Pretty interesting debate, however I do wish that the UR person was talking to a more assertive Pastor, he made it seem to easy to break the logic of an eternal hell. Maybe it is supposed to be too easy? :dontknow:
Has anyone read Tom Talbotts book: Universal Salvation?The debate. I've heard this gives readers a fair view on all sides.
How can we read the debate?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=2wy77GQNkF0 :doh: lol
I'm about to enter a debate, so I'll consider watching the vid as homework and preparation. Zoo, you are very timely, thank you!
Edit: Sorry - the voices were too indistinct, too soft, did about five minutes and quit.
This preacher is so mixed up it is pitiful. I hope he goes back and listens to himself and reads as he listens.
CHB
Quote from: Lazarus Short on January 16, 2013, 03:43:47 AM
I'm about to enter a debate, so I'll consider watching the vid as homework and preparation. Zoo, you are very timely, thank you!
Edit: Sorry - the voices were too indistinct, too soft, did about five minutes and quit.
Do you mean Laz that you could not hear the ET's voice? I had to use ear phones as he did sound hazy.
Quote from: misszoolander on January 16, 2013, 04:56:23 AM
Quote from: Lazarus Short on January 16, 2013, 03:43:47 AM
I'm about to enter a debate, so I'll consider watching the vid as homework and preparation. Zoo, you are very timely, thank you!
Edit: Sorry - the voices were too indistinct, too soft, did about five minutes and quit.
Do you mean Laz that you could not hear the ET's voice? I had to use ear phones as he did sound hazy.
I could not hear either one particularly well, especially the ET. It is probably due to the telephone connection, and a bad microphone.
His answers were typical doctrine that is shoveled and it appeared as though he was thinking for the first time about what the UR guy brought up. So here's my take. Nobody from his congregation has ever challenged anything he's ever said so he hasn't had to think. He may be "cloistered" and not get out in the real world much. One thing I love about the internet. - No matter what you say or believe, someone will pop up to challenge it and make you think about it from another perspective. I watched a video from an atheist yesterday and he totally destroyed the ET doctrine with just common sense and logic (He thought he was destroying Christianity since most people think if you're a christian you think everyone else will burn for all eternity)
Yes, Jeff, so many atheists are so good at analyzing stuff, given their brilliant minds (and shallow understanding). I know, I used to be one. Debunking ET is so easy, it's almost like a strawman exercise. A caveman could do it.
I hope I am not berated, but the pastors answers were "silly." :HeartThrob:
Quote from: ded2daworld on January 16, 2013, 05:45:49 PM
His answers were typical doctrine that is shoveled and it appeared as though he was thinking for the first time about what the UR guy brought up. So here's my take. Nobody from his congregation has ever challenged anything he's ever said so he hasn't had to think. He may be "cloistered" and not get out in the real world much. One thing I love about the internet. - No matter what you say or believe, someone will pop up to challenge it and make you think about it from another perspective. I watched a video from an atheist yesterday and he totally destroyed the ET doctrine with just common sense and logic (He thought he was destroying Christianity since most people think if you're a christian you think everyone else will burn for all eternity)
I guess that is what I loved about this debate, this debate showed me my old self (the Pastor) and my new self (UR guy).
Back when I believed ET I never questioned anything, I was content to believe whatever I was told, I was
lazy.
I believe that although asking questions about God seems like you lack faith in him, it actually proves you do
care.
Only people that want true answers ask questions. I was a lazy Christian back then, the church was my cornerstone but now... Well Christ is my cornerstone, and each day brings a new revelation with him.
yeah, MIcah - like I said, it was as if he had read the bible pnce many years ago and then hadn't thought much about it since.
