I see you are applying HUMAN LOGIC. GOD opens the mind to ALL TRUTH.
Why was he testing them with satan to tempt them?The Bible says Adam and Eve sinned, and so they sinned. The tree of knowledge of good and evil was placed there to test their loyalty to God, and the only place Satan was allowed to tempt them was at the tree of knowledge. Adam and Eve have already been adequately informed about Satan, sin, his plans, etc. They knew what sin is, "transgression of the law" 1 John 3:4. Then when they ate the apple, they now are disobedient to God and suffer the deadly effects of sin. If Adam and Eve did not sin, they never had to die, and Christ never had to be tortured on the cross and die of heartbreak there. Why God allowed Satan there? Well, there is something called free will.
To say they didn't sin, which is contrary to the Scriptures said, is heresy.
By the way, evil is the result of absence of God's Spirit, just like cold is the absence of heat, and darkness is the absence of light.
What it says is that sin or the transgression was brought into the world by Adam traansgresing the law. His action and choices did cause sin to come into the world but he did so without the understanding of his choices or the consequences of them. He did transgress the law and sin entered the world but to justice it did not matter whether it was a sin or transgression with knowledge and understanding Orr transgression with out knowledge or understanding the consequences are the same.The Bible says Adam and Eve sinned, and so they sinned. The tree of knowledge of good and evil was placed there to test their loyalty to God, and the only place Satan was allowed to tempt them was at the tree of knowledge. Adam and Eve have already been adequately informed about Satan, sin, his plans, etc. They knew what sin is, "transgression of the law" 1 John 3:4. Then when they ate the apple, they now are disobedient to God and suffer the deadly effects of sin. If Adam and Eve did not sin, they never had to die, and Christ never had to be tortured on the cross and die of heartbreak there. Why God allowed Satan there? Well, there is something called free will.
To say they didn't sin, which is contrary to the Scriptures said, is heresy.
By the way, evil is the result of absence of God's Spirit, just like cold is the absence of heat, and darkness is the absence of light.
They had no idea what death was. They didn't know who satan was or his plan. Where does it say Adam knew.ADAM knew THOU SHALY SHALT SURELY DIE>
THE WAGES OF SIN IS DEATH>
Hi Ms. Claire:\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
Get out more F/boy. Yer way overthinkin' all this. Why ? Maybe ? Coulda,shoulda,wooda ! It is what it is. Adam/eve equally goofed.God knows the future/stores that knowledge in a computer the size of Jupitor, so He can B delighted;amused; or angry by how history unfolds.Und dat, mein finer youngin' is der Gospel Truth. U can trust Unkle Marty !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.
Like U never did somthin' & then thought,"Oh, [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse], Moms gonna kill me ??"They had no idea what death was. They didn't know who satan was or his plan. Where does it say Adam knew.
Read my reply @ fatboy. Why,why,why! I applaud your sincerity & honest questioning.IT IS WHAT IT IS ! Go walk a dog,get an ice-cream-unwind . martyI do not accept the original sin idea either:
Would Adam and Eve have been the best all human (not divine) beings, which could be cratered?
Would there genes have been as good as genes could be made since no mutations would have occurred in them?
Adam at least is described as being “very good” by God’s standard, so would that be as good as a being could be created?
Who raised (or programmed) Adam and Eve to adulthood?
Who taught Adam and Eve the meaning of all the words God would use (including the word “die”)?
If Adam and Eve were not the best human representatives than the fact that better humans were not given the opportunity to live in the Garden is unfair.
Just because Adam and Eve did not know “good and evil” (which is something they did not need to know at the time) does not mean they did not know: “right and wrong”. I may be wrong to play next to a cliff but is it evil?
There is a ton of stuff Adam and Eve and all of us learn from their Garden experience and some needed to be learned through experience early on. People even today will at some point in their life ask: “How could a Loving God allow this____ tragedy to happen”? What they are really asking for is: “why are we not all in a Garden type situation no: tragedies, hardship, illness or death.
The problem is as Adam and Eve have shown us is: the Garden is a lousy place for humans to fulfill their earthly objective.
The colloquial form for the word 'excrement' is an expletive not a curse. Just like "toro excrete" is a fancy way 2 say 'Bull***t'. If you want 2 be a censor get your "Websters" together. W/Love-meLike U never did somthin' & then thought,"Oh, [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse], Moms gonna kill me ??"
The consequences meant nothing to them. They didn't understand the lawsLike U never did somthin' & then thought,"Oh, [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse], Moms gonna kill me ??"
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?