Did Adam sin?

[fatboys]

Show that the greek words for sin and transgression mean what you say they do.

Already did

 

[drstevej]

Already did

link?

 

[fatboys]

link?

I showed you a dictionary meaning in the Greek go look it up your self

 

[ChetSinger]

As I said justice does not difereniate between knowing and not knowing. Disobedience brings the same consequences. So through one man brought sin or imperfection into the world. The world and mankind fell from transgression or disobedience. It did not matter whether they knew the law and understood it or did not know the law by not understanding it the law the consequences were the same.

Paul says flat out in Romans 5:16 that Adam sinned:

And the free gift is not like the result of that one man's sin. For the judgment following one trespass brought condemnation, but the free gift following many trespasses brought justification.

I don't understand your resistance to this. Does the LDS teach that Adam didn't sin?

 

[drstevej]

I showed you a dictionary meaning in the Greek go look it up your self

Can you translate this for me?

οὓς δὲ προώρισεν τούτους καὶ ἐκάλεσεν καὶ οὓς ἐκάλεσεν τούτους καὶ ἐδικαίωσεν οὓς δὲ ἐδικαίωσεν τούτους καὶ ἐδόξασεν

 

[fatboys]

Can you translate this for me?

οὓς δὲ προώρισεν τούτους καὶ ἐκάλεσεν καὶ οὓς ἐκάλεσεν τούτους καὶ ἐδικαίωσεν οὓς δὲ ἐδικαίωσεν τούτους καὶ ἐδόξασεν

I bet your a lot of fun at parties

 

[fatboys]

Paul says flat out in Romans 5:16 that Adam sinned:


I don't understand your resistance to this. Does the LDS teach that Adam didn't sin?

How could Adam sin when he did not know the difference between good and evil. When he did not know the understand what death was or what disobedience was. God gave him two commandments in which God knew that he didn't understand either. He was innocent like a child. What Adam did do was disobey like a little child does. Can a little child sin? Christ wants us to be as little children and come unto him. Humble and submissive.

 

[drstevej]

I bet your a lot of fun at parties

So you do not know greek yet are teaching us the meaning of greek terms?

 

[danny ski]

\He was assigned a grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death, though he had done no violence, nor was any deceit in his mouth.

- We know that Israel was violent. It was because sheer violence that Israel was established in the first place. Israel is not blameless.



No comparison. This was righteous anger. Those trading in the temples were committing blasphemy. Now the Israelites, they left corpses everywhere trying to conquer lands that weren't theirs. Yes, Israel was occupied before the Israelites even got to Israel. Not to mention just how evil the current Israel is. What deceit came out of Jesus' mouth? Was Israel violent? Yes or no? If you say yes, then this cannot be referring to Israel.





Actually what I'm contending is that Isaiah 53 is about Jesus. Clearly this is about Israel.




That is in reference to when Jesus was led to be crucified. He did not defend Himself. He had no resistance. Israel is not like that.

- The whole of Israel died with the wicked yet Israel was wicked herself? Israel was not peaceful and was deceitful. The whole of Israel did not die.





Can't change the fact that Israel was not peaceful and was deceitful.

- So Isaiah says that the suffering servant was offered as a guilt offering for sin. Since Israel was full of sin, it could not be Israel that is the guilt offering. The suffering servant has killed and brought back to life because of the sins of transgressors. Sounds like Jesus.





Please stop dodging the part that Israel cannot be be a guilt offering. The word for offering is asham referring to the Law where the offering had to be without blemish. It most certainly does not apply to Israel. I'm just like to mean that in verse 8, it says the suffering servant was cut off. Cut off means execution. Israel was not executed. Now about seed. It was probably meant in a figurative way.

“. . . the final promise that he will see his offspring and that his work will bear fruit in the end would imply that he lives on in the prophetic following dedicated to perpetuating his message.”


