The 'Christian' doctrine of Original Sin refuted

[Timmy]

w/o a proof reading this is sent.

Howya Mystical?

Amused to see you write on this thread covering Augustine -vs- Palagianism.

<sub>FYI: This post is moreso explanatory, yet intent to stir up further searching is hardly lacking. Our manner of posting usually is to point one to look further, perhaps at times seeming offensive, yet should any choose to argue without seeking further, it is usually our way dealing with non-progressive inconsistency by ending conversation then and there.

Between Eloheinu, family stuff, work, friends, this new flood of learning about hypocrisy in relation to "Effective Prayer", and the aeronautical with also the electromagnetic experimentations, this plate is already full. Yet there is one less thing being pursued at least: Saint Augustine's book ("City of God") was ceased with FTTB, as his work convolutes clarity because he often mixes up the ethical with metaphysics.</sub>

It's wondered that since the emphasis ended with Paul you ran with commenting about this? Your comments were edited toward what concerns you with sentences rearranged to address thoughts congruent.

You ready?

Here goes...

Paul and his Pauline doctrine is really NOT Christian per se.... So all this talk of Pauline New Covenant grace-based salvation by faith - is hoc os pocos est! So the questions of sin or no sin based on Paul's writings solely is not good theology. However, this topic has been splitting Christians for generations and I doubt it will be resolved here.

By the Western mode of scriptural exegesis, a person can only see a part of the truth, and will accordingly deduce misconceptions about these Hebrew scriptures, then usually fill in the blank spaces which are actually a result of misinterpreting in the first place. Those who do this come up with a cut and paste creation. There results: patchy spots, things that make no sense, holes in various places, and stuff they call mysteries (but, really are self-created confusion) ...and of necessity, certain portions of the Bible are ignored or counted as no longer valid just so their own misconstrued interpretations appear to somehow make sense to them.

Prophecy does not primarily mean "to fortell" events to occur, and a true understanding of definition will cause one to understand that there is not one portion of the Bible that is not prophecy, especially Torah..and all prophecy of a foretelling nature is known to perpetually repeat itself. So any date setter, (whether about events that have already occurred, or those that have not yet occurred) is always wrong.
(The very first thread i ever posted to here was about Mt. 24, and the people writing at that point in time were so convinced they already knew what it meant, even though Richard inquired a bit about this different perspective, i just quit with entering into discussion about it anymore at all. Since they all (with various opinions) already knew, what could be shown that they would listen to?)

So, for example, we have many thinking the Bible completely historical...and it is, but not in the Western sense of the word, as if it always moves from point a to b, or even considers explaining things through the eyes of graeco-roman logic or Hellenistic thinking. It is neither a scientific treatise, nor a mathemagical compilation.

No no-no-no NO!!!

The whole Bible is Jewish in content.
Hebrew thought is Oriental.
Christianity is an Eastern religion, and Western Protestantism is a far cry from the first century Primitive Church. What existed before the Roman state stepped in disallowing and advancing only what the state approved is not what we see today.

If the Bible will be interpreted correctly, we must look at it like those in the Bible, and those who wrote about Tanakh in it's pages (the prophets and apostles), and the approach taken toward it by the people of those days. (Even current Rabbinic Judaism, no matter how Orthodox, is not following what the ancients or our progenitors understood to do as tradition after tradition replaced the ancient paths.)

Jesus while on Earth was a Jewish Rabbi, as was Saul (from the school of Hillel led by his grandson Gamaliel.)

Under the Western influences of gnosticism infiltrating the church, as far as i can tell, beginning with Philo of Alexandria, up to currently, so many perversions and misconceptions about what the Bible actually says and means are far too many to even list. (This is why you do not find me even bothering to deal with any thread that is not steering toward a cogent view of the Bible.)

I am not so sure you correctly understand what Rabbi Shaul of Tarsus, Paul, is actually saying. Case in point, compared with what you are assuming, reconcile his words in I Corinthians 7.19: ”Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but the keeping the mitzvot of God.”

There is a huge misconception about "by grace are you saved through faith" and many a false teacher has been spreading this deception.
(It is not here now a matter to argue whether these false teachers are heretics, apostate, or decieved.)

It's that word "faith". In Archaic Hebrew it's root word is "amunah". In Koiné Greek it is "pistis". What many ignore is it's dual meaning in every instance of use in both originating languages. That English word translated "FAITH" means "FAITH AND FAITHFULNESS" simultaneously. (This is why you can catch me usually using this word written as either faith(fulness) or faithfulness.) The fact remains, if in your heart you do believe (in this way), it is not merely a belief onto doing, but rather comprises every aspect of our existence: imagination, hope, communion, consciousness, perception, reflection, contemplation, feelings, reasoning, intuition, intention, etc, and when anyone is in faith, it become so very obviously physically apparent by whatever we do and whenever we speak--(which says much about many who merely think the Bible is true in their heads and claim they are Christians because of this).

Without the time currently, it is not really wished to rehash this issue again, even though it has not been grappled through here on B.W.F.A.™.

We are all blind until Adonai opens our eyes. We are all sick, until HaShem Rapha heals us. We are all lame until we walk in the spirit of Ha' Maschiach...

...but to apply Western logic and hermeneutics to any book written from an Eastern Oriental mindset is doing yourself and the text injustice. Doing this, anyone can come up with their own wrong conclusions without the help of anyone else.

