The bible says to not strain at a gnat, but a parable is not a gnat ;)

[Dkh587]

And the author of Genesus meant it as history....and the authors of the NT presented the accounts presented in Genesis as history.

In fact Paul even based his teaching on women in church on the historical deception of a literal Eve.

Good points. Also, it should be considered that Yahushua's death on the stake fixed the sin of Adam in the garden. If it was fiction, or a myth, why would there even need to be a death to fix what Adam did?

 

[-57]

Good points. Also, it should be considered that Yahushua's death on the stake fixed the sin of Adam in the garden. If it was fiction, or a myth, why would there even need to be a death to fix what Adam did?

I don't know if Christ death on the cross "fixed" Adams sin as there is still death and sin occurring today.....but in future events there will be the physical resurrection of the believers (no mored death and sin).

I see it more this way...Adam and Eves sin was due to an act of disobedience. Those who make the accounts of Genesis (creation and fall) some sort of myth can't explain why there is sin and death in the world and the need for Christ to be the sacrificial atonement where our sins can be imputed to Christ and His righteousness imputed to the believers.
For those that deny Genesis sin was a result of evolutionism effecting a population where mutations to the thought process allows mankind to determine right from wrong. The biblical concept of disobedience being the cause is disregarded.
This "theology" denies Pauls words where he tells us through one man....not a population...caused sin to dominate human nature. Their belief that physical death was always a part of nature also deviates from scripture. The Theo-Evo (Biologos) view becomes heretical as much of the bible has to be re-interpreted and filtered through "science".

 

[Open Heart]

So Paul simply based his teachings on a myth? Something that never happened?

Something that wasn't historical but taught eternal truths.

 

[-57]

Something that wasn't historical but taught eternal truths.

Instead of calling it "eternal truth" which may sound good...why don't you explain how it is eternal truth in light of what I posted in post 202.

 

[Propianotuner]

They have very large scales, and the bible doesn't use "fish only" as a qualifier, and actually does the opposite. IT mentions swarming things and every creature of the Ocean. I wont argue about it though, so just I forget said anything.

Scales aren't segments.

 

[Propianotuner]

He said that to Hebrews, living in Israel, under the Law, with the Temple up, the priesthood in place, and the Urim and Thummim operating as an oracle.

They were unclean to Hebrews.

Nothing was ever unclean to most of our ancestors, but we were not to eat blood, or perhaps animals that were still alive. (The Hebrew idiom is not clear.)

If what the Apostles said binds us (in other words, if we treat the words of the Apostle James in Acts as having the same degree of binding authority that many treat Paul's words), then we are still prohibited from eating blood.

Statements directed towards a specific group aren't necessarily binding for all of Christendom. Otherwise we'd end up with quite a peculiar and contradictory concept of Christianity. That James considered the Noahide Laws important for association between Jewish Christians and Gentile Christians doesn't mean that modern Christians need to worry about dietary restrictions.

Most every teaching that is relevant to all of Christendom is more principle oriented than case sensitive, and is attested to by multiple mirroring and complimentary passages.

 

[Open Heart]

Instead of calling it "eternal truth" which may sound good...why don't you explain how it is eternal truth in light of what I posted in post 202.

"Adam's" sin is simply the first horrible act done with moral sentience, IOW the first sin done with the knowledge that it was sin, and thus with responsibility. In myth this would rightly be described as a "fall of man," and labeled "Original Sin." It has to do with our animal nature, our instincts, what we rightly call our "Sinful Nature," directing us to act selfishly at the expense of others and ultimately at our own expense as well. It is at odds with what our moral conscience, or "the voice of God" tells us is right. This inner conflict between our sinful nature and our conscience alienates us from others, from ourselves, and from God. We need a Savior and his grace to bridge the gap and heal the conflict, restoring our physical selves to the goodness of what God intended so that we live in harmony with ourselves, with others, and with God.

 

[Propianotuner]

Rabbinical Jews reject Christ because God has veiled their eyes. It's not because their judgment is flawed, or because they are rebellious, or because they are stupid. They are not responsible for their rejection of Christ.

We are all responsible if we reject Christ. Also, we are all flawed, rebellious, and comparatively dull.

 

[Open Heart]

We are all responsible if we reject Christ. Also, we are all flawed, rebellious, and comparatively dull.

If Gentiles reject Christ they are responsible because they have free choice. Jews do not have free choice. God has blinded their eyes.

