No Original Sin!

[rwc109]

...the bible makes it quite clear that we are not responsible for othere peoples sins, so we are not responsible for Adams sin and not born under sin at all ... here are some scriptures that state that we are responsible for only OUR OWN sin... think about it too, it would be very unjust if we were held responsible for another person's sin :-

Deuteronomy 24:16 The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin.

2Chronicles 25:4 .... The fathers shall not die for the children, neither shall the children die for the fathers, but every man shall die for his own sin.

2Kings 14:6 .....the law of Moses, wherein the LORD commanded, saying, The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, nor the children be put to death for the fathers; but every man shall be put to death for his own sin.

Ezekiel 18:20 The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.

Eze 18:19 Yet say ye, Why? doth not the son bear the iniquity of the father? When the son hath done that which is lawful and right, and hath kept all my statutes, and hath done them, he shall surely live.

Thus the idea of original sin is non-biblical, in fact obviously Adam did not have the knowledge of good and evil until after eating the fruit of the tree that gave that knowledge, thus he was innocent in his listening to his wife and not God, he did not even sin in eating the forbidden fruit!

It is Satan ,according to the bible whom God permits to tempt us to sin, so it seems quite reasonable to enquire why that should be, what does God get out of our sinning and then being redeemd through Him eventually?

Now God Himself cannot sin, but he has created both Lucifer who became Satan and us who can sin, thus our lives are actual proof in action of God's principle that lovingness is the right way to be...

...so we go through sin on account of temptation by Satan, eventually see that it doesn't work and yearn to God to be saved from it... we prove by our life the glory of God's way of love which He cannot do Himself... that offers us an explanation of why we are created, why there is sin and suffereing and why there has to be Christ as the means to open up redemption through God's holy spirit of truth [the truth direct from God to sinful man] ...

,,and unlike the doctrine of 'original sin' this explanation is not at odds with the bible or justice [it really would be very unjust to blame all mankind for another person's sin, the bible declares that God is just as if we didn't realise that this must be so anyway]

 

[oddchild]

after cain commited murder god said Now you are cursed... he was not cursed before....

 

[TransformedByGrace]

God continually describes generations being cursed and passed down generationally through children. He also describes the same about blessing.

 

[rwc109]

Interestingly God never told Adam not to eat from the tree of life!

God said they could eat of the other trees which includes clearly the tree of life...

Adam and Eve could have partaken of the Tree of Life freely at first and become immortal but got tempted to disobey god instead and partook of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil

But they were banned from the Garden NOT because they ate of the Tree of Knowledge, but because they might eat of the Tree of Life, and live forever AFTER coming to know Good and Evil.... why? what could this signify, why could they be immortal up till then , but not afterwards?

In partaking of the Tree of Knowledge, they found out that they were naked, AND THAT IT WAS WRONG, so they covered themselves.

but if it was wrong [why was it wrong , is nakedness wrong in itself?] then God KNEW it was wrong even while Adam and Eve were tilling the Garden while naked before knowing it was wrong to do so ... why did God not tell them that it was wrong, why did He not clothe them then, why wait?

Eve however disobeyed God under temptation and then tempted Adam herself and he disobeyed God too... Thus Eve knew that she was WRONG to tempt Adam, but Adam dID NOT know that it was wrong to disobey God [since Adam hadn't the Kowledge of Good and Evil and was innocent [not so Eve though]

Adam goes from toiling in the garden to toiling outside the garden so that he cannot get to be immortal just yet, until he can face the flashing sword (perfect truth) and get back into the garden

But even after being thrown out Adam STILL HASN'T SINNED! only Eve is recorded as having sinned in the garden

man is guiltless without knowing good from evil ... unfortunatley it is a little late to exploit this loophole , even though Adam didn't sin and thus there is no 'original sin' of Adam anyway, mankind still starts life with the knowledge of good and evil , so we KNOW when we sin.

Eve was innocent in taking the decision to disobey God [by a majoriy vote?], but not innocent in tempting Adam as she had already eaten by then

Adam and Eve were told that if they partook of the Tree of Knowledge, in that day, they would surely die. But they did not die in that day. And since they had not partaken of the Tree of Life, they would die anyway.

Thus it was the SURENESS of death that God was talking about, since up to that time there was the possibility of eating the fruit of the tree of life.... OK, but why? what is the meaning of this, what possible significance?

