Did Adam sin?

[smaneck]

Adam KNEW what he was doing. Adam was not deceived, Eve was. Adam failed on at least 2 fronts. First he failed to give Eve the word of G-d and ONLY the word of G-d. He ADDED to what Adonai said to him... this allowed Lucifer to deceive Eve when she touched the fruit and nothing happens to her.

There is no reference to Lucifer in Genesis. Lucifer is found Isaiah 14 where it refers to the King of Babylon, not Satan (who also is not mentioned in Genesis.)
[/QUOTE]

 

[smaneck]

I completely disagree with your 2nd century dating of Jude and I believe it is a fringe view and is not mainstream as you attempt to assert that it is.

Sorry, it is standard academic scholarship which holds this. But since you don't accept standard research in the field of science, we can hardly expect you to accept it in biblical scholarship. However, I do think that Enoch proved more formative in Christian thinking about the demonic than Via Crucis seems willing to give it credit for.

I think you are in fundamental GROSS error when you assert that scripture is errant. If scripture has error then G-d does not exist it is just that simple. Every Word of scripture is truth and you base your life upon it or its not and if not, its a complete waste of time.

Just how do you think the Bible was compiled? Do you think God did it Himself?

Yeshua said I am the way, the truth, and the life, no one comes to the father but by me.
You will see all through the Hebrew scriptures that the Torah is called the way, the truth and the life. The tree of life in the Garden was the Torah. Yeshua is the Torah become flesh. Every Sabbath when the Torah scroll is placed back in its Ark regardless of you are Messianic, Orthodox, Conservative or Reformed... Every Jewish synagogue quotes Proverbs 3:17-18 speaking of the Torah: Her ways are pleasant ways And all her paths are peace. She is a tree of life to those who take hold of her, And happy are all who hold her fast.

You realize the Torah is just the first five books of the Bible?

You can try and twist the word becoming flesh all you want but at the end of the day the author's of the Gospels were JEWS, speaking about a Jewish culture with Jewish customs writing about a JEWISH MESSIAH to a JEWISH audience.

Luke wasn't a Jew.

G-d is either in control or he is not. If he is in control then no matter how messed up, how flawed how politically motivated the council of Nica was G-D's perfect will decreed the outcome regarding scripture.

And you know this how? Contrary to the common myth it was not the Council of Nicaea that decided on the books of the Bible, although it happened around the same time. Constantine's mother St. Helena had commissioned the building of fifty cathedrals throughout the Empire and wanted a Bible for each one. So Constantine ordered the publication of fifty Bibles. Christians were still arguing about which books to include or exclude but if the Emperor wants fifty bibles, he gets fifty bibles. So they gave him the best they could agree on at the time. If you make fifty copies of anything in antiquity, let alone a text as mammoth as the Bible, it will automatically become the standard text.

 

[smaneck]

The fact is that both man and animal DNA became utterly corrupted I believe as a result of mankind manipulating DNA.

Funny, I can't recall the Bible saying anything about DNA.

This illuminates the statement by G-d about how ALL FLESH had corrupted its way. After all HOW could an animal become "corrupted in its way?" The Only way this could have happened is if man was creating beings that were a perversion by mixing human DNA with animal DNA, or the DNA of animals not closely related (ex birds with reptiles or reptiles with mammals) resulting in the creation hybrids and trans-human beings.

My, you have a wild imagination! Where are you getting this from? It certainly isn't in the Bible.

Satan from the beginning wanted to corrupt mankind's DNA as a means to prevent the coming of Messiah.

A good story, but again not Biblical.

The key to all of this is something Yeshua says in Matthew: "For the coming of the Son of Man will be just like the days of Noah. "For as in those days before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark, and they did not understand until the flood came and took them all away; so will the coming of the Son of Man be."

when you look at the surface of this it seem like nothing is really being said. What is unique about eating, drinking, marrying and giving in marriage that we can use to identify anything as special or unique? The answer is we cant. For those things are true of EVERY generation... but why say "As in the days of Noah" and there in lies the key. What is unique about TODAY verse every generation since the Flood until THIS generation??? Man has rediscovered how to manipulate DNA. We hear science touting trans humanism and presenting it as something to achieve... just like the days of Noah.