 

[Propianotuner]

If Gentiles reject Christ they are responsible because they have free choice. Jews do not have free choice. God has blinded their eyes.

Paul regards us as "true Israel" in the book of Romans.

Esau's descendants were removed from the blessings of the covenant seed of Abraham. As the Lord Jesus may well have described it: "I cut those branches out and threw them in the fire." The only authentic Jews have been OT people who truly believed in the Lord and A.D. people who believe in the Lord. We are Jews, we are the covenant seed of Abraham.

It is an incontrovertible scriptural truth that people who reject God are culpable and will be cast into the outer darkness. God is no respecter of persons, there is no group that we should reverence, especially considering that we're talking about people who aren't even in the family. You're telling me they're Jews when all I see is Esau. Let me know if you find any other meaning for "true Israel" in Romans 9.

They have presented great intellectual accomplishments and understand much about the Law, the Writings, and the Prophets. However, they don't understand those most crucial things to be understood about the Tanakh, hence their accomplishments accord them no great deference.

Has God blinded people? Yes. Does this make them any less culpable? No.

Romans 9

13 As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.
14 What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid.
15 For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.
16 So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.
17 For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth.
18 Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.
19 Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?
20 Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?
21 Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?
22 What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:
23 And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory,
24 Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?
25 As he saith also in Osee, I will call them my people, which were not my people; and her beloved, which was not beloved.

 

[-57]

"Adam's" sin is simply the first horrible act done with moral sentience, IOW the first sin done with the knowledge that it was sin, and thus with responsibility. In myth this would rightly be described as a "fall of man," and labeled "Original Sin." It has to do with our animal nature, our instincts, what we rightly call our "Sinful Nature," directing us to act selfishly at the expense of others and ultimately at our own expense as well. It is at odds with what our moral conscience, or "the voice of God" tells us is right. This inner conflict between our sinful nature and our conscience alienates us from others, from ourselves, and from God. We need a Savior and his grace to bridge the gap and heal the conflict, restoring our physical selves to the goodness of what God intended so that we live in harmony with ourselves, with others, and with God.

That would be incorrect theology. Our sin nature didn't come from our "instincts"...our sin nature is a direct result of Adams disobedience. It is this act of disobedience that created our sin nature.

 

[Open Heart]

Paul regards us as "true Israel" in the book of Romans

I went to Bible gateway and searched for "true Israel" in the New Testament. I could find no reference. Now, the Church, which has authority in addition to the Bible, teaches that the Church is the NEW Israel. The New Israel doesn't displace Israel any more than New York displaces York.

 

[JackRT]

That would be incorrect theology. Our sin nature didn't come from our "instincts"...our sin nature is a direct result of Adams disobedience. It is this act of disobedience that created our sin nature.

I do not read the Genesis myth as a fall from an original state of perfection into sin and death. The first couple were completely innocent and naïve creatures. They were certainly capable of making a mistake but without knowing good from evil they lacked even the ability to sin. That ability came only with them eating of the "Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil". To me the story is a "coming of age story". Our mythical first couple graduated from animal status into to fully self aware human beings capable of making moral judgements. This is not an Original Sin story but rather an Original Blessing story that should be celebrated. We are not a people fallen from an original state of perfection into sin and death. What we are is a people that is still evolving. We are no longer "just animals" but something more.

 

[Open Heart]

We are no longer "just animals" but something more.

Right on.

 

[-57]

I do not read the Genesis myth as a fall from an original state of perfection into sin and death. The first couple were completely innocent and naïve creatures. They were certainly capable of making a mistake but without knowing good from evil they lacked even the ability to sin. That ability came only with them eating of the "Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil". To me the story is a "coming of age story". Our mythical first couple graduated from animal status into to fully self aware human beings capable of making moral judgements. This is not an Original Sin story but rather an Original Blessing story that should be celebrated. We are not a people fallen from an original state of perfection into sin and death. What we are is a people that is still evolving. We are no longer "just animals" but something more.

The bible tells us we were not created from the animal kingdom.

What you are preaching isn't christianity.

 

[JackRT]

The bible tells us we were not created from the animal kingdom.

What you are preaching isn't christianity.

Well, I would agree it isn't your sort of Christianity.

 

[Open Heart]

The bible tells us we were not created from the animal kingdom.

What you are preaching isn't christianity.

It says we are created from dust.

Science also says we came from dust. It simply notes the gazillion steps along the way. It fills in much of the gap of how dust became man (with God's help).