If you will begin to gain a more appropriate perspective from the Timmy's POV, and if you are interested, it is wished you will read through (at least Timmy's comments) on a thread beginning right here. This is just a starting point to more clearly understanding Paul in relation to other writers in the B'rit Hadasha (NT).

Contrary to majority rule, or your idea of "hocus pocus", the midrash Paul offers in his epistles is not a contradiction to what any others Bible writers were inspired to write. In fact, if you look at Stephen's message and subsequent stoning, from Acts 7.1 to 8.1, you can see Paul was chosen to carry on where Stephen ended. The revelation Paul received is a continuation of what he was responsible for thinking he would put a full stop to then and there. If a person thinks faith is not something substantial and entitling hope (see: James and Heb. 11:1-3, 6), that person does not understand that faith without works is dead.

Understanding faith as defined above, there is no grace without faithfulness...and people don't really know what grace actually means, even though royalty is still deferred to as "Your Grace".

Now, old Testament theology v/s New Testament theology in my opinion does not exist since Jesus to be a vaild SAVIOUR must be the OT IHVH with NO new gospel whatsoever! The fact that Jesus is qouted as saying, "Search the Scriptures for in them ye think ye have eternal life, AND THESE ARE THEY which testify of ME!" - Clearly is a throw-back to the IHVH GOD Model which Jesus is claiming as His own! There can be no "salvation" from sin apart from the sanctuary service model of the Levitical service; eventhough Jesus calls Himself a priest after the order of Melchizedek - which some scholars argue for a scribble deviation on the part of the Masoretic text development. ( Abraham and Melchizedek: Scribal Activity of Second Temple Times ..., Volume 23// http://books.google.com/books?id=kBB...page&q&f=false )

It really is not a new covenant in the sense of something different. It is new in the sense of Levitical Ordinances being a backdrop, the type, the shadow of the real; Yeshua being the anti-type, the verification validating the final and complete enactment of all previous blood covenants God has made with men--(something the proxy sacrifice of animals could never do).

On this thread, we are talking about whether or not a person has the nature to sin, and whether or not of his own choosing anyone can do God ordained right(eous actions) if they do or do not have this nature to sin.

What you have brought up concerning Torah Temple Ordinances takes us one step further in the appropriate direction. David too, has given a peek further in that direction.

(i owe David a reply or three so he's next.)

It is agreed that anyone who relies solely on any certain time period text, such as Paul's writings, ignoring or considering invalid any other part of scripture does not understand what they think they know. On this wise, anyone who cannot find how Paul's teachings fit right in with and agree with everything else does not understand what they think they know.


On a final note, the pages of that book preview you offered were read a couple of times. From what was read, authorship in several ways admits to an intended skeptically negative approach as well as saying the texts premises and conclusions are assumptions. The simple fact that other various possibilities are not explored,--such as what is not known, or the Targum by one of Paul's classmates, (Anklios<--a second Temple Rabbi as well)--along with what the author admits, makes this book questionable at best. (It's wondered if that text will still be around after 3,500 more years.)

Shalom,

þœ

p.s. Y-eraz ago, with the pseudonym of "znujeeL~", the Timmy used to sign off sometimes with "Denasté: YOU WATCH YOUR BACK and i'll watch mine!"

[Charisma]

Hi Timmy,

I note your reference to Pelagianism, and wonder how you define that? (I know what the dictionaries say.)

On this thread, we are talking about whether or not a person has the nature to sin, and whether or not of his own choosing anyone can do God ordained right(eous actions) if they do or do not have this nature to sin.

Perhaps Augustine v Pelagius is a fair way to define this discussion on the basis of the explanations given in the video, but just so you know, I do not agree that man is born without sin, as if he has a choice to 'not sin' before he is reconciled with God in his own experience.

In fact, I don't think the narrator believes that either, and is struggling to find a way to reconcile scripture and his own experience of being released from bondage to sin - which (I hope you agree) is what Paul, John and Peter all describe in various different ways.

Therefore... please do not fall into the trap that the narrator has done by trying to define doctrine (I'm sure there's a better word for this) reactively to (what is clearly false, extra-biblical) doctrine, but rather, use scripture to rid your thinking of all anti-scriptural ideas about 'sins' and 'the sin', and allow that perspective only, to inform your doctrine.

For instance, I can see how you arrived at the idea that we are 'being circumcised', but that is not what the Greek says - anywhere - in the text.

You seem to be mixing up the fact of our fallen flesh which has to die as appointed, and the renewing of the mind (which so many Christians seem to shy away from, ignore or assume doesn't apply to them), through which we become aware of the continuation of fallen thinking in areas of our lives God had not yet pointed out to us. As far as I can tell, this renewing of the mind (and therefore a change in the actions of our fallen flesh) is attributed by Paul to the gift of the grace of God which is effectual in transforming us in the same way Christ was raised from death to life. Ephesians 3:7. Paul at one time couldn't even love his own kinsmen, and now he is loving even Gentiles. We have received the incorruptible seed, and it springs forth in the appearance of a new creation.

There is a distinction between the inner man and the outer man, and injunctions to bring the actions of the outer man in line with the new inner man.