What is the basis for this statement - The Cheribim was a guard to keep Adam and Eve from returning to the Garden. Adam and Eve already possessed "truth", they had "Knowledge" but the garden is guarded by Christ with his sword of absolute truth .... Eve cannot get back in because of her sin, but Adam could go in any time, why then does Adam stay out , because of his wife? why?

perhaps it is just hard to make perfect symbolic stories... ??

There is an escape from death called translation ,so there is a meaning to one's death being made sure rather than just being 'probable'

Nakiedness is used elsewhere in the bible to represent the state of man after sinning [as also the idea of God covering the nakednes of sin], but again Adam did not sin ,he even hid so that God would not see his nakedness , but perhaps he sinned by being naked in front of Eve and Satan AFTER eating the fruit, but again what meaning could that have? ...

It is the steeling oneself to do sin that blinds man to the truth which he knows in his heart and necessitates the intervention of God with His perfect truth to enable man to face the whole truth again ... this is why the sword of [perfect] truth blocks the way BACK to God....

However it seems that we have to accept that the bible does not explain at all how Adam was held responsible for his acts before knowing right from wrong which seems rather less than satisfactory since this is such a central feature of the story ... but blaming the refereee does not seem to be a valid option ...

Equally there seems little point in a literal state of man where God tells him what to do, but man is not responsible for obeying God... why would God bother with meaningless commands that did not require obedience at a cost for disobedience? ... by this stage of analysis any beauty in the poetry of the story has disappeared and perhaps taking it too literally was not the aim of the story ...

It does seem a little whacky at least to make up reasons outside the scripture for things that already have their reasons explaned within scripture ...
Scripture mostly offers explanation of its symbology [curiously often a long way away in terms of time written] and thus shows that it has a symbolic meaning whether also literal or not...

I find my own attempts at representation can be less than perfect in representing all aspects simultaneously, so that I can forgive a poetic story its few literal interpretational flaws ...
to me the bible is an illustration of dreams, not a recipe book [especially as it contains a major illustration of the failure of all recipe books' solutiions to life, Israel and the old covenant with God just failed except for Jesus keeping it]

As the bible even says itself (!), the truth is in the spirit, not in the words.
The question still stands, Why would the God have Adam and Eve working NAKED in the Garden if it was WRONG [when He would Know that even when they didn't?


The problem with my idea of symbolism is can it really be hard for a perfect God to make perfect symbolice stories? It would seem not!

Also, would it be hard for a perfect God to make a story so clear that even ignorant mankind could understand the point? - this really does leave so many unanswerable questions about this story, but can God be the author of this confusion, it would again seem not so.....



are we left with having to conclude that this story should not be regarded as scripture?

if it was wrong to God that they were naked , why didn't HE do something about it beforehand why wait for them to find out before making them coverings... I simply can't find any explanation and so must view this criticism as valid
why did Eve decide that nakedness was wrong? it isn't inherently wrong (evil).

I think that their nakedness before sinning represents symbolically the potential in man to sin!

God making them covering of skins shows symbolically that God takes upon Himself the responsibility for 'covering' their sin personally that is eventually realised in making the spirit of truth available to prompt man to acknowledge perfect Truth and Love beyond the state he has locked himself into by sin...

I think the bile says this many different ways and might be allowed a little poetic licence in doing so ... but that's just my view.

also is God making an atonment for sin. atonement in the form of a substitutionary sacrifice at that (those animals gave up more than their skins), do we see a little foreshadowing of what will become a common theme in chapters to come.

the bible, whatever else it may or may not be, is a literary gem, isn't it?

God takes full responsibility on Himself for creating the potential to evil and all the evil that it genearates through men and angels ...
that seems eminently fair to me.

the bible explains that the whole substitutionary sacrifice bit was a hoax by God to show through Israel that even if given a perscription in words for their redemption, that it was no use to them because man is incapable of following such rules BY DESIGN despite that man believes he is good at rules ...

modern society and religion is just as good an example as Israel if we look at the results for the many of mankind....

but God is committed to eventually redeeming all as an integral part of the validation of Love.

It doesn't actually say anything about the skins coming from live animals, but even if one reads it as a reference to animal sacrifice, the message from their covering by God is that it didn't itself save them from evil ... it was also ineffective ,just as animal sacrifice was bound to be !

This point is made several times in the Prophets, Israel was indeed set up by God to fail...

a deliberate example [that man as usual ignores] in tradition of religion and modern culture too FAILING.

Neither did Eve create evil, iniquity was found in Lucifer first [the snake!... i feel there might be a little discussion yet on where it came from!

 

[rwc109]

What basis then for saying nakedness was not wrong at the time?