Okay, now I get this is some end of the world scenario. If Jesus was referring to DNA manipulation he wouldn't have said 'eating, drinking and marrying' instead.

What was the tower of Bable really about? Do you really think that Adonai was ticked about a building?

That's what the Bible says.

They wanted to recreate the science they lost in the flood.

That's what the Bible doesn't say.

When you see Genesis in this light

Why would I read the Bible in light of a fantasy for there is neither scientific support nor does it even agree with scripture?

 

[smaneck]

You have not cited any scripture in any of your responses. I have quoted SEVERAL in this thread. Your response is summed up by saying

But none of them supported your assertions.

 

[BukiRob]

Sorry, it is standard academic scholarship which holds this. But since you don't accept standard research in the field of science, we can hardly expect you to accept it in biblical scholarship. However, I do think that Enoch proved more formative in Christian thinking about the demonic than Via Crucis seems willing to give it credit for.

Utterly untrue. I cited 3 sources for the dates I suggest. All three are the more widely held view it is YOU who dont want to accept standard research. Ive seen both of you yapping about these later dates yet no sourcing. https://bible.org/seriespage/26-jude-introduction-argument-and-outline Dr Wallace dates the book 66-67. Dr Charles Swindoll( Phd Theology) dates it between 65-80 Theopedia dates it 65AD. Catholic encyclopidia dates the book of Jude at 64/65 AD. Biblehub.com (Jay Smith) Dates Jude at 75AD. Asbury bible commentary doesnt give a specific date but states "The opponents of Jude, however, are similar to the incipient gnostics Paul addressed in the a.d. 50s in 1 Corinthians, as Thompson and Rose acknowledge. Jude can be dated early enough to allow authorship by the brother of James and Jesus."

Without question the most damaging evidence to a later date argument is its inclusion in the Muratorian Canon (170AD) Clementin of Rome (96 AD) alluded to its authenticity as well as Clement of Alexandria (200 A.D.)

Again the very late dates suggested by you and other are simply NOT in keeping with mainstrem biblical researchers and completely avoids obvious clues to its apostolic age dating.

Just how do you think the Bible was compiled? Do you think God did it Himself?



You realize the Torah is just the first five books of the Bible?

So, you are going to now tell a messianic Jew what is and is not Torah?! Yes literately it is the first 5 books. Jews use the term Torah to describe most of the Tanakh

Luke wasn't a Jew.

There is legitimate debate that Luke was a Jew. Luke traditionally has been thought as a gentile but there are serious problems with this position. First Gentiles and Jews did not mix. A Jew would have become "ceremonially unclean" just by being in the home of a goyim. Thomas McCall (ThM Old Testament Studies, ThD Semitic Languages and Old Testament Studies) correctly points out that there really is no evidence to support the tradition that Luke is a gentile. His gospel shows a close relationship with Mary Yeshua's mother. The idea that a gentile would have a close relationship with a Jew at that time is preposterously absurd. It simply would not have happened at least not in Israel.

And you know this how? Contrary to the common myth it was not the Council of Nicaea that decided on the books of the Bible, although it happened around the same time. Constantine's mother St. Helena had commissioned the building of fifty cathedrals throughout the Empire and wanted a Bible for each one. So Constantine ordered the publication of fifty Bibles. Christians were still arguing about which books to include or exclude but if the Emperor wants fifty bibles, he gets fifty bibles. So they gave him the best they could agree on at the time. If you make fifty copies of anything in antiquity, let alone a text as mammoth as the Bible, it will automatically become the standard text.

Muratorian Fragment is dated between 150-200 and lists virtually all the new testament (missing only James, 1 John and Matthew.) It also includes letters/books that are not inspired

There is no reference to Lucifer in Genesis. Lucifer is found Isaiah 14 where it refers to the King of Babylon, not Satan (who also is not mentioned in Genesis.)

I never said SCRIPTURE called the Serpent Lucifer or Satan but they are all the same entity.

 

[Cassiopeia]

One more time.
Disobedience means we are transgressing Gods laws. One way to transgress Gods law is to do so is to willfully by choice and knowledge knowing that it is wrong and still going ahead and doing so. This type of disobedience takes us further from Christ. When we do this we are selfish lustful and deceitful. This is sin. If we disobey Gods laws because we were not aware of just didn't understand the purpose or the consequences this is also transgression but is not a sin. It makes no difference to justice all it sees is a transgression. The consequences or punishment is the same.