[Timmy]

Hey, David...haven't finished a response to you, and most of what follows written to C was already written at least three days (not sure exactly how many) before post #22 appeared.

Hi Timmy,

I note your reference to Pelagianism, and wonder how you define that? (I know what the dictionaries say.)

Hi Charis,

Summarily----> like you have encased as my quote:

On this thread, we are talking about whether or not a person has the nature to sin, and whether or not of his own choosing anyone can do God ordained right(eous actions) if they do or do not have this nature to sin.

Palagianism: considers that we are born innocent and without a sin nature, capable of pleasing God in what works we do: WHY?

Perhaps Augustine v Pelagius is a fair way to define this discussion on the basis of the explanations given in the video, but just so you know, I do not agree that man is born without sin, as if he has a choice to 'not sin' before he is reconciled with God in his own experience.

Looking at reconciliation and sin without covering regeneration seems ludicrous to me. There are many who think that if they do good they can be reconciled to God, and then some assuming they have experienced regeneration when it is an ongoing process and never will be complete this side of our graves.

In fact, I don't think the narrator believes that either, and is struggling to find a way to reconcile scripture and his own experience of being released from bondage to sin - which (I hope you agree) is what Paul, John and Peter all describe in various different ways.

Therefore... please do not fall into the trap that the narrator has done by trying to define doctrine (I'm sure there's a better word for this) reactively to (what is clearly false, extra-biblical) doctrine, but rather, use scripture to rid your thinking of all anti-scriptural ideas about 'sins' and 'the sin', and allow that perspective only, to inform your doctrine.

yeah yeah; but why is he putting misinformation out there when the scriptures are True?

For instance, I can see how you arrived at the idea that we are 'being circumcised', but that is not what the Greek says - anywhere - in the text.

No you can't see how i arrived with this fact.

You are somewhat right as to what the Greek says. Literally, without considering the whole epistle related to it, yes it does say what you say...but is this what is meant? Paul in Romans 8 says,

For those He foreknew He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brothers. 30 And those He predestined, He also called; and those He called, He also justified; and those He justified, He also glorified.

So, since we are already justified, sanctified, and glorified (because this was predestined), we can go and just do whatever pleases our carcass, right? (This is the same type reasoning as you are advocating.)

You seem to be mixing up the fact of our fallen flesh which has to die as appointed, and the renewing of the mind (which so many Christians seem to shy away from, ignore or assume doesn't apply to them), through which we become aware of the continuation of fallen thinking in areas of our lives God had not yet pointed out to us. As far as I can tell, this renewing of the mind (and therefore a change in the actions of our fallen flesh) is attributed by Paul to the gift of the grace of God which is effectual in transforming us in the same way Christ was raised from death to life. Ephesians 3:7. Paul at one time couldn't even love his own kinsmen, and now he is loving even Gentiles. We have received the incorruptible seed, and it springs forth in the appearance of a new creation.

You seem to be mixing up the fact that without our (fallen) flesh it is impossible for the mind to be renewed. The new man and old man are part of the same house. Allegorically, for those who have been imbued with God's zoe, existence is comparable to living in one house where one side it is shady (Rom. 7) and the other side it is pure Sonshine (Rom. 8).

The gift of grace does not come without faithfulness in what God expects and instructs us to do. It is not something we could ever earn, as all our right-deeds are as menstrual rags in His eyes. Our doing this is just a sign that we do actually desire to please Him by doing what He has revealed to do and are willing to forsake what we ourselves assume and rationalize to be good.

Paul's love was not in thought and only words. It was action. The attitude grew through this "love"="giving without expecting anything in return" which is diametrically opposed to what most today consider love to be.

The Bible does not tell us that the nature to sin died, but if we do not die to sin, we will remain adversaries to God's designated instructions of holiness for us. We will run about trying to.find excuses not to obey what God reveals as that holy, right, and good way for us. (Romans 7.12)

Romans 8:
5 For those who live according to the flesh think about the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit, about the things of the Spirit. 6 For the mindset of the flesh is death, but the mindset of the Spirit is life and peace. 7 For the mindset of the flesh is hostile to God because it does not submit itself to God’s law, for it is unable to do so. 8 Those who are in the flesh cannot please God...
Romans 12:1 Therefore, brothers, by the mercies of God, I urge you to present your bodies as a sacrifice living holy and pleasing to God; this is your spiritual worship. 2 Do not be patterned to this age, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, so that you may discern what is the good, pleasing, and perfect will of God.

When we do not live the good, pleasing and perfect (Romans 7.12) will of God for us, we do not satisfy God and we will not be able to discern what is right in God's eyes, compared with what He says and sees is wrong.

There is a distinction between the inner man and the outer man, and injunctions to bring the actions of the outer man in line with the new inner man.

...which is completely impossible for us to do.

We MUST deny ourselves, embracing our own execution:If any person will be my obedient-learner, you MUST deny yourself, take up your cross, and follow Me to the place of the skull, recognizing ourselves dead IN JESUS DEATH.

Completely identifying His death is our own, we are buried with Him [immersing ourselves in His name (= person, purpose and power) + (water baptism being the visible identification in Him in this)]

...or we never can have the life and nature of God: the violently dynamic power--"the Spirit of Christ"--to do "God's revealed will" = >Jesus' commands...which we can then embrace with confidence as it leads us closer and closer within Him. This is walking in His, the very same faithfulness that the spirit of Christ has done and is forever. Amen.