Nakedness did not change from right to wrong!

Nakedness was always WRONG as Adam and Eve found out, but why?
God said in Gen 2:17 ". . . of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall die."

The Serpent said in Gen 3:4 "You will not die. For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil."

No-one seems to have lied here, but Satan presented the truth in a misleading way, that part of the story seems to have meaning and significance

Gen 3:22 "Behold, the man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil;"

Adam and Eve did not die on that day but on that day they had perhaps reached the state of sin , Eve had anyway ,where they would surely die because the wages of sin is death, and God knew whether he would ever have mercy on Adam and Eve for OBEDIENCE , clearly this was not going to happen [as it did for one in every seventh generation frm Adam]

A&E did actually have access to all the other trees in the garden before eating the forbidden fruit, they could freely have eaten of the tree of life, so their death was not certain until they ate the forbidden fruit ... so in that day their death became sure as God said...

One can always consider the possibility of translation as a means of escaping death, but God clearly knew beforehand who would be translated ... thus it is the snake who is cleverly deceiving without actually lying, whereas God told them the truth.

so why was nakedness itself wrong and if it were why is it nott mentioned in the ten commandments?

And if nakedness just represented guilt for sin, then Adam wasn't 'naked' because he never sinned

the whole story is a maelstrom of inconsistencies that won't resolve...

One thing is sure though, just like other scriptures, it does not support the doctrine of original sin

I'm more than a little puzzled too as to why they need a covering if there is nothing [symbolically or otherwise] wrong with nakedness in the story...
I can understand one needing covering for sin, but not needing covering for nakedness if it is not a sin.[ can the covering be for sin and have nothing to do with the nakedness? ]

it might be more exposed outside the garden or colder as a reflection of God's attitude to sin [see this paradox is driving me to humour]

anyway they didn't burden mankind with their sin, but with the knowledge of good and evil [from the fruit of that tree] by which we would know when WE sinned and by which WE would be guilty of OUR OWN sin.

No-one is responsible for anyone elses sin!! [even though sins can be propagated by the teaching of traditions of men as in Israel and the modern churches!]

Jesus would have inherited the sin of Adam and Eve if sin were handed down genetically , this alone should show you that it ISN'T. [the bible also says as much explicitly, as though one couldn't see that there would be no justice whatever in one man inheriting responsibility for another man's sin ... this bizarrre unjust erroneous 'doctrine of original sin' from man, not God , has been around far too long]


Eze 18:19 Yet say ye, Why? doth not the son bear the iniquity of the father? When the son hath done that which is lawful and right, and hath kept all my statutes, and hath done them, he shall surely live.

Rom 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:
Rom 5:13 (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law. several characters in the OT [one in every seventh generation from Adam did not see death , but walked with God and there is also the process of translation by which man does not see death .... thus it is by no means certain that Adam would see death until God says so, being born a man does not mean that one will see death, it just makes it very likely.



the covering I think [from other scripytures]represents that God takes responsibility on Himself for their sinning [and the means to enact their redemption from sin by the holy spirit of truth is eventually revealed through Jesus Christ's death.]

they did not know it was wrong to disobey the Elohim any more than they knew to disobey (or obey, or accept as truth) what the Serpent said.

How could they be punished by a perfect God, if they had not partaken of the Tree of Knowlege (to know right from wrong), yet?

Also, a perfect all-knowing God would have known that they would disobey, so GOD put them in this situation and had them tempted this way?

God did not tempt them , but He did allow and indeed set up the situation where they would be tempted and knew what the outcome would be... the existence of evil is no accident, God created it... [for His purpose in man.]

Isaiah 45:7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and CREATE EVIL: I the LORD do all these things.

Lam 3:38 Out of the mouth of the most High proceedeth not EVIL AND GOOD?

The bible reveals that we will all suffer trial and indeed that we mostly could quite justly suffer far more as a result of our sins that god actually allows [for His purpose].
There are a few people who suffer far more than they deserve, just as Jesus did, and in the end they receive a reward greater than sons of God... but we most have to admit that , once we face the truth, we deserve quite rightly more punishment than we receive for our unloving behaviour ... so why try blaming God, He actyually takes it as easy on us as He can whilst ensuring that we suffer enough to realsie that we have done wrong and turn from it to the struggle back to making lovingness our way of living despite the world.