Come now fatboys, what of mercy? What did our Savior die for if not to temper justice?

 

[smaneck]

Utterly untrue. I cited 3 sources for the dates I suggest. All three are the more widely held view it is YOU who dont want to accept standard research.

I did specific standard academic research.

Ive seen both of you yapping about these later dates yet no sourcing.

All you had to do was ask:

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/jude.html

https://bible.org/seriespage/26-jude-introduction-argument-and-outline Dr Wallace dates the book 66-67. Dr Charles Swindoll( Phd Theology) dates it between 65-80 Theopedia dates it 65AD. Catholic encyclopidia dates the book of Jude at 64/65 AD. Biblehub.com (Jay Smith) Dates Jude at 75AD. Asbury bible commentary doesnt give a specific date but states "The opponents of Jude, however, are similar to the incipient gnostics Paul addressed in the a.d. 50s in 1 Corinthians, as Thompson and Rose acknowledge. Jude can be dated early enough to allow authorship by the brother of James and Jesus."

Really? And which Christian gnostics were around 50 A.D.? All the ones I know of lived towards the very end of the first century and the beginning of the second. All of your sources appear to be Christian apologists more rather than recognized scholars in academia.

Again the very late dates suggested by you and other are simply NOT in keeping with mainstrem biblical researchers and completely avoids obvious clues to its apostolic age dating.

You seem to think that mainstream biblical scholarship is what comes out of Dallas Theological Seminary. It is not.

So, you are going to now tell a messianic Jew what is and is not Torah?! Yes literately it is the first 5 books. Jews use the term Torah to describe most of the Tanakh

Jews usually know the difference.

There is legitimate debate that Luke was a Jew.

You are the first person I've ever heard suggest he was not, however, there is apparently at least one member of the Jesus Seminar who believes Luke was a Hellenized Jew.

Luke traditionally has been thought as a gentile but there are serious problems with this position. First Gentiles and Jews did not mix. A Jew would have become "ceremonially unclean" just by being in the home of a goyim. Thomas McCall (ThM Old Testament Studies, ThD Semitic Languages and Old Testament Studies) correctly points out that there really is no evidence to support the tradition that Luke is a gentile. His gospel shows a close relationship with Mary Yeshua's mother. The idea that a gentile would have a close relationship with a Jew at that time is preposterously absurd. It simply would not have happened at least not in Israel.

Uh, we are talking about Christians after all. Luke is not that early in any case. The estimated dates for its composition are between 80-130 A.D.

I never said SCRIPTURE called the Serpent Lucifer or Satan but they are all the same entity.

Really, and how exactly did the King of Babylon become the devil?

 

[fatboys]

Come now fatboys, what of mercy? What did our Savior die for if not to temper justice?

That is the perfection of the plan. When we disobey we would be utterly lost from any chance to progress towards perfection if it were not for the atonement. This was the plan before the earth was even created. Before we came here we told that in order to continue to progress we needed mortality. We needed a physical body that would be subject to death. Death is just another part of the process we go through to gain perfection. None of this would be possible if it were not for the atonement

 

[Niblo]

Hello Susan,

‘Jude who calls himself ‘brother of James’, v. 1, is also, it appears, one of the ‘brothers of the Lord’, Mt 13:55 and par. There is no reason to identify him with the apostle of the same name, Lk 6:16; Ac 1:13; cf. Jn 14:22, especially as he refers to himself as being outside the apostolic body, v. 17. Nor is it likely that an anonymous author would have adopted the name, since Jude was not sufficiently prominent to lend authority to a letter. The letter was accepted as canonical by many of the Churches as early as 200, though its use of two apocryphal sources, the ‘Book of Enoch’ in vv. 6,14seq., and the ‘Assumption of Moses’ in v.19, had prompted certain hesitations; but to quote contemporary Jewish writings is hardly equivalent to recognising their inspiration.

‘The letter must be dated fairly late in the first century: the apostles are quoted as belonging the past, vv 17seq.: the faith is now something fixed and ‘handed on once for all’, v.3; and the author appears to be acquainted with Paul’s letters. It can be firmly dated to the last years of the apostolic age.’