Galatians 2:16 Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law:for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.
17 But if, while we seek to be justified by Christ, we ourselves also are found sinners, is therefore Christ the minister of sin? God forbid. 18 For if I build again the things which I destroyed, I make myself a transgressor. 19 For I through the law am dead to the law, that I might live unto God. 20 I am crucified with Christ:nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me:and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me. 21 I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain.

John 14:15 If ye love me, keep my commandments. 16 And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever...18 I will not leave you comfortless:I will come to you...21 He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me:and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him...23 If a man love me, he will keep my words:and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him. 24 He that loveth me not keepeth not my sayings:and the word which ye hear is not mine, but the Father's which sent me.

II John: 5 And now I beseech thee, lady, not as though I wrote a new commandment unto thee, but that which we had from the beginning, that we love one another. 6 And this is love, that we walk after his commandments. This is the commandment, That, as ye have heard from the beginning, ye should walk in it.
7 For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.
...so much for The Great I Was and The Great I Will Be, hunh?

Shalom Aleichim,

ޜ

[Charisma]

Hi Timmy,

I just want to acknowledge your post replying to some of my points, to say I feel as if I've been hit by a scattergun. Each of the areas where we appear to disagree is a large Bible study, and I just don't have time to do any of them justice. But, I do want to come back and tell you what and why I disagree with your 'thesis' in the places where we're at variance.

The easy things to mention are Romans 7 and 6, in that order. Romans 7 is about the effect of the law before faith in Jesus Christ, and Romans 6 links with the end of Romans 7 straight into Romans 8. Then there are random verses in some of the other epistles which you might say are not yet true, but I would say are true now, according to the eternal Spirit who indwells us by the grace of God, which grace enables us to be and demonstrate a life changed at its core.

[David M]

Hello Timmy

Hey, David...haven't finished a response to you, and most of what follows written to C was already written at least three days (not sure exactly how many) before post #22 appeared.

Take your time. I am in no hurry and also have less time coming up soon to keep up with all the threads. I had not come to this thread for a while.

How is it, we agree so much when I read your writing like this as you have replied to Charisma, but totally lost the plot when replying to me in the other posts that I would not leave on record and would delete. Anyway, I know we agree on more than we disagree and despite our frustrations, we have to show will-power to moderate ourselves.

I recently replied to Rose following her comment that Adam and Eve are responsible for the humans being born sinful. I do not know if you have read that thread. One of my conclusions could upset you again.

Palagianism: considers that we are born innocent and without a sin nature, capable of pleasing God in what works we do: WHY?

I would not label myself as a Palagianist, though I think humans who were born to Adam and Eve had their nature. Adam and Eve were made and were sinless to begin with. It was within their nature to sin. This sin was; God said; "Do not .." and they decided to do that which God had forbidden them. That is sin in a nutshell.

Babies are not born sinful (full of sin). Babies are innocent until as a child they begin to know what the law is. A child once understanding of say The 10 Commandments, should then obey them as they should "honor their parents" and by honoring their parents they do as instructed by their parents. If the parents say; "do not steal", the child should not steal. If the child then goes on to steal, that is a sin against the parents; not directly against God. Once the child understands the commandment " do not steal" comes from God, then their sin would be against God, if they were to go on and steal. When King David sinned he said, (2 Sam 12:13) I have sinned against the LORD. And Nathan said unto David, The LORD also hath put away thy sin; thou shalt not die.

We read this in the Psalm credited to David (Psalm 51:3) For I acknowledge my transgressions: and my sin is ever before me 4 Against thee, thee only, have I sinned, and done this evil in thy sight: that thou mightest be justified when thou speakest, and be clear when thou judgest.

Timmy. Could God ever be in a position to sin against himself; Yes or No ?


All the best
David

[Timmy]

w/o edit so if something was missed, clarify please.

Hello Timmy

Hey, David...haven't finished a response to you, and most of what follows written to C was already written at least three days (not sure exactly how many) before post #22 appeared.

Take your time. I am in no hurry and also have less time coming up soon to keep up with all the threads. I had not come to this thread for a while.

How is it, we agree so much when I read your writing like this as you have replied to Charisma, but totally lost the plot when replying to me in the other posts that I would not leave on record and would delete. Anyway, I know we agree on more than we disagree and despite our frustrations, we have to show will-power to moderate ourselves.

I recently replied to Rose following her comment that Adam and Eve are responsible for the humans being born sinful. I do not know if you have read that thread. One of my conclusions could upset you again.

Oivey David,

As for the posts you would not leave on record, they stay and persist even if never completed. Shame or fame matters none.

Something you and dux seem not to understand in regard to presentation, what may appear to be outlandish, just totally out of character, or wrong to you is not the way everyone sees things. I'm thinking of a poem right now, just a few lines of it, and I do not even recall the author but if you just consider these words, these few words will give enough food for thought to reconsider judging me for the way I go about things differently at different times and seasons:

Judge not the workings of his brain,
And of his heart thou cannot see.
What looks to thy dim eyes a stain,
In God’s pure light may only be
A scar brought from some well-won field
Where thou wouldst only hint and yield.

