense we didn’t have a choice in. But the second death is the punishment by the LORD for ones sin; if one didn’t chose to sin it would be unjust to punish them(second death) for it.
edited
Ezekiel 18:20 The soul who sins is the one who will die. The son will not share the guilt of the father, nor will the father share the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous man will be credited to him, and the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against him.

honest_lifter · May 28, 2010, 1:53am

[quote]JoabSonOfZeruiah wrote:

[quote]honest_lifter wrote:

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
Not quite sure what you are asking for, you don’t agree that we choose to sin individually?[/quote]

Well, obviously I don’t agree that we can choose to sin. I put earlier, based on Romans 5:12 that our hand was forced, and we inherited sin.

My question, hopefully put more direct here is this: Romans 3:23 says “for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God”. Why do you add the word choose in there?[/quote]
Because of Adam and Eves sin we all suffer the first death, in that sense we didn’t have a choice in. But the second death is the punishment by the LORD for ones sin; if one didn’t chose to sin it would be unjust to punish them(second death) for it.
edited
Ezekiel 18:20 The soul who sins is the one who will die. The son will not share the guilt of the father, nor will the father share the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous man will be credited to him, and the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against him. [/quote]

Could you describe to me your take on what the First Death and the Second Death are? I have my view of what they are, but I would like to know yours.

haney1 · May 28, 2010, 2:05am