Some pastors know a lot more "pop" psychology than they know scripture and preach like a psychologist would to "help" his congregation. KInda like these vhurches that sponsored famous Psychologist Dwayne Dyer author of "Your Erroneous Zones"
he preaches what ET'ers accuse us of believing - everyone gets to heaven scot free-no punishment-no correction- not even a reprimand and God sort of apologising to us for not making everything crystal clear. :doh: Oy Vey :laugh:
Because the words are important to me I would like to take umbrage with the atheist's use of the word persuasion. I don't think Satan persuaded Eve to take the fruit. He lied to her. Then he confused her by asking her if God really said what Satan himself knew God really said. If Eve would have said to the snake "hang on a minute I'll check with God what He said, won't be a minute, oh here He comes now ... God, hi over here.", I think her next sentence would have been, "Now where did that snake go? He was here a minute ago".
The thing Satan did was tell Eve that she could make up her own mind and that God didn't mean what He said. So, he lied, and bullied Eve: and this guy thinks that is what God does to show me how much He loves me, and equates God and Satan's MO? The whole 'debate' is based on the atheist's assumption that he is right. "And you shall be as God". That is something most people don't need to be persuaded to believe, so how come Satan gets all the credit for doing what a first year advertizing executive does to millions of people every day? The sentence should not have been, Satan has the power to persuade people to do what he wants them to, the sentence should have been, Satan has the power to convince people to do what they want to do in the first place. Well, frankly anyone can do that.
Every person sins when he/she is drawn away of their own lust and enticed.
IMO, It wasn't just that Satan convinced Eve to make up her own mind, because she could have made up her mind to trust the Creator. I wonder, when we consider this concept of original sin, if we have a"chicken or the egg" thing going on because someone could say Eve sinned before she ate, as she "saw that it was good to make one wise" and lusted after that wisdom.
Who is a wise man and endued with knowledge among you? let him shew out of a good conversation his works with meekness of wisdom. But if ye have bitter envying and strife in your hearts, glory not, and lie not against the truth. This wisdom descendeth not from above, but is earthly, sensual, devilish(tree of knowledge of good & evil). For where envying and strife is, there is confusion and every evil work(death/chaos). But the wisdom that is from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, and easy to be intreated, full of mercy and good fruits, without partiality, and without hypocrisy(tree of life). And the fruit of righteousness is sown in peace of them that make peace(communion/harmony).
(Jas 3:13-18)
What was done to Eve is getting her to question the word of God.
SERPENT: "Did God REALLY say..."
Then Eve added to the word of God when quoting it back to the serpent
EVE: He said we must not eat it or TOUCH IT or you will die.
At this point the serpent could have let his body brush against the fruit and say:
Serpent: You won't REALLY die, you'll be like God and he knows it. (Implying God lied to her)
Then when she saw she wasn't harmed by the prohibition that she herself had added of touching the fruit.
she assumed that the word of God had been wrong and what someone other than God told her was right.
So the whole problem was doubting/misinterpreting/adding to the word of God and listening to someone else deny what God had said.
And I think that has been a problem up to the present day. I am very wary of anyone that's wants to change, make excuses for, add to, or twist the scriptures by redefinition of words.
good comments :thumbsup: I think there was a serpent hanging on that tree.And Eve was unable to discern/know the
the difference between He who loved her..and him who hated her. Thus the son of God on a tree/bronze serpent lifted up
in the wilderness. The Son of God coming to reveal Him who loves us. and show us him who doesn't. That man should
KNOW THE FATHER,and KNOW LOVE..and be able to discern the difference.
I think we did NOT KNOW WHAT LOVE WAS/FORGIVE THEM FATHER,THEY KNOW NOT WHAT THEY DO
Quote from: eaglesway on January 18, 2013, 07:15:18 AM
I wonder, when we consider this concept of original sin, if we have a"chicken or the egg" thing going on because someone could say Eve sinned before she ate, as she "saw that it was good to make one wise" and lusted after that wisdom.
I'm totally convinced the sin happened long before the act. The covet occurs before the theft, the lust before the deed. I think you are right in this case. Sin takes a lot of groundwork. I also believe that changing your mind (or repenting) is what Paul had in mind when he said "And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God"(Romans 12:2 ). I think in a lot of cases, the act is merely the confirmation that the sin has already occurred.