The concept 'Elohim' seems to carry two ideas, that of separateness and that of perfect judgment, ... I would see that separation as rather different than sitting on another planet or star - not least because of the intimate connection of the holy [separated] spirit with any human being

As for the perfect judgment, we can experience that if we want it enough - and it is absolutely convincing and drops even the most good of sinful men to the ground in speechless desire to repent what they are, it is beyond us immediately we do the least unlovingness and we can KNOW that.

As for being slaves to a perfect being, there is only one other alternative and that is slavery to sin ... man is either trapped in sin or freed from that to be a slave to love ...

consider the average Roman-style-'christianity' church with its hewn stone altar and priest going up steps to it and compare the bible text below:-

Exo 20:25 And if thou wilt make me an altar of stone, thou shalt not build it of hewn stone: for if thou lift up thy tool upon it, thou hast polluted it.
Exo 20:26 Neither shalt thou go up by steps unto mine altar, that thy nakedness be not discovered thereon.

now the sacrilegious priest is naked because of the obviousness of his unrepented sin, not literally naked.


One problem with saying that Elohim are "not all knowing and not all good and not perfect and not God" is that the term implies divine [perfect] judgemnet. There are fairly obviously severe problems with suggesting that anything that God allows ,such as the judgement of Elohim, is less than correct.

God is not subject to judgment although His commanded way of love for mankind is [and the latter is the reason for evil, not any mistake by God or Elohim]

 

[aggie03]

I am going to have to disagree with one point that you've made. In disobeying the command that God gave him, Adam did sin. This sin was then recognized as such after he had eaten of the apple. Adam was innocent of his sin until he realized that it was sin. Once he was able to discern the difference between good and evil, he was able to know that he had sinned against God.

 

[rwc109]

dear aggie03,

I would put it rather that Adam realised that it would have been a sin if he had known that it was...

He was innocent exactly because he didn't know, coming to know afterward doesn't change his innocence in acting though ignorance of wrong

 

[rwc109]

God continually describes generations being cursed and passed down generationally through children. He also describes the same about blessing.

That is by tradition, the same process by which the christian churches are apostate today

There is NO responsibity for sin passed from father to son,as scripturesays explicitly
Eze 18:19 Yet say ye, Why? doth not the son bear the iniquity of the father? When the son hath done that which is lawful and right, and hath kept all my statutes, and hath done them, he shall surely live.

Eze 18:20 The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.

 

[Knee V]

1 Cor 15:21-22, "For since by a man came death, by a man also came the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all will be made alive."

But who's Paul to listen to him for doctrine anyway?

 

[rwc109]

1 Cor 15:21-22, "For since by a man came death, by a man also came the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all will be made alive."

But who's Paul to listen to him for doctrine anyway?

You are misunderstanding Paul's doctrine which he explains at great length:-

Just as Adam was INNOCENT until he had eaten the fruit, so mankind WOULD BE innocent IF he did not have the nowledge of good and evil from the tree,

Thus not only did Adam not sin because he was innocent "outside the law" through ignorance,

but WE are NOT innocent when we sin BECAUSE Adam took on himself FOR ALL OF US the knowledge of good and evil...

summarising:

1). Adam took the knowledge of good and evil for all men and thus sin entered the world for allmen because all have sinned [except Jesus and any truly righteous] and Adam gave us the knowledge so that we are NOT innocent ... thus bt Adam sin entered the world, but not because Adam siined, but because Adam ate the fruit and so we KNOW when we sin, we are not inocent ...

2). Adam actually WAS innocent when he ate the fruit because he did not have the knowledge before eating it .... since Adam was innocent then he did not sin! [bang goes the original sin idea then!]

3). The bible EXPLICITLY DENIES the doctrie of originls sin anyway :-

Eze 18:20.... The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.

it really could not be stated more plainly than this, the doctrine of original sin is NON-biblical!

4). just think about it, would it even be FAIR to blame a son for his father's crimes or anyone for that matter for SOMEONE ELSES'S crimes...

the whole idea of blaming someone for what someone else did is just wrong and the scripture above says so!

5). Sins do pass from generation to generation though simply because one generation tends to LEARN and do what the previous generation did, it is the error of following tradition that is wrong .... we see this with the modern churches fllowing by tradition the KEEPING of pagan Roman days dressed up as 'chrsitian' IN PLCE OF Gods holy days described in scripture....

this is the reason why the churches do not have the holy spirit of truth that as Jesus pROMISED would have led them to KNOW ALL TRUTH and ALL PROPHECY ...clearly they DON'T else they would not e DIVIDED into denominations and sects !!

Here is Jesus' PROMISE :-
John 16:13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into ***ALL TRUTH***: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things *** TO COME***.