Whenever we assign people to our esteemed judgement without consideration of them, and then act on such assumptions, maybe because they do not do something the way we think it ought to be done or because we believe their motives are wrong, we are passing judgment that only God is qualified to make. The Savior does not call for men to cease to be examining and discerning, but to renounce the presumptuous temptation to try to be God.

If that presumptuous temptation to try and be God is noted as determining what scripture is supposed to mean by free wheeling reasoning without accounting for other scriptures that of necessity are more valid than whatever notions we come up with: if anyone claims it as their own--owns it, both they and the falsehood need to be exposed, examined, and refuted so there is no valid false conclusion that might stand save what scripture reveals. If it is just an idea and not something held onto by another as their truth, this is something to be first taken up with them, and then after these attempts others can come into the picture.

For the claims of following Jesus, you--(and dux being led by His spirit)--both have done a piss poor job with what he tells you to do in Matthew 18.

So which "David M." is writing for the post being responded to? The writing style seems suddenly to have changed when the responses to Rose and Richard were made...as is the case for this one.

Back to answering you who thinks you might have lost the plot? What if there isn't one?

It is becoming clearer to the Timmy all the time. Here is the basic issue: we come to similar conclusions in ways, yes; however, when it comes right down to the foundational issues, as long as you keep on believing what your head says and whatever the human reasons that compose the complex, we may appear to be on the same page though actually we are world's apart.

You may be frustrated, but I have resigned to await your reply how Jesus being worshiped in ways only God is allowed, neither tells anyone not to do this nor prevents it, but assists any with requests to Him when they worship Him as God. You have been shown many scriptures indicating Jesus is God and you have twisted the meaning of many of them. The ones you have not done this with, you have completely failed to answer, and often sidestep the issue in avoidance. My how brave! It is understood how you assume Y'shua is not the one who ultimately created you, and this is not fine. There is neither offense taken nor frustration here, though you might just perpetually experience dissonance by whatever means possible when possible by the Timmy.

One wearies of stupid little word wrenching games after awhile.

Time to cut to the chase, don't you think?

Oh, all of those, your compiled reasons promised you from your thread to be sent??? I have had to begin back at square one on that again because though it was thought impossible to crash a BlackBerry Tablet, Timmy managed, just like with every cybercontrapolation ever used...pushing everything to the limits and all. Anyway, this time, having just begun again, these texts are being put in a cloud FTTB.
(Organizing those things was such a bear the first time around, and I was only about one third through, too...but however long it takes, when done, you shall be sent all of it.)

When time is available, just about everything is read from where the Timmy left off from last. So yes, all that stuff you mentioned has been read., and more.

...and the moderating ourselves??? I hail coming out from a life of severe brain damage, heroin addiction, and extreme occult praxis, so there are still many things I have no qualms about whatsoever. It has been observed that these such things you think need moderation are not really issues of morality so much as cultured differences. If another cannot handle it, they need to talk to me about it and not judge and act as though I do not give a rip, because I do care, and yet somethings like that is more an issue of being oblivious to anothers paradigm than what has comparatively been lived through by me.

This is one thing so amusing to me about dux in his twisting what the Bible actually is speaking in terms of, like:
--the quote from Col. 3.8...i was thinking what could be more like those things mentioned to avoid than any corruption of Bible truth and then expounding that (supposedly authoritatively) to others as though it were absolute truth...and dux completely missed the context of the verse which is found in verse.9: not to have any part in lying.
--Saying that Elijah went to heaven when he did not. There is a difference between atmosphere and heaven even in ancient Hebrew, and the correlating history about Elijah in the Chronicles has him writing a letter to the king of the other kindom of divided Y'israel seven years after he is misconstrued as having gone to heaven.
--a double portion does not mean 2x
--Jesus the Christ is the spirit of prophecy as Peter and John reveal in the Book, so there is not one prophet who does not stand figuratively as not representing the Messiah.
--and if Y'shua was so only Elisha, why did he prophecy the destruction of Jerusalem with this generation shall not pass wishing instead to gather them all together as when would her chick's. There was a near extermination of the children of Y'israel, so many of them crucified from Ha'Aretz to roadways near Egypt, that wood became a precious commodity. Yeah, Jesus is like Elisha and nod Elijah my left foot! He gave them what they wanted, "Let his blood be upon us and our children."
--I could go on with things that were not cogent with what dux was saying, but will save it for upcoming posts as previously mentioned to he who read the Bible with the spectacles of Marcion.

Palagianism: considers that we are born innocent and without a sin nature, capable of pleasing God in what works we do: WHY?

I would not label myself as a Palagianist, though I think humans who were born to Adam and Eve had their nature. Adam and Eve were made and were sinless to begin with. It was within their nature to sin. This sin was; God said; "Do not .." and they decided to do that which God had forbidden them. That is sin in a nutshell.

Babies are not born sinful (full of sin). Babies are innocent until as a child they begin to know what the law is. A child once understanding of say The 10 Commandments, should then obey them as they should "honor their parents" and by honoring their parents they do as instructed by their parents. If the parents say; "do not steal", the child should not steal. If the child then goes on to steal, that is a sin against the parents; not directly against God. Once the child understands the commandment " do not steal" comes from God, then their sin would be against God, if they were to go on and steal. When King David sinned he said, (2 Sam 12:13) I have sinned against the LORD. And Nathan said unto David, The LORD also hath put away thy sin; thou shalt not die.