IMO -The sin is "crouching at the door" - in the mind before the body acts on it.
When Eve lusted after the fruit, she still, at that time, had not broken the direct commandment of "do not eat" :Peace2:
well..when Jesus said 'do not even keep looking at a woman with lust/desire] He said it was just the same for the thought desire
to be in your heart/adultery. And when He give the sop to Judas[the devil already to have put it in the heart] satan entered
Judas...and Jesus said..'what you are about to do..do quickly"
above all things guard your heart..for out of the heart comes what defiles a man...again heart motivation :HeartThrob:
what do you think the heart motivation is that would lead someone out to desire what would bring it death,misery,suffering?
what is the heart motivation that calls/in-sin-u-ate God has lied?
I meant she hadn't physically broken the commandment while acknowledging
the sin was first in her mind. Sorry I didn't make it clear. :Peace2:
:dontknow: LOL! i THOUGHT THE SCRIPTURES i PUT UP WAS SHOWING AGREEMENT...THAT YES..IN THE MIND..FIRST..THEN
HEART..-THEN ACTION. :iagree: I WASN'T DISAGREEING :HeartThrob:
Quote from: eaglesway on January 18, 2013, 07:15:18 AM
Every person sins when he/she is drawn away of their own lust and enticed.
IMO, It wasn't just that Satan convinced Eve to make up her own mind, because she could have made up her mind to trust the Creator. I wonder, when we consider this concept of original sin, if we have a"chicken or the egg" thing going on because someone could say Eve sinned before she ate, as she "saw that it was good to make one wise" and lusted after that wisdom.
Who is a wise man and endued with knowledge among you? let him shew out of a good conversation his works with meekness of wisdom. But if ye have bitter envying and strife in your hearts, glory not, and lie not against the truth. This wisdom descendeth not from above, but is earthly, sensual, devilish(tree of knowledge of good & evil). For where envying and strife is, there is confusion and every evil work(death/chaos). But the wisdom that is from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, and easy to be intreated, full of mercy and good fruits, without partiality, and without hypocrisy(tree of life). And the fruit of righteousness is sown in peace of them that make peace(communion/harmony).
(Jas 3:13-18)
"IMO, It wasn't just that Satan convinced Eve to make up her own mind,
because she could have made up her mind to trust the Creator."
Just how would that be possible? How could/would that have been possible? In affect, imo, that would leave The Lord holding the bag for admitting that His creation malfunctioned. And in my opinion, that is not an option. Either ALL went as the Creator planned or HE made a mistake. And that I will not accept. :HeartThrob:
I understand your point Micah, and don't really disagree- I was just making the theoretical opposite of "Original sin was Eve deciding to make up her own mind". That was not the nature of the sin IMO. If, theoretically, she had not disobeyed, God would not have been left holding the bag for anything, because there would have been no fall.
"the theoretical " has, was, and is my stumbling block all along. :dsunny:
Ah Yes, that great stumbling block between our ears :Peace2:
oh...you mean..the 'blockhead" syndrome!!
Um...as in Peanuts: "You blockhead!"? :laughing7:
Quote from: ded2daworld on January 18, 2013, 11:13:57 AM
What was done to Eve is getting her to question the word of God.
SERPENT: "Did God REALLY say..."
I used this phrasing as an example to make a point once. Maybe this is still valid.
I have never heard the phrase "Did he/she/you really ..." actually used to elicit information. It has always been used to express doubt, or disapproval, or even solidarity. It serves the function of asking you to repeat what you said, under scrutiny. Notice that even if you repeat exactly what you just said, word for word, your voice is less sure, or you become defensive, or you shout as a way of hiding your own doubt, the creation of which is the end result of that phrasing. This wording serves to make you loose approval. I also think that is why Eve put the words about touching in her answer. She was unsure of her response so she needed to flesh it out, to validate what she said.