This is quote from the Jerusalem Bible, produced by the renowned Dominican biblical scholars of L'École Biblique in Jerusalem.

Have a good day,

Paul

 

[smaneck]

Hello Susan,

‘Jude who calls himself ‘brother of James’, v. 1, is also, it appears, one of the ‘brothers of the Lord’, Mt 13:55 and par. There is no reason to identify him with the apostle of the same name, Lk 6:16; Ac 1:13; cf. Jn 14:22, especially as he refers to himself as being outside the apostolic body, v. 17. Nor is it likely that an anonymous author would have adopted the name, since Jude was not sufficiently prominent to lend authority to a letter. The letter was accepted as canonical by many of the Churches as early as 200, though its use of two apocryphal sources, the ‘Book of Enoch’ in vv. 6,14seq., and the ‘Assumption of Moses’ in v.19, had prompted certain hesitations; but to quote contemporary Jewish writings is hardly equivalent to recognising their inspiration.

‘The letter must be dated fairly late in the first century: the apostles are quoted as belonging the past, vv 17seq.: the faith is now something fixed and ‘handed on once for all’, v.3; and the author appears to be acquainted with Paul’s letters. It can be firmly dated to the last years of the apostolic age.’

This is quote from the Jerusalem Bible, produced by the renowned Dominican biblical scholars of L'École Biblique in Jerusalem.

Have a good day,

Paul

Thanks. I think the New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia which was being quoted earlier was written in the early part of the 20th century as I recall. It reflects very dated scholarship.

 

[Niblo]

Thanks. I think the New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia which was being quoted earlier was written in the early part of the 20th century as I recall. It reflects very dated scholarship.

You're very welcome! As for the New Advent Catholic Encyclopaedia: The Dominicans have the better argument!

Bart D. Ehrman writes of this Epistle:

‘Five persons are named Jude (or Judas - same Greek word) in the New Testament, the most infamous of whom, of course, is Judas Iscariot. One of the others is Jude, the son of Mary and Joseph the carpenter, one of the four brothers of Jesus mentioned in Mark 6:4. The author of this short letter is almost certainly claiming to be that particular Jude, because he identifies himself as “Jude, the brother of James.” Since most ancient people did not have last names, an author with a common name would typically identify himself (so that you would know which Jude he was) by mentioning a known relative, almost always his father. But here the author names not his father, but his brother, James. This must mean that James is the member of the family who is particularly well known.

‘And what James in the early church was especially well known? The most famous James was the head of the first church, the church in Jerusalem. This James was the brother of Jesus, mentioned throughout the New Testament, for example, by the apostle Paul on several occasions (see Gal. 1:19). If this Jude is identifying himself as the brother of that James, then he is, by implication, obviously the brother of Jesus. But it is almost certain that the historical Jude did not write this book. Its author is living during a later period in the history of the church, when the churches are already well established, and when false teachers have infiltrated them and need to be rooted out. In fact, the author speaks of “remembering the predictions of the apostles” (v. 17) as if they, the apostles, lived a long time before. In contrast to them, he is living in “the last days” that they predicted (v. 18). This is someone living after the apostolic age.

‘There is another reason for being relatively certain that Jude did not write the book (referred to earlier, in Chapter 2). Like the lower-class Galilean peasant Peter, the lower-class Galilean peasant Jude could almost certainly not write. Let alone write in Greek. Let alone compose a rhetorically effective letter evidencing detailed knowledge of ancient Jewish texts in Greek. This is an author claiming to be Jude in order to get Christians to read his book and to stand opposed to false teachers who hold a different view of the faith.

(From the book: ‘Forged; Writing in the Name of God - Why the Bible’s Authors Are Not Who We Think They Are’).

 

[smaneck]

‘There is another reason for being relatively certain that Jude did not write the book (referred to earlier, in Chapter 2). Like the lower-class Galilean peasant Peter, the lower-class Galilean peasant Jude could almost certainly not write. Let alone write in Greek.

Well, if he was Jesus' brother he would presumably been an artisan like his father and brother, not a peasant. And there is at least some evidence that Jesus could read, but probably not in Greek. Of course, Peter wasn't a peasant either. He was a fisherman.

Sorry, can't help myself. I was born persnickety.