We read this in the Psalm credited to David (Psalm 51:3) For I acknowledge my transgressions: and my sin is ever before me 4 Against thee, thee only, have I sinned, and done this evil in thy sight: that thou mightest be justified when thou speakest, and be clear when thou judgest.

Timmy. Could God ever be in a position to sin against himself; Yes or No ?


All the best
David

I would not label you as a Palagian per se either. You adhere to kult Christadelphia dogma both theologically and socially, with the lues of Jehovah Witness influence. Both of these cults are primarily rooted in the beliefs of the ancient Ebonite's. The difference with Christadelphians is that it introduces many Gnostic concepts into the formulation of their belief system, so that there is leniency in finding other sources which agree outside of their leaders and teachings of their own eclectic pseudo-Biblical conceptualization.

Sin is sin. It doesn’t matter what kind of wrong done is done how because it is all wrong.

The problem is not the deed but the natural condition of the human heart.

NOW, all sin is directly against God, and the way it is done by acting it out is secondary.

Contrary to what you say, considering the fifth word of Mosaic Law, it is never first a sin against the parents, because the parents did not make the rule. It is a sin against the Law Giver and Judge, Melki Y'shua.

As for your question, it seems a little screwy. God is always in a position where he could sin against Himself simply because He can do whatever He wants. The real question is "Will He?"
...and He does not.

Because He does not change, He will not..

We are discussing the difference between an act and the core nature of humans, and we are fools to somehow think we could ever compare with him or understand who, and how, and why He does as Jesus always does.

We do not understand because we were made to commune with Him, and Adam blew it for us all.
(..not that we would have, or even could have done it any different, because we are his progeny.)

Y'shua made it very clear that is is not the outward things that makes us unclean, impure, and sin outwardly; but what proceeds from the core of our being, the heart. In Jeremiah 17, it is revealed our own hearts, like a dollop of whipped cream are a composite of desperations twisted against God's way, and then the cherry on top deceives us, so that we can never truly know or really understand ourselves.

It's been said before and now repeated again, "Why do you have to teach a child to do what is right, but they exibit a cognizant experiential knowledge of how to do the wrong thing?"

Parcel in the human genome is the inborn tendency to sin. We are all born like this. It is our nature, the predominant human proclivity, the way of the human without God changing us is to always sin. It is not about whether we do something we might think is good or not, because everyone has different moors. Anyway, often can be seen how intended good does not go unpunished with evil, or what good is done corrupts itself because of the corrupted source from which it came: ALL OF US. The issue is that there is not a man on the face of the earth who does not sin.


You challenged Rose with this stuff, and I really wonder how much time you spend reading the Bible without whatever book to reinterpolate the meaning into something the Bible never said? But you challenged Shoshana concerning the Bible saying anything related to humans possessing the nature to sin.

Y'shua says we are from below and He is from above.

Paulos in Romans 5, beginning at verse 12, writes:

Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, in this way death spread to all men, because all sinned. In fact, sin was in the world before the law, but sin is not charged to a person’s account when there is no law. Nevertheless, death reigned...

We were all in Adam when Adam sinned so all have sinned. It is a genetic fact established, not something that comes about by what one does or does not do.

In the Psalms we read that we humans come from Sh'ol, and not from above, as is where Y'shua is.

Could anything be any plainer?

...and will be amused if--, or should we say how--you twist and wrench this into something the Bible does not say.
Þ.Œ.
Do it and we can add Palagianism to the Christadelphians, or are you still standing firm with your questionable claim that you are an eclectic kultist?

[Timmy]

Hah, reading through what was just written, David, you first claim not to adhere to Palagianism, and just a few sentences later you deny what you claimed in saying that babies are born innocent. We think your confusing ignorance for innocence.

Where is that in the Bible...that babies are innocent?

How can any of all humans conceived in sin possess anything but the nature to sin?
SIN + SIN = MORE SIN

Romans 5:6 For while we were still weak, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly.…8...God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. 16 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. 17 For if, because of one man's trespass, death reigned through that one man, much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man Jesus Christ.



How you think that before Holy Perfection you, if with only one single sin tainted action will even dare be bold enough to stands before the righteous God and Judge, Y'shua Ha'Mashiach is ludicrous understanding the heavens and earth will flee from His presence in that day.

So, you actually believe something other than if he were not forcing you to appear before Him and making it possible for you to remain to face up and give account to Him, that you are greater than the forces of nature He made and holds together?

Give me a break.

The sad part is you are continually begging for God's mercy because your false religion has no power to deliver you from your humanness, which exhibits itself in your own natural inclination to transgress against both God and man. It's called a sin nature in English, and it is a noun in the Greek manuscripts, not merely an action verb.

II Timothy 3.5 Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.

How you assume you might somehow justify your deeds as though you made yourself righteous by what you think is good that you have done is even more foolhardy. The simple fact that nobody but nobody is justified through the Law and to transgress just one (of 613 points) is guilty of breaking them all should cause you to reconsider.

In fact, reconsider the whole scenario you imagine, because there is a very good reason it is called the Great and Terrible Day of the Lord (Kurios).