All she had to do was check with God, and let Him be her answer.
Quote from: sheila on January 19, 2013, 06:53:49 AM
oh...you mean..the 'blockhead" syndrome!!
What are you trying to say?
:Chinscratch: :LH:
My neck is Stone Hinge.
Quote from: VineBranch on January 18, 2013, 07:27:55 PM
Quote from: eaglesway on January 18, 2013, 07:15:18 AM
I wonder, when we consider this concept of original sin, if we have a"chicken or the egg" thing going on because someone could say Eve sinned before she ate, as she "saw that it was good to make one wise" and lusted after that wisdom.
I'm totally convinced the sin happened long before the act. The covet occurs before the theft, the lust before the deed. I think you are right in this case. Sin takes a lot of groundwork. I also believe that changing your mind (or repenting) is what Paul had in mind when he said "And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God"(Romans 12:2 ). I think in a lot of cases, the act is merely the confirmation that the sin has already occurred.
Right, I agree. Eve, and Adam with her, committed all these sins
before she ever touched the tree.
- 1 John 2:16 "For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world."
Eve was guilty of
"all that is in the world" (1 John above)
BEFORE she ever touched the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
- Genesis 3:6 "And when the woman SAW that the tree was good for food [The lust of the flesh], and that it was pleasant to the eyes [lust of the eyes], and a tree to be desired to make one wise [The pride of life], she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat."
They did so because:
- Romans 8:20 "For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly [not by their own will], but by reason of him [God], who hath subjected the same in hope."
And:
- Jeremiah 18:4 "And the vessel that he made of clay was MARRED in the hand of the potter: so he made it again another vessel, as seemed good to the potter to make it."
When they ate the fruit of the tree of
'the knowledge of good and evil', it did not cause them to
BECOME NAKED, it only caused them to
"REALIZE they were already NAKED to begin with." The tree of
"the knowledge of good and evil" was a shadow of
The Law:
- Romans 7:7 "........I would not have come TO KNOW sin [know I was naked] except through the Law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet."
(i.e. - "I would not have come
TO KNOW (to the KNOWLEDGE OF) sin
(good and evil),
except through
the Law (the Tree)."
Quote from: ded2daworld on January 16, 2013, 09:39:38 PM
yeah, MIcah - like I said, it was as if he had read the bible pnce many years ago and then hadn't thought much about it since.
Some pastors know a lot more "pop" psychology than they know scripture and preach like a psychologist would to "help" his congregation. KInda like these vhurches that sponsored famous Psychologist Dwayne Dyer author of "Your Erroneous Zones"
he preaches what ET'ers accuse us of believing - everyone gets to heaven scot free-no punishment-no correction- not even a reprimand and God sort of apologising to us for not making everything crystal clear. :doh: Oy Vey :laugh:
Ya know, I have heard that kind of thing for years...the pastor sounds like a psychologist etc. but, I have yet to hear examples. What specifically sounds like a psychologist? And what is so bad about that? My observation is this, when studying what makes humans happy, healthy and sane...you see Biblical principles. When you see what makes people dysfunctional, insane, unhappy and irrational you see Biblical values being violated. The study of the human mind and faith go together quite well.
It's sort of like Faith and science...many people act like they are enemies when in fact they are not...just different ways of searching for truth. My faith in God has been enhanced by my study of science. My study of psychology has also strengthened my faith, not weakened it.
And I know your point is more along the lines of pastors who are more concerned about the latest psychology fad than Scripture...just a good opportunity for me to soap box a bit. :winkgrin:
IMO. When Psychology does testing and gets results, that fine. But when they start to philosophize and conjecture about what the results mean, then I believe they are overstepping the science part of it and bringing in their own problems and agenda. Like it's common knowledge that sigmund Freud really had a sex problem so to him all problems were related to sex. It also seems to me from people I have known, that the more emotional problems a college student has, the more likely they are to major (or at least take many classes in Psychology. Psychology avoids ever mentioning the root problem, SIN.