 

[Niblo]

Well, if he was Jesus' brother he would presumably been an artisan like his father and brother, not a peasant. And there is at least some evidence that Jesus could read, but probably not in Greek. Of course, Peter wasn't a peasant either. He was a fisherman.

Sorry, can't help myself. I was born persnickety.

Hi. No need to be sorry. I agree with you. These were artisans and fishermen, and not peasants. That being said, it is highly likely that Ehrman is correct in everything else that he says; and we ought not to allow his use of the word 'peasant' to distract us from that!

 

[outsidethecamp]

If you put a gun in front of a 2 year old and told the child not to touch it.... If when you then leave the room the baby picks up the gun, plays with it, and shots himself dead; whose fault is it? Yours or the baby's?

Though Adam did not sin, he could not escape the consequences of his actions.

I see it as more like a choice between two actions, each having their own results and consequences. To Adam and Eve, there was no bad or wrong choice, as they did not even understand the difference between right and wrong. I see it as God "priming the pump" when it came to their free agency; forcing them to make one of two choices "on their own" otherwise it would not of been true free agency. Had they truely of understood who God the Father was, or who Satan was, they may never have made any choices at all and simply blindly followed God without ever exercising their free agency.

Luckily they made the "BETTER" choice.

I don't think God created Adam with a toddler mentality. After all, he named the animals, and wouldn't it be unjust and unfair of God to tell him something if he did not have the capacity to obey it? Adam chose not to obey and he was given full disclosure of the consequences.

Man has not and will never be in a position to accuse God of unrighteousness.

Psalms 145:17
The Lord is righteous in all his ways, and holy in all his works.

 

[fatboys]

I don't think God created Adam with a toddler mentality. After all, he named the animals, and wouldn't it be unjust and unfair of God to tell him something if he did not have the capacity to obey it? Adam chose not to obey and he was given full disclosure of the consequences.

Man has not and will never be in a position to accuse God of unrighteousness.

Psalms 145:17
The Lord is righteous in all his ways, and holy in all his works.

We never said that they had a toddler mentality but that they did not have the experience or knowledge of good or evil. If they were to judge whether or not something is good then how would they know unless they experienced the difference? They were smart but innocent to know whether or not satan was lying to them.

 

[outsidethecamp]

We never said that they had a toddler mentality but that they did not have the experience or knowledge of good or evil. If they were to judge whether or not something is good then how would they know unless they experienced the difference? They were smart but innocent to know whether or not satan was lying to them.

They are supposed to obey.

You don't learn about evil by experiencing it. You learn by believing God's Word. My wife became a Christian at 12 years old and knows the difference between good and evil and obeying the Lord or disobeying Him. She did not learn about it by giving up her innocence and experiencing evil. You judge whether something is good or not by believing what God says about it.

How do you know if Satan is lying to you? Do you try it before you believe God?

 

[smaneck]

Hi. No need to be sorry. I agree with you. These were artisans and fishermen, and not peasants. That being said, it is highly likely that Ehrman is correct in everything else that he says; and we ought not to allow his use of the word 'peasant' to distract us from that!

Ehrman is simply using the term peasant rather loosely, I agree. The consensus of academic scholarship is clearly behind him. We have to expect that Dallas Theological Seminary with its Chancellor Charles Swindall would not agree. But they don't form the consensus.

 

[light upon light]

This misunderstanding primarily comes as a result of a deeply flawed assumption concerning both the intelligence and technology of the Antediluvian civilizations or more correctly the pre flood world.

How come the glaciers left behind geological evidence of their presence thousands of years ago, but there is no evidence of a global, worldwide flood?

 

[fatboys]

How come the glaciers left behind geological evidence of their presence thousands of years ago, but there is no evidence of a global, worldwide flood?

It didn't last millions of years

 

[fatboys]

They are supposed to obey.

You don't learn about evil by experiencing it. You learn by believing God's Word. My wife became a Christian at 12 years old and knows the difference between good and evil and obeying the Lord or disobeying Him. She did not learn about it by giving up her innocence and experiencing evil. You judge whether something is good or not by believing what God says about it.

How do you know if Satan is lying to you? Do you try it before you believe God?

They did what God planned them to do. The God I have faith in foes not make mistakes and then have to make a different.