You might also wish to rethink your interpretation of the word "Kurios" as well, because we know that God shall judge every person:

For as the Father raiseth up the dead, and quickeneth them; even so the Son quickeneth whom he will. For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son: That all men should honour the Son, even as they honour the Father. He that honoureth not the Son honoureth not the Father which hath sent him.
_{John 5.21-23}

And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.
_{Revelation 20.12}

Jesus is God who is Judge over the whole Earth.


While your at it, check and see what the Mosaic Law from God says happens to anyone who leads anyone away from Eloheinu through what they proclaim, such as false prophets/teachers. In short, it becomes destruction onto death.

If you do not see what the above sentence implies, explain how one trains others into the deception that by keeping the Law they will be right with God when God says nobody is made right with Him by their own works, as well as revealing that nobody born of Adam's seed is able to keep the Law.

As briefly as it can be stated, there is going to be hell to pay bubba; but we observe you fear men more than God so that you do what men say and teach instead of what God demands.

Prepare for the incineration pit or change your tune ...along with that whole song and dance charade.

Just doing my job,

Þ.Œ.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Hah, reading through what was just written, David, you first claim not to adhere to Palagianism, and just a few sentences later you deny what you claimed in saying that babies are born innocent. We think your confusing ignorance for innocence.

Where is that in the Bible...that babies are innocent?

How can any of all humans conceived in sin possess anything but the nature to sin?
SIN + SIN = MORE SIN

The sad part is you are continually begging for God's mercy because your false religion has no power to deliver you from your humanness, which exhibits itself in your own natural inclination to transgress against both God and man. It's called a sin nature in English, and it is a noun in the Greek manuscripts, not merely an action verb.

Hey there Timmy and folks!

One of the first articles I wrote after setting up this forum - long long ago when I was still a fervent Christian - was called Sin Nature - The Phlogiston of Christian Theology?. In it, I explained that the concept of "sin nature" is found nowhere in Scripture and actually makes no sense at all. It is a theological construct superimposed upon the Biblical concept of the "flesh". Some modern translations, such as the NIV, go so far as to actually "translate" (ha!) the word "sarx" (flesh) as "sin nature". I think you might find the discussion in that thread relevant.

Carry on!

Richard

[Timmy]

Hey there Timmy and folks!

One of the first articles I wrote after setting up this forum - long long ago when I was still a fervent Christian - was called Sin Nature - The Phlogiston of Christian Theology?. In it, I explained that the concept of "sin nature" is found nowhere in Scripture and actually makes no sense at all. It is a theological construct superimposed upon the Biblical concept of the "flesh". Some modern translations, such as the NIV, go so far as to actually "translate" (ha!) the word "sarx" (flesh) as "sin nature". I think you might find the discussion in that thread relevant.

Carry on!

Richard

Howdy Big Kahuna

Oh boy, your article was now read for the second time, and I still am not prepared enough to get into it, though some thoughts already looked into could help you view this current perspective just a bit. I am going to buckle down and read through the thread and should the following not be discussed (along with other related things), I might could give it a go. What is hoped is that this does not become one of those long drawn out issues quibbling over the meaning of a word, AND YET neglecting to account for the various context within which the word in question is used (relative within the reason for which this word was determined for use:

בָּשָׂר.

If recalled correctly, there are about 20 variations of this one word, and a discovery of it's very etymology indicates it is seldom used only in the sense of only the physical component, but that related factors with the "animal man" also figure into the picture we have of this one word.

You gave the comparison of light traveling through a vacum, and the ideas of philogiston and æther being tossed away as nonsense.

Hint: You could say the same thing of darkness and throw away the imaginary as well.


FTMP, what you said makes sense to me, especially with the allusion concerning "the horse without a rider", AND YET if we were not accounting for what Paulos is explaining from Romans 5-8end, the definition based on what you say in your article seems (to me) to be just a bit short of definition. The etymology of the word says alot in and of itself, and ultimately means something like "What come off/from/of the bones".

If you do not recall being asked in a thread(that Timmy should have responded to you concerning, since the Timmy started it just to cover an equally related issue with this "nature to sin"="sarx")concerning what actually consitutes denial of Jesus Christ and all it entailed. I just figured that since you did not see sickness, disease, malformities, etc. as parcel with sin, the discussion would go nowhere.

A lamb without blemish entails both physical and the core/"heart" composites of nephesh and ruach as well as the outward appearances. This is signified in the observation time in processing whether any acceptable sacrifice is completely acceptable. What I am saying is that any physical or emotive/intellectual capacities of the human are covered in the sacrifice. The very first Pesach is recounted in this respect, where out of all the young, old, and previously physically maimed, upon the Exodus out from Egypt it is recounted that "...there was not one weak or sickly among them" in the Psalm.

The above reason is why I consider most who claim thinking they are saved to be nuts and are actually talking about phlogiston or ætherics which have little if anything to do with physical reality. Recall what Y'shua proclaimed, after the religious leaders considered Him to blaspheme God for saying, Son, your sins are forgiven...Which is easier, to say your sins are forgiven or...but that you might know that the son of man has power to forgive sins, take up your palate and walk." Yeah, you heard me right. On this wise, how come this is not the true experience of many who say they believe but the fruits just are not there. After all, which is easier, to make a baseless claim that "Jesus is Lord" or exhibit proof you actually are trusting in full reliance on the completed once for all time sacrifice of Him who it was promised in prophecy by Abraham Avinu,“Eloheinu will provide Himself a lamb.” It is quite questionable if any continue pleading with God to do for them what He has already completed through the sacrifice in His only begotten Son that they actually have any trust that God has already done it, much less being able to accept as theirs and receive these "free love gifts" (aka: GRACE) from the Faithful and True beginning and end of all things, His Eternal Majesty, Y'shua Ha'Mashiach.