I also agree with you about science. WHen science does it's testable, repeatable, observable experimtents, it's fantastic. When they start conjecturing about what happened in the unreapeatable, untestable, unobservable past while ignoring the testimony of the only eye witness, well, there is a problem. Scientist have eliminated the possibility of the supernatural and thus, the root cause of all. :2c:
Quote from: ded2daworld on January 19, 2013, 03:46:20 PM
IMO. When Psychology does testing and gets results, that fine. But when they start to philosophize and conjecture about what the results mean, then I believe they are overstepping the science part of it and bringing in their own problems and agenda. Like it's common knowledge that sigmund Freud really had a sex problem so to him all problems were related to sex. It also seems to me from people I have known, that the more emotional problems a college student has, the more likely they are to major (or at least take many classes in Psychology. Psychology avoids ever mentioning the root problem, SIN.
I also agree with you about science. WHen science does it's testable, repeatable, observable experimtents, it's fantastic. When they start conjecturing about what happened in the unreapeatable, untestable, unobservable past while ignoring the testimony of the only eye witness, well, there is a problem. Scientist have eliminated the possibility of the supernatural and thus, the root cause of all. :2c:
:goodpost: :iagree:
Quote from: ded2daworld on January 19, 2013, 03:46:20 PM
IMO. When Psychology does testing and gets results, that fine. But when they start to philosophize and conjecture about what the results mean, then I believe they are overstepping the science part of it and bringing in their own problems and agenda. Like it's common knowledge that sigmund Freud really had a sex problem so to him all problems were related to sex. It also seems to me from people I have known, that the more emotional problems a college student has, the more likely they are to major (or at least take many classes in Psychology. Psychology avoids ever mentioning the root problem, SIN.
I also agree with you about science. WHen science does it's testable, repeatable, observable experimtents, it's fantastic. When they start conjecturing about what happened in the unreapeatable, untestable, unobservable past while ignoring the testimony of the only eye witness, well, there is a problem. Scientist have eliminated the possibility of the supernatural and thus, the root cause of all. :2c:
Yep. Science
IS the
answer and the
cause in the minds of my colleagues. But in truth, science only analyzes and attempts to explain what God has already made. Take
Newton's Laws of Motion & Universal Gravitation that he derived in the 17th century AD. Newton's Laws have
ALWAYS existed, they are the laws that God constructed to govern His physical universe. But Isaac Newton simply analyzed and wrote down motions and properties that were
ALREADY there for millennia. They are
God's Laws, not Newton's Laws. Newton simply drew
'a map' or
'a model' of the terrain that was there all along.
By the way, Isaac Newton, the greatest scientist of all time, and arguably the most intelligent by far, was a
Universalist, with strong faith, and a deep, thorough knowledge of the Scriptures. This is an important fact today's arrogant, know-it-all,
'wanna-be-Newton' scientists should reflect on - as well as religionists who subscribe to eternal torment. You think
James Kennedy with his 6 degrees, or
John Calvin, who had an infidel burned to death on slow burning wood :doh:, had anything on
Isaac Newton in the
IQ department? :pointlaugh:
YEAH, RIGHT!! Who's da man?! :laughing7:
I'm impressed! Good post(s). :dsunny:
Illuin - your post mentioning cause and answer reminded me of a quote from Homer Simpson:
"Ahh Beer... The cause of - and the answer to - all of our problems.
Quote from: ded2daworld on January 19, 2013, 09:23:29 PM
Illuin - your post mentioning cause and answer reminded me of a quote from Homer Simpson:
"Ahh Beer... The cause of - and the answer to - all of our problems.
:laughhand: There are indeed a few small nuggets of hidden wisdom in
the Homie at times.
There is one thing I have never understood, perhaps you guys have a take on it. How did Eve know the fruit would make her wise by simply looking at it?