So it is no use looking to the churches for the truth, one must yearn and pray to God for it, read the scripture fOR YOURSELF and PROVE EVERYTHING FOR YOURSELF, and REJECT the apostate church doctrines of tradition and instead keep God's holy days for the blessing of the spirit of the truth...

 

[Fiat]

rwc,

From reading your above referenced posts, are you implying that Eve is the "mother of all sin"?

Adam was to be the head over Eve, where was he when Eve was tempted? Why hadn't he protected her when the serpent came to her?

 

[rwc109]

...the bible makes it quite clear that we are not responsible for othere peoples sins, so we are not responsible for Adams sin and not born under sin at all ... here are some scriptures that state that we are responsible for only OUR OWN sin... think about it too, it would be very unjust if we were held responsible for another person's sin :-

Deuteronomy 24:16 The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin.

2Chronicles 25:4 .... The fathers shall not die for the children, neither shall the children die for the fathers, but every man shall die for his own sin.

2Kings 14:6 .....the law of Moses, wherein the LORD commanded, saying, The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, nor the children be put to death for the fathers; but every man shall be put to death for his own sin.

Ezekiel 18:20 The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.

Eze 18:19 Yet say ye, Why? doth not the son bear the iniquity of the father? When the son hath done that which is lawful and right, and hath kept all my statutes, and hath done them, he shall surely live.

Thus the idea of original sin is non-biblical, in fact obviously Adam did not have the knowledge of good and evil until after eating the fruit of the tree that gave that knowledge, thus he was innocent in his listening to his wife and not God, he did not even sin in eating the forbidden fruit!

It is Satan ,according to the bible whom God permits to tempt us to sin, so it seems quite reasonable to enquire why that should be, what does God get out of our sinning and then being redeemd through Him eventually?

Now God Himself cannot sin, but he has created both Lucifer who became Satan and us who can sin, thus our lives are actual proof in action of God's principle that lovingness is the right way to be...

...so we go through sin on account of temptation by Satan, eventually see that it doesn't work and yearn to God to be saved from it... we prove by our life the glory of God's way of love which He cannot do Himself... that offers us an explanation of why we are created, why there is sin and suffereing and why there has to be Christ as the means to open up redemption through God's holy spirit of truth [the truth direct from God to sinful man] ...

,,and unlike the doctrine of 'original sin' this explanation is not at odds with the bible or justice [it really would be very unjust to blame all mankind for another person's sin, the bible declares that God is just as if we didn't realise that this must be so anyway]

 

[Fiat]

rwc,

My questions were not completely answered in your post. I have a few more interesting remarks to make:

In Gen 2:15 God commands ADAM not to eat from the tree of knowledge, this commandment was given to ADAM before Eve's creation. Did he tell her about this tree? The bible is not clear in this.

You mentioned:

"Thus the idea of original sin is non-biblical, in fact obviously Adam did not have the knowledge of good and evil until after eating the fruit of the tree that gave that knowledge, thus he was innocent in his listening to his wife and not God, he did not even sin in eating the forbidden fruit! "


But he did have full knowledge. He was given a direct commandment from God in Gen 2:15. He disobeyed and ate the fruit anyways. God gave Adam responsibility for the garden. Eve was created as his "helpmate". Where was Adam when Eve was tempted? Why didn't he remind her or inform her that she was NOT to partake in the tree of knowledge?

 

[rwc109]

rwc,

My questions were not completely answered in your post. I have a few more interesting remarks to make:

In Gen 2:15 God commands ADAM not to eat from the tree of knowledge, this commandment was given to ADAM before Eve's creation. Did he tell her about this tree? The bible is not clear in this.

You mentioned:

"Thus the idea of original sin is non-biblical, in fact obviously Adam did not have the knowledge of good and evil until after eating the fruit of the tree that gave that knowledge, thus he was innocent in his listening to his wife and not God, he did not even sin in eating the forbidden fruit! "


But he did have full knowledge. He was given a direct commandment from God in Gen 2:15. He disobeyed and ate the fruit anyways. God gave Adam responsibility for the garden. Eve was created as his "helpmate". Where was Adam when Eve was tempted? Why didn't he remind her or inform her that she was NOT to partake in the tree of knowledge?

Adam was INNOCENT in disobeying God for excatly the same reason, he has not yet the knowledge of good and evil , he could not sin because he was innocent ... one can look at it that in eating the forbidden fruit he simply took a mejority decision, the first example of the failure of democracy to yield the truth, Satan and Eve's view against that of God!