You should not have a problem with deaths being mentioned in the plural. It was the same with Israel. The Lord addressed it in the plural and singular as well.

Isaiah 43:10
"You are my witnesses," declares the LORD, "and my servant whom I have chosen, so that you may know and believe me and understand that I am he. Before me no god was formed, nor will there be one after me.

So in Isaiah, the suffering servant which is Jesus is referred to in the singular and associated with the plural deaths.

Another example is

Ezekiel 28:8

They shall bring thee down to the pit, and thou shalt die the deaths of them that are slain in the midst of the seas.

So we can see a person can die "deaths".

"Babylonian Talmud: "The Messiah --what is his name?...The Rabbis say, The Leper Scholar, as it is said, `surely he has borne our griefs and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him a leper, smitten of God and afflicted...'" (Sanhedrin 98b)"





It appears both you and me forgot about the leper part.

"The Talmud also "records" a supposed discourse between the great Rabbi Joshua ben Levi and the prophet Elijah. The rabbi asks "When will the Messiah come?" And "By what sign may I recognize him?" Elijah tells the rabbi to go to the gate of the city where he will find the Messiah sitting among the poor lepers. The Messiah, says the prophet, sits bandaging his leprous sores one at a time, unlike the rest of the sufferers, who bandage them all at once. Why? Because he might be needed at any time and would not want to be delayed. Elijah says he will come "Today, if you will listen to his voice." (Sanhedrin 98a)

Okay, so this is definitely not about Israel.

"Where did this "Leper Messiah" idea come from? This odd concept must have arisen from the rabbis as they struggled with Isaiah 53. They either saw the Messiah's sufferings as leprosy or split the Messiah in two, one a sufferer and one a conqueror. (See the section on the "Two-Messiahs" theory.) The Hebrew words in Isaiah 53:4, stricken (nagua) and smitten (mukkay) are interpreted as referring to a leprous condition. Either word can refer to being stricken with a disease, yet they need not be understood in that way, much like our English work "stricken" can refer to stricken with disease or just simply stricken, as with a fist. Either way, Jesus was stricken. He was certainly made sick by the Roman floggings and beatings and the tortuous ordeal of crucifixion. He was certainly stricken with the Roman lash. As a leper was despised and rejected of men, so also was the Messiah despised and rejected. And still today there are many who see Jesus as being as repugnant as leprosy and his followers as those who should be isolated and shunned."

http://www.chaim.org/leper.htm

Where did you get the idea that Isaiah 53 may be talking about Moses, David, etc?

"Rabbi Moses Maimonides: "What is the manner of Messiah's advent....there shall rise up one of whom none have known before, and signs and wonders which they shall see performed by him will be the proofs of his true origin; for the Almighty, where he declares to us his mind upon this matter, says, `Behold a man whose name is the Branch, and he shall branch forth out of his place' (Zech. 6:12). And Isaiah speaks similarly of the time when he shall appear, without father or mother or family being known, He came up as a sucker before him, and as a root out of dry earth, etc....in the words of Isaiah, when describing the manner in which kings will harken to him, At him kings will shut their mouth; for that which had not been told them have they seen, and that which they had not heard they have perceived."(From the Letter to the South (Yemen), quoted in The Fifty-third Chapter of Isaiah According to the Jewish Interpreters, Ktav Publishing House, 1969, Volume 2, pages 374-5)"




Messiah:

"the promised deliverer of the Jewish nation prophesied in the Hebrew Bible."

Israel can't deliver Israel.