The serpent told her it would make her wise and she looked at it and it probably looked as good as all the other fruit in the garden. - much like we are encouraged to try "a new taste sensation!"
Quote from: VineBranch on January 19, 2013, 10:52:35 PM
There is one thing I have never understood, perhaps you guys have a take on it. How did Eve know the fruit would make her wise by simply looking at it?
The answer to that question is another confirmation that Adam and Eve were
"made subject to vanity and marred in the hand of the Potter." The
"natural man" (and woman) is programmed having an innate appreciation for
outward beauty. Scientific studies have proven that babies respond more favorably to attractive babysitters than they do less attractive babysitters. That is simply the norm for the
corruptible, flesh and blood, dust of the ground nature of the Adamic man.
There were
two trees in the Garden of Eden: the
Tree of Life; and the
Tree of The Knowledge of Good and Evil.
Christ is the "
Tree of Life." And what are we told of Christ:
- Isaiah 53:2 "For he shall grow up before him as a tender plant, and as a root out of a dry ground: he hath no form nor comeliness; and when we shall see him, there is no beauty that we should desire him."
If that was true of Christ
in the flesh, why would it not also be true of Christ as
"the tree of life?"In the middle of the garden of Eden, one tree is beautiful and full of beautiful fruit; a tree in which Eve was told by the serpent that it was
good for food. The other tree seemingly has nothing special to offer, and even its fruit has
"no form nor comeliness, or beauty that we should desire it (Him)."Now what would and carnal
"marred clay vessel... shapen in iniquity, and conceived in sin" do under such circumstances? The results were
guaranteed, and that is why a sacrifice for sin had been
"slain from the foundation of the world."Nothing has changed. Even in the world of religion, people adore the glitz and glam of fast-food religion, they can't get enough of it. But the
True Living Word of God has
"no form nor comeliness, or beauty that we should desire Him."
Quote from: ded2daworld on January 19, 2013, 11:03:06 PM
The serpent told her it would make her wise and she looked at it and it probably looked as good as all the other fruit in the garden. - much like we are encouraged to try "a new taste sensation!"
I get taste, but Eve somehow believed that the tree would make her wise. Just because Satan said so she believed it. God says x and she has doubts, Satan says y and she believes to the exclusion of believing God. Did Eve know what wisdom was, or did she just do it because it was something new and God was old?
I guess what I'm saying is that I see no difference between Eve before the fall and Eve after the fall. So, human has always been human. I don't think humans humans changed because of the fall, I think we have been consistant throughout, and that we just fall for what is said to be good by those who would lead us. I don't think the fall changed us, it just put us further away from God: but we are still who we have always been. So, I'm not sure any of us can really lead any of us. Eve, like any of us, can justify whatever needs to be justified.
Great line :o) "I am not sure any of us can really lead any of us".
I agree. We are supposed to be brothers and sisters encouraging one another. Exploring new realms together. Members of one another under one Head- Jesus.
Quote from: Illuin on January 20, 2013, 03:57:37 AM
If that was true of Christ in the flesh, why would it not also be true of Christ as "the tree of life?"
Because somewhere along the line we have to stop speculating, and relying on metaphor and grandiose narrative, and see what is actually said, and what that actually means.
Quote from: eaglesway on January 20, 2013, 04:17:15 AM
Great line :o) "I am not sure any of us can really lead any of us".
I agree. We are supposed to be brothers and sisters encouraging one another. Exploring new realms together. Members of one another under one Head- Jesus.
Amen to that brother. :gimmefive:
"those who are led of the Spirit are the sons of God"
"Walk in the Spirit and you shall not fulfill the lusts of the flesh"
I am convinced it is the Spirit overflowing around and through us that makes this thing called "Body" work.