As for Adam not telling Eve , clearly he was not there at the time [and Satan grabed his chance with Eve alone near the tree]

As to Eve possibly not having being told not to eat from the tree, I do not really see what difference it makes, the whole point of the story is the makind gained the knowledge of godd and evil and thus is not INNOCENT, but worthy of death when we sin [thus sin entered the world through Adam taking for us the knowledge of good and evil, not because of any sin by Adam if he did eventually sin (we don't even know for sure if he did, but I suppose there is some evidence that he did eventually... again this is irrelevant though to the point being made... most importantly though the doctrine of origina sin is directly REFUTED by the bible if five separate places and Genesis does not support it either, thus we know it is yet another false doctrine of traditions of men in the paganised church that has thus [through abndonning holy days of God) lost the spirit of truth that would have kept the church UNITED in one truthand knowing ALL prophecy -just as jesus promised would happen to the TRUE church, the congregation of God. the 144,000 remnant of tribal Israel who are the firstfruits of God and his servants [minister] {Rev 7:3-8}in the redemption of ALL nations {Rev 7:9-10})]

 

[Fiat]

rwc. you and I disagree on this topic. You say that Adam could not have sinned because he was innocient of knowledge of good and evil. I believe he sinned because of his disobedience to God. But here's a thought:

The name of the tree of knowldge of good and evil implies that evil had already occured, if not in the garden, then at the time of Satan's fall.

God could have physically prevented Adam and Eve from eating of the fruit. God gave them a choice of obedience or disobedience. So why would God plant a tree in the garden and then forbid them to eat of it? God wanted Adam to obey, but God gave him the freedom to choose. Without choice, Adam would have been like a prisoner, and his obedience would have been hollow. The tree provided an exercise in choice, with rewards for choosing to obey and sad consequences for choosing to disobey.

If original sin did not occur, then there would have been no reason for redemption.

I think that maybe someone with a theological background would be more enlightening to further this discussion with you.

God bless you, rwc.

 

[ABDIarise]

rwc,

From reading your above referenced posts, are you implying that Eve is the "mother of all sin"?

Adam was to be the head over Eve, where was he when Eve was tempted? Why hadn't he protected her when the serpent came to her?

Adam obviously failed his duties!

 

[rwc109]

rwc. you and I disagree on this topic. You say that Adam could not have sinned because he was innocient of knowledge of good and evil. I believe he sinned because of his disobedience to God. But here's a thought:

The name of the tree of knowldge of good and evil implies that evil had already occured, if not in the garden, then at the time of Satan's fall.

God could have physically prevented Adam and Eve from eating of the fruit. God gave them a choice of obedience or disobedience. So why would God plant a tree in the garden and then forbid them to eat of it? God wanted Adam to obey, but God gave him the freedom to choose. Without choice, Adam would have been like a prisoner, and his obedience would have been hollow. The tree provided an exercise in choice, with rewards for choosing to obey and sad consequences for choosing to disobey.

If original sin did not occur, then there would have been no reason for redemption.

I think that maybe someone with a theological background would be more enlightening to further this discussion with you.

God bless you, rwc.

Adam was innocent when he disobeted God, ,he did not kNOW that it was wrong to disobey god until after he ate the fruit and gained the knowledge of good and evil...

Paul explained this in detail.... one is not guilty when one is outside the law...

Sin did not enter the world because of any sin by Adam, but simply because Adam took for all humanity the knowledge of good and evil ... thus WE are NOT innocent when we sin, we have the knowledge of good and evil because of one man, Adam...

The bibe itself in five separate places says explicitly that mankind is nOT responsible for the sins of others, this completely disproves the doctrine of 'origonal sin of the churches, it is just a false tradition of men, not scriptural at all

Just think about it from the point of JUSTICE too, wht should ANYONE be blamed for Adam's sin but Adam [if he did sin , presumable he did later] :-

Eze 18:20 ....The son shall NOT bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.
Rom 5:13 (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.

One further point on this, Jesus was a man, but he never bore any sin from Adam, he was without sin... see, it is absolutely conclusive, the churches are simply WRONG by following traditions of men and not scripture...

Mark 7:8 For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men,

 

[eve-naive]

Adam was innocent when he disobeted God, ,he did not kNOW that it was wrong to disobey god until after he ate the fruit and gained the knowledge of good and evil...

Paul explained this in detail.... one is not guilty when one is outside the law...