I am nobody to determine what another can or cannot do, and even less know whether one is walking by and through the faithfulness of and in the Son of God. All I am saying is that the gate into the kingdom is tighter than a turnstiles, and the path becomes narrower as one walks in Him as the Way. Covering this, each needs to examine themselves and see if they are actually in His faith(fulness) or just assuming things in their head without any physical world proof and according results promised as already given.

Which is easier: To say I believe, or say I believe and then prove it?


Have you studied how closely Yochanan relates with what Paul is explaining concerning the difference between the "sarx" of acension in and of Yeshua compared with the "sarx" of Adamic decent: briefly, John 6.beg. approx. v.50 -vs- John 3.6, respectively.

Would it have made any difference to you had I phrased sarx defined in English as "the inborn tendency to sin" instead of "sin nature"?


Keep your mind fixed on Him and know
Shalom Shalom,
Þ.Œ.

[David M]

Hello Richard
I have not read your post you have linked to, but from the little you have said, I think I agree with you. When discussing these things, much confusion is caused by misunderstanding in our communication in the words we use and the different meanings we attach to those words. This is why we have to be clear about some of the things we say before moving on.

Hey there Timmy and folks!

One of the first articles I wrote after setting up this forum - long long ago when I was still a fervent Christian - was called Sin Nature - The Phlogiston of Christian Theology?. In it, I explained that the concept of "sin nature" is found nowhere in Scripture and actually makes no sense at all. It is a theological construct superimposed upon the Biblical concept of the "flesh". Some modern translations, such as the NIV, go so far as to actually "translate" (ha!) the word "sarx" (flesh) as "sin nature". I think you might find the discussion in that thread relevant.

Carry on!

Richard

I will carry on and just make a comment or two about what Timmy has written and possibly misunderstood. He agrees my thinking does not totally align with Palagianism and wants to label me as a Christadelphian or Jehovah's Witness etc and by doing judges everything I say to those and more cults. Why cannot it be accepted I have also reasoned these things our for myself. We all hear and read and we all have to make up our minds and reason for ourselves. I am not accepting another's reasoning blindly. Once this is accepted, then it is futile associating what I write with this or that cult (as you want to refer to different assemblies).

I can agree with Timmy and say; "Sin is Sin", but Timmy fails to see how this relates to a child. A child is told the law, by the parents. My example was using one of the 10 Commandments and we all know (though even this is disagreed) the commandments are (first) recorded in the Book of Exodus and given to the Children of Israel. Many parents do not know that? So a parent can tell a child not to steal, not knowing where that commandment came from and it could be thought to be morally correct not to steal. Ultimately, the law is of God, but if someone puts themselves outside the law claiming ignorance of the law, then can they be judged by the law? According to the law of the land; ignorance is no excuse. Until a child knows that "not to steal" is God's law, it can be argued that if a child steals, they sin not against God, but against their parents who gave that commandment (law) to their child. There appear to be different types of sin as recorded in 1 Sam 2:25 If one man sin against another, the judge shall judge him: but if a man sin against the LORD, who shall entreat for him?


There is so much to Timmy's reply and each part has to be dealt with separately. I shall just pick up on this one comment of Timmy's to conclude this post. I wonder at Timmy's understanding of God word. He does not accept I can reason things out for myself ;

"I really wonder how much time you spend reading the Bible without whatever book to reinterpolate the meaning"

I could ask Timmy how he has come by some of his conclusions. Timmy is relying on teaching I have not come across.

As for your question, it seems a little screwy. God is always in a position where he could sin against Himself simply because He can do whatever He wants. The real question is "Will He?"
...and He does not.

Because He does not change, He will not..

Timmy, how can you conclude ; "He (God) will not... (change, sin etc)". If God does not change and he is Spirit and he is the same "yesterday, today, and tomorrow", does that not say, he does not change and cannot change. You are saying; "if God's wants to", he can sin against himself. So then, if God were to sin, that would make God unrighteous (forever). Surely, if God is to remain forever the righteous judge, he must never sin. That is as good as saying "he cannot sin".

You are saying; God can break his promise (if he wants to). Does that make God trustworthy? Do we only trust God, because, up to now, we have no indication he has changed in the past? With the possibility God could change in the future and not keep his promise, makes for a very uncertain future. What certainty is there in eternal life, if God can change his mind at any time? If that were the case, I would not trust God, any more than I would trust God's Angels to do his will. You again accuse God of creating Angels like humans, with the capacity to sin. Angels would be at enmity with God. The only enmity with God is the carnal mind. Humans have a carnal mind and especially when that mind does not have the teaching of Jesus in it by which "the mind of Jesus" controls their actions.; hence the doing. It is the mind of Christ based on the teaching of God as found in the teaching of Moses and the prophets that makes Jesus "heavenly" (above) and not "earthy" below. Jesus is comparing mindsets.

All the best
David