I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service. And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God. For I say, through the grace given unto me, to every man that is among you, not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think; but to think soberly, according as God hath dealt to every man the measure of faith. For as we have many members in one body, and all members have not the same office: So we, being many, are one body in Christ, and every one members one of another. Having then gifts differing according to the grace that is given to us, whether prophecy, let us prophesy according to the proportion of faith;
(Rom 12:1-6)
As each one has received a special gift, employ it in serving one another as good stewards of the manifold grace of God. Whoever speaks, is to do so as one who is speaking the utterances of God; whoever serves is to do so as one who is serving by the strength which God supplies; so that in all things God may be glorified through Jesus Christ, to whom belongs the glory and dominion forever and ever. Amen.
(1Pe 4:10-11)
Oh Lord, have mercy on us.
Quote from: VineBranch on January 20, 2013, 04:22:58 AM
Quote from: Illuin on January 20, 2013, 03:57:37 AM
If that was true of Christ in the flesh, why would it not also be true of Christ as "the tree of life?"
Because somewhere along the line we have to stop speculating, and relying on metaphor and grandiose narrative, and see what is actually said, and what that actually means.
Precisely. And that is why I posted what I did.
Quote from: Illuin on January 20, 2013, 04:48:16 AM
Precisely. And that is why I posted what I did.
No offense but I think you kinda missed the point.
Why are we all so pointy? :swordfight:
Quote from: eaglesway on January 20, 2013, 07:49:45 AM
Why are we all so pointy? :swordfight:
So we shouldn't be dull. :cheerleader:
We ought to be sharp, without slicing one another up :o)
Quote from: eaglesway on January 20, 2013, 07:44:13 PM
We ought to be sharp, without slicing one another up :o)
That's why we are pointy and not edgy.
Said the pirate as he pressed the miserable captive closer to the edge, continally repeating, "Har Har Har, Get my point? Har Har Har! Over the edge Matey!
Quote from: VineBranch on January 20, 2013, 04:11:05 AM
Quote from: ded2daworld on January 19, 2013, 11:03:06 PM
The serpent told her it would make her wise and she looked at it and it probably looked as good as all the other fruit in the garden. - much like we are encouraged to try "a new taste sensation!"
I get taste, but Eve somehow believed that the tree would make her wise. Just because Satan said so she believed it. God says x and she has doubts, Satan says y and she believes to the exclusion of believing God. Did Eve know what wisdom was, or did she just do it because it was something new and God was old?
I guess what I'm saying is that I see no difference between Eve before the fall and Eve after the fall. So, human has always been human. I don't think humans humans changed because of the fall, I think we have been consistant throughout, and that we just fall for what is said to be good by those who would lead us. I don't think the fall changed us, it just put us further away from God: but we are still who we have always been. So, I'm not sure any of us can really lead any of us. Eve, like any of us, can justify whatever needs to be justified.
" I don't think the fall changed us, it just put us further away from God: ...."
I believe it actually put us closer to God..."Behold, the man is become as one of us..."
Quote from: micah7:9 on January 21, 2013, 07:39:45 AM
" I don't think the fall changed us, it just put us further away from God: ...."
I believe it actually put us closer to God..."Behold, the man is become as one of us..."
Seriously? You think Adam was closer to God
after the fall? Really?
I think because of the fall, we will become closer to God, if that makes the sense, I think I know where Micah is coming from.
Adam was destined to fall, that was Gods plan. Gods ultimate will is for him to be all in all, not in a robotic way, in a sense of real love. God used sin as a means for us to understand and choose good over evil, when you consider the bleakness of sin and compare it to a perfect Holy God we will of course choose him, not because we have too, but because we want too and this glorifies God. My :2c:
:dsunny: Yes same page, Glory to the King! :HeartThrob:
Quote from: misszoolander on January 21, 2013, 08:57:53 AM
I think because of the fall, we will become closer to God, if that makes the sense, I think I know where Micah is coming from.
Micah used the word in the past tense, you use it in the future tense and yet you are saying the same thing. Okay!!??
Please be patient with us Brother,
I guess how you understand what we mean by "closer" depends if you believe Adam was born perfect at the start.