Sin did not enter the world because of any sin by Adam, but simply because Adam took for all humanity the knowledge of good and evil ... thus WE are NOT innocent when we sin, we have the knowledge of good and evil because of one man, Adam...

The bibe itself in five separate places says explicitly that mankind is nOT responsible for the sins of others, this completely disproves the doctrine of 'origonal sin of the churches, it is just a false tradition of men, not scriptural at all

Just think about it from the point of JUSTICE too, wht should ANYONE be blamed for Adam's sin but Adam [if he did sin , presumable he did later] :-

Eze 18:20 ....The son shall NOT bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.
Rom 5:13 (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.

One further point on this, Jesus was a man, but he never bore any sin from Adam, he was without sin... see, it is absolutely conclusive, the churches are simply WRONG by following traditions of men and not scripture...

Mark 7:8 For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men,

I just wanted to put something forward on two things that were said in this quote. Firstly the point you made about Justice, if we start thinking with our own reasoning and logic then we come to the conclusion that it wouldnt be fair for a man to bear the punishment for someone elses sins. Yet how can we come to the conclusion that that is Gods reasoning, for if it were Jesus would never have been able to bear the punishment for all of us. If Gods reasoning of Justice was that no-one could be responsible for the sin of another, then teh sacrifice of our Lord would have not been. I believe 1Samuel 3:13-14 gives an example of Eli being responsible for the sins of his sons, and that it also seems that the consequences of thier sins would continue after them also.
" For I have told him that I will judge his house forever for the iniquity which he knows, because his sons made themselves vile, and he did not restrain them. And therefore I have sworn to the house of Eli that the iniquity of Eli's house shall not be atoned for by sacrifice or offering forever."

The second thing was that I believe Jesus did not have any of the inherent sin of man, because he was concieved by the Holy Spirit. That sets Jesus aside from any other man right from the start. The fact that He was God in the flesh sets him apart, for if none of these things meant anything and we say he was exactly the same as any other man in all possible ways, there is the possibility then that any man could have been the messiah. Yet God is the only one who could possibly atone for our sin, that is why it was God in the flesh as a man that had to come to die and take the responsibilty, the blame for our sin.
I think that however you look at it, it was because of the things that took place in the garden of eden that sin entered the world, Adam was the first man, sin became known to him or was commited by him, whichever way you choose to look at it, and because they were the first people, and it was in them to sin, it was in the children they bore also. I just went back and read the account and God actually says what Adam had done wrong, and gave the consequences of it. God gives the reason.

Genesis 3:17 ' Then to Adam He said, " Because you have heeded the voice of your wife, and have eaten from the tree of which I commanded you, saying,'you shall not eat of it' :....'

So even though Adam was innocent of knowing good and evil, he was not innocent in the sense of knowing what God had told him not to do, his sin was disobedience to God, he heeded his wife before the Lord his God doing what he had been told not to.

Interesting disucussion, God bless you all,
Love your friend eve.

 

[rwc109]

I just wanted to put something forward on two things that were said in this quote. Firstly the point you made about Justice, if we start thinking with our own reasoning and logic then we come to the conclusion that it wouldnt be fair for a man to bear the punishment for someone elses sins. Yet how can we come to the conclusion that that is Gods reasoning, for if it were Jesus would never have been able to bear the punishment for all of us. If Gods reasoning of Justice was that no-one could be responsible for the sin of another, then teh sacrifice of our Lord would have not been. I believe 1Samuel 3:13-14 gives an example of Eli being responsible for the sins of his sons, and that it also seems that the consequences of thier sins would continue after them also.
" For I have told him that I will judge his house forever for the iniquity which he knows, because his sons made themselves vile, and he did not restrain them. And therefore I have sworn to the house of Eli that the iniquity of Eli's house shall not be atoned for by sacrifice or offering forever."

The second thing was that I believe Jesus did not have any of the inherent sin of man, because he was concieved by the Holy Spirit. That sets Jesus aside from any other man right from the start. The fact that He was God in the flesh sets him apart, for if none of these things meant anything and we say he was exactly the same as any other man in all possible ways, there is the possibility then that any man could have been the messiah. Yet God is the only one who could possibly atone for our sin, that is why it was God in the flesh as a man that had to come to die and take the responsibilty, the blame for our sin.
I think that however you look at it, it was because of the things that took place in the garden of eden that sin entered the world, Adam was the first man, sin became known to him or was commited by him, whichever way you choose to look at it, and because they were the first people, and it was in them to sin, it was in the children they bore also. I just went back and read the account and God actually says what Adam had done wrong, and gave the consequences of it. God gives the reason.

Genesis 3:17 ' Then to Adam He said, " Because you have heeded the voice of your wife, and have eaten from the tree of which I commanded you, saying,'you shall not eat of it' :....'

So even though Adam was innocent of knowing good and evil, he was not innocent in the sense of knowing what God had told him not to do, his sin was disobedience to God, he heeded his wife before the Lord his God doing what he had been told not to.

Interesting disucussion, God bless you all,
Love your friend eve.

The sons of Eli may well have learned their sins [as many do from parents, teachers etc] but they hardly are responsible for their father;s sins or he for theirs... as scripture says in five separate places

The whole point about innocence without the law is explained in intricate detail by Paul and shows that even in his disobedience to God Adam was still innocent because he did not kNOW good from evil until he ate the fruit... thus sin entered the world nOT through sin , but through innocent disobedience that meant that man was never again innocent in his disobedience to God, for Adam took that knowledge for us all... thus by one man sin entered the world because all have sinned [except the righteous few] and we are NOT innocent, we KNOW we have sinned and are thus guilty of our sin... so read Paul about this, he sets it out very clearly...

So we indeed are created susceptible to Satan's temptaions to sin , but we are guilty because we KNOW it is wrong to do what Satan says [unlike Adam and Eve before they ate the fruit]...

But God created perfect Lucifer who became Satan to represent the perfect adversary to God, a being made perfect who wanted to prove that his way was better than God's way of Love ... a test set by God on Love itself to prove once and for all that love is the only way that works.... so God has to then create man, because God Himself cannot do other than Love and God needs a whole universe of beings who can do evil so that Satan can have a fair hearing and demonstration of his proposed ways... thus God creates the world and mankind and evil and time itself [for God is timeless in spirit] and the demo continues on until it fails and proves God's point and everyone then needs to be redeemed from evil, so that is why God conceived of Jesus Christ through the Word ,even right from the beginning...

so ther we have it, the meaning of our lives and of course why we SUFFER , the disproof of Satan's theories by trying them out...

BUT do you see that God takes ALL RESPONSIBILITY for creating mankind and evil and Satan.... thus it is QUITE JUST that Jesus Christ takes for God responsibility for all our sins, ther is no injustice in that [as you claimed] at all ...

 

[eve-naive]

Dear friend,

I just wanted to come back to Romans 5:13...as you used it to prove a point. Yet I do not think that it is being used in the proper context.

If you take the verses surrounding it Romans 5:12 - 14
' Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned - for before the law was given, sin was in the world. But sin is not taken into account when there is no law. Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who was a pattern of the one to come.'

....Straight away, the statement is that 'sin entered through one man and death through sin' not just his own death, but death came to all men. Yes it says 'because all men sinned' but it was on account of the first man. Where you argue that Adam could not be held accountable or in turn that we can not be held accountable or punished for Adams sin - which if someone is not accountable they are not punished for it, this would imply that there would be no consequence for him or others the same, yet the consequence was death.....the reign of death. And that death reigns over everyone who does not have the law, the law makes people accountable because they are breaking set commandments, yet even without these they are sinful and subject to death. If as you used this statement on its own Romans 5:13, then you can say that everyone who is ignorant of the law when they stand before God on judgement day, will be pronounced innocent. Therefore what you are also saying is that where the Bible says that Jesus died for the Jew and the Gentile, he neednt really have died for the Gentile, because none of the gentiles would have been accountable for sin, as they do not have Gods law and are ignorant of it.

Also here, Romans 5:15 ' But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God's grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ over flow to the many!'

Here it plainly says that 'many died by the trespass of one man'.

Romans 5:17 ' For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man.....'

Death reigned and not just over Adam, so because of his trespass many bore the consequence. Roamns 5:18 says it even plainer again.

'Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men.'

Because of one trespass all men were condemned. So from the very onset, Adam, his action his trespass already condemned us all before we were even born. The consequence of one trespass was condemnation for all men.

Also, your response to the verse given from 1Samuel 3:13-14, It still reads to me that God had condemned the house of Eli forever because of the iniquity of his sons, and that God held Eli responsible for their sins. I don't know if you read it, but that is what the word says in that particular part. I know that you have said that scripture says different in five other places, but perhaps if you could translate and give a different meaning then to Samuel 3:13-14 it would be more plausible to argue against what it says in that instance. If you refute that at any time in scripture nobody at all can be held accountable or condemned for the acts of another, this particular verse cannot mean what is written.

God bless,
Love your friend eve.