"Rabbi Mosheh Kohen Ibn Crispin: This rabbi described those who interpret Isaiah 53 as referring to Israel as those: "having forsaken the knowledge of our Teachers, and inclined after the `stubbornness of their own hearts,' and of their own opinion, I am pleased to interpret it, in accordance with the teaching of our Rabbis, of the King Messiah....This prophecy was delivered by Isaiah at the divine command for the purpose of making known to us something about the nature of the future Messiah, who is to come and deliver Israel, and his life from the day when he arrives at discretion until his advent as a redeemer, in order that if anyone should arise claiming to be himself the Messiah, we may reflect, and look to see whether we can observe in him any resemblance to the traits described here; if there is any such resemblance, then we may believe that he is the Messiah our righteousness; but if not, we cannot do so." (From his commentary on Isaiah, quoted in The Fifty-third Chapter of Isaiah According to the Jewish Interpreters, Ktav Publishing House, 1969, Volume 2, pages 99-114.)"




"Rabbi Mosheh Kohen Ibn Crispin: This rabbi described those who interpret Isaiah 53 as referring to Israel as those: "having forsaken the knowledge of our Teachers, and inclined after the `stubbornness of their own hearts,' and of their own opinion, I am pleased to interpret it, in accordance with the teaching of our Rabbis, of the King Messiah....This prophecy was delivered by Isaiah at the divine command for the purpose of making known to us something about the nature of the future Messiah, who is to come and deliver Israel, and his life from the day when he arrives at discretion until his advent as a redeemer, in order that if anyone should arise claiming to be himself the Messiah, we may reflect, and look to see whether we can observe in him any resemblance to the traits described here; if there is any such resemblance, then we may believe that he is the Messiah our righteousness; but if not, we cannot do so." (From his commentary on Isaiah, quoted in The Fifty-third Chapter of Isaiah According to the Jewish Interpreters, Ktav Publishing House, 1969, Volume 2, pages 99-114.)"



Sure, give me those sites. I am assuming you are expecting a messiah to redeem Israel?



That is wrong. There are very few Jews out there that come from the Abrahamic line. In fact, they come from the Khazar Jews.

"The “Jews” of America, Europe, and Israel are descendants not of Father Abraham but of King Bulan and the people of ancient Khazaria. Khazaria was an amalgam of Turkic clans who once lived in the Caucasus (Southern Russia) in the early centuries CE. These Turkic peoples were pagans who converted to Judaism in the eighth century. As converts, they called themselves “Jews,” but none of their blood comes from Israel."

How else do you think you get white Jews?


http://www.texemarrs.com/042013/jews_not_descendants_of_abraham.htm

Khazars? Everything you said on these pages has zero meaning, now. Ashkenazim are not Khazars, that is genetics taking-not some kooks. The fact that you'd believe in that little gem of overt anti Semitism really disqualifies you from any civilized discussion. Good bye.

 

[fatboys]

So you do not know greek yet are teaching us the meaning of greek terms?

I know how to read those who do know
Sorry I was writing this while moving sprinkler pipe early this morning

 

[ChetSinger]

How could Adam sin when he did not know the difference between good and evil. When he did not know the understand what death was or what disobedience was. God gave him two commandments in which God knew that he didn't understand either. He was innocent like a child. What Adam did do was disobey like a little child does. Can a little child sin? Christ wants us to be as little children and come unto him. Humble and submissive.

He sinned because Paul said he did. I think your definition of sin isn't aligned with Paul's.

 

[smaneck]

\He was assigned a grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death, though he had done no violence, nor was any deceit in his mouth.

- We know that Israel was violent. It was because sheer violence that Israel was established in the first place. Israel is not blameless.

Israel was not the aggressor when the Babylonians conquered and enslaved them. And that is what this passage is talking about.

Was Israel violent? Yes or no?

Not at the time.


That is wrong. There are very few Jews out there that come from the Abrahamic line. In fact, they come from the Khazar Jews.

"The “Jews” of America, Europe, and Israel are descendants not of Father Abraham but of King Bulan and the people of ancient Khazaria. Khazaria was an amalgam of Turkic clans who once lived in the Caucasus (Southern Russia) in the early centuries CE. These Turkic peoples were pagans who converted to Judaism in the eighth century. As converts, they called themselves “Jews,” but none of their blood comes from Israel."

You realize you are quoting from an antisemitic website? The problem with Eran Elhaik study is that there we have no Khazar DNA to compare with Ashkenazi Jewry. Furthermore genetic studies done sense them have established that Ashkenazic and Sephardic Jews have roughly 30 percent European ancestry, with most of the rest from the Middle East. And here is the real kicker: "In a study of Israeli and Palestinian Muslim Arabs, more than 70% of the Jewish men and 82% of the Arab men whose DNA was studied, had inherited their Y chromosomes from the same paternal ancestors, who lived in the region within the last few thousand years."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_studies_of_Jewish_origins

Anyone looking for the "Lost tribes" may not need to look very far. They are likely sitting right there on the West Bank and Gaza strip.

How else do you think you get white Jews?

Uh, Palestinians aren't that dark.

https://thetruthaboutrockthrowing.files.wordpress.com/2013/09/palestinian-child.jpg

And this is what a Central Asian Turk looks like:

http://i45.tinypic.com/1zoffno.jpg

Look Ashkenazi to you? The reason people in Turkey look white is because only about 30% of their DNA is of Central Asian origin. The rest comes from the largely Greek speaking people's who lived there previously.

 

[smaneck]

We would do well to remember, also, that St. Paul quotes the Greek poets Epimenides and Aratus. Epimenides in the Cretica has King Minos speaking to Zeus, "in you we move we live, and move, and have our being"; this does not, however, give veracity to the sublimity of Zeus as chief of the gods and therefore Christians should understand Zeus as a true god.

I did not know that!

 

[jimbohank]

im asking this question because there are many who believe that Adam is a dirty dog. Here is my reasoning to why they are not and were following the plan of God. Adam and Eve were placed in the garden of Eden. They were innocent of knowledge of good and evil. Satan was allowed to tempt them and Eve partook of the fruit and gave it to Adam. I believe that Adam and Eve disobeyed Gods law to not eat the fruit. God had told them not to eat of the fruit or they would die. Since there had not yet had death enter into the garden did they understand what the consequences of their choice? Since they did not know good and evil, could Adam and Eve understood what the law was and the consequences? They did disobey and as a result death came into the world. Sin also came into the world because of imperfection. I believe that to justice it does not matter if someone disobeys having full knowledge and understanding of the law broken or if someone is innocent of the law. It is still disobedience and there are consequences that must come as a result. The punishment is the same. Logic dictates that this was Gods plan all along because why would he allow satan to tempt them? Why would God place the tree of knowledge of good and evil for them to be tempted. I believe that God wanted Adam to eat the fruit so mortality would come to this earth as well so we could know good from evil. To experience the opposites of life so we could continue to progress. So to me Adam and Eve did not sin. They did transgress Gods law which had the same punishment.

Actually, God did not tell "them" to not eat of the fruit but told Adam to not eat from it. It was Adam's responsibility to ensure Eve knew the Law. That being said, the main point of all of that, I believe, is about perfect love. To have perfect love, we must have a choice to love. God doesn't want us to be made to love Him, but desires us to choose to love Him and love Him completely regardless of our sin. Once Adam made the choice to eat of the forbidden fruit and disobey His one and only law at that time, sin was brought into the heart of man. But here is the question, can there be perfect love without evil? If there is a choice between two things it must first be between choosing good or evil. If everything is good then there really is no choice available. The burden and privilege of existence is that basic choice between good and evil and doesn't everything else falls out of that? If you look at the character of God, even in a basic sense, you realize that He cannot be in the presence of evil\sin. And that truth isn't because He would somehow be hurt or destroyed by that evil\sin but it would be destroyed in His presence, and that includes us in our fallen state. That is why the "fall" of mankind is on the shoulders of Adam. It doesn't matter how it happened or if it was "supposed" to happen but what matters is that God desires for us to love Him with all of our heart. His Word can be seen as many things but but when we begin to understand His character we begin to see that His Word is all about His love for us, His creation made in His image regardless of our sin. There is only one who can keep His law and that is Him. That is why He came to this earth, through Jesus Christ, Yashuah, His seed, to walk perfectly and fulfill His law. He then did what He stopped Abraham to do and He sacrificed Yashuah as the one and only and last lamb to cleanse all of man's sin for those who "choose" to love Him (Yahweh) through Him (Yashuah) and make right what Adam made wrong. It is nothing but love!

 

[BigDaddy4]

...

Since they were innocent they did not understand what the consequences of disobedience just like a little child. Not that they were little but were as a little child....

This is your unfounded premise for which you make several false assumptions and leads to your incorrect conclusion.

 

[BigDaddy4]

I bet your a lot of fun at parties

Your avoidance of the evidence of the original language only weakens your argument.

What is it with the lds church and their issues original languages??

 

[Cassiopeia]

snip..... if we assume that an omniscient, omnipotent deity wanted to create a universe of free-willed creatures who choose to do the right thing of their own accord at all times (in spite of having the theoretical capacity of going astray), then that is EXACTLY what He'd have.

I mean no offense in snipping your response I just wanted to point out how totally awesome your reasoning is here. And I believe that this is exactly what the divine has done. We just ignore the reality because being free to choose means accounting for and accepting responsibility for our actions. At least some of us ignore the truth. Not all.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

I mean no offense in snipping your response I just wanted to point out how totally awesome your reasoning is here. And I believe that this is exactly what the divine has done. We just ignore the reality because being free to choose means accounting for and accepting responsibility for our actions. At least some of us ignore the truth. Not all.

That's a pretty fascinating perspective! I'd love to hear more about your point of view (preferably via PM, so as not to derail the thread).

 

[fatboys]

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.

 

[BukiRob]

We would do well to remember, also, that St. Paul quotes the Greek poets Epimenides and Aratus. Epimenides in the Cretica has King Minos speaking to Zeus, "in you we move we live, and move, and have our being"; this does not, however, give veracity to the sublimity of Zeus as chief of the gods and therefore Christians should understand Zeus as a true god.

Jude uses Enoch for a particular task, much as Paul uses Epimenides and Aratus for a particular task. None of these render the referenced material in any sense authoritative.

Ultimately:

Enoch is a piece of pseudepigrapha written in the Second Temple Period. Its contents are not taken as historically accurate by any serious scholar, even those who otherwise believe Enoch was an historical person and take a literalness approach to Genesis. Apart from the Ethiopian Tawehedo Church it has never had a canonical place in the history of global Christianity. And has been regarded mostly as little more than a curiosity.

Jude is generally recognized as being a 2nd century text not authored by St. Jude himself; and in antiquity was regarded as highly suspect--it made it into the Canon by the skin of its teeth basically. As historical Antilegomena it has largely not been regarded as one of the more important texts of the New Testament; indeed in the Western Lectionary it is one of the few books from which there are no readings (the others being 2 and 3 John also part of the historic Antilegomena). That doesn't mean Jude shouldn't be taken seriously, but it does mean that we should be far more interested in why the author of Jude references Enoch than trying to use Jude to try and establish Enoch as somehow veritable evidence of angel-man giant hybrids.

-CryptoLutheran

Please the two uses could not be further apart in their usage. Paul quote them to illustrate the fallacy of false idol worship.

The 2 occurrences, between Paul and Jude you cite could not be in any more diametric opposition of you tried.

Paul is citing a false premise and uses them to expose this false premise.

Jude cites Enoch IN SUPPORT of a point he is making.

I completely disagree with your dating of the book of Jude as it is NOT a second century book but is dated circa 75 AD. In fact, I can not find ANY mainstream dating that even begins to support your absurd assumption of a second century date.

I looked at 3 different mainstream dates for Jude the earliest being 67 AD and the latest being 85 AD