Every step we take in this life brings us closer to Gods ultimate will, That God will be ALL IN ALL. - that is the closest you can get to God.
Will Gods end result with his creation be better then Adam before the fall? I believe so. Adam was "very good" before, we all however were not made to be "very good" we were made to become perfect, like our Heavenly Father is perfect.
Quote from: misszoolander on January 22, 2013, 01:41:02 AM
Please be patient with us Brother,
I guess how you understand what we mean by "closer" depends if you believe Adam was born perfect at the start.
Every step we take in this life brings us closer to Gods ultimate will, That God will be ALL IN ALL. - that is the closest you can get to God.
Will Gods end result with his creation be better then Adam before the fall? I believe so. Adam was "very good" before, we all however were not made to be "very good" we were made to become perfect, like our Heavenly Father is perfect.
Fair Call!!
The Greek word perfect merely means complete. Do I believe Adam was born complete? I think Adam was born completely Adam.
"Every step we take in this life brings us closer to Gods ultimate will,
That God will be ALL IN ALL. - that is the closest you can get to God."
So, just to make sure I have it: the closest we can get to God, is to get to His ultimate will? We can't actually get to God Himself in this life?
"Adam was 'very good' before, we all however were not made to be "very good" we were made to become perfect, like our Heavenly Father is perfect."
therefore:
Adam is not very good anymore?
Perfect is not very good?
Personally, I don't think Adam fell from perfection, I think he fell from grace. He was as much Adam after the fall as He was before.
You are therefore, using
becoming close to God, as becoming more like God, not getting closer (as in drawing nigh) to Him?
"So, just to make sure I have it: the closest we can get to God, is to get to His ultimate will? We can't actually get to God Himself in this life?"
No, IMO not to get to his Ultimate will, to fulfill his ultimate will, which is to be perfect/complete, and to sin no more, and not be capable of sinning full stop. We can "get to (?)" God in this life, however we can not fulfill his ultimate will to be perfect/complete in this life, because he is yet not all in all hence we are not complete and in this life we are still capable of sinning.
"therefore:
Adam is not very good anymore?
Perfect is not very good?"
Adam is merely very good, not perfect/complete until God becomes all in all. There is a difference isn't there?
"Personally, I don't think Adam fell from perfection, I think he fell from grace. He was as much Adam after the fall as He was before.
You are therefore, using becoming close to God, as becoming more like God, not getting closer (as in drawing nigh) to Him?"
I am using Adam as an example of mankind as a whole. It is not a matter of "becoming close to God, as becoming more like God" It's a matter of his ultimate will, for us to be complete, as he is complete, we will be complete once we all are one in God.
And I actually agree on the last part of Adam, Adam never fell from perfection, as he was not made perfect/complete. IMO"
EDIT: Please note, this is my opinion, which of course can be wrong, however I don't mind to be corrected :Peace2:
Quote from: misszoolander on January 22, 2013, 02:58:27 AM
No, IMO not to get to his Ultimate will, to fulfill his ultimate will, which is to be perfect/complete, and to sin no more, and not be capable of sinning full stop. We can "get to (?)" God in this life, however we can not fulfill his ultimate will to be perfect/complete in this life, because he is yet not all in all hence we are not complete and in this life we are still capable of sinning.
Thank you, that makes a lot to sense to me. I appreciate you giving so much of your time ... sorry to be so slow.
Not a problem VB :friendstu:
Quote from: misszoolander on January 22, 2013, 02:58:27 AM
And I actually agree on the last part of Adam, Adam never fell from perfection, as he was not made perfect/complete. IMO"
EDIT: Please note, this is my opinion, which of course can be wrong, however I don't mind to be corrected :Peace2:
I agree.
Genesis 1:26 "And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness"
IMO, God did not make (past tense) man in His image, but God
IS MAKING man in His image. The
"first man Adam" (1 Corinthians 15:45) is simply the first step in that creation process of
"creating man... in His image." The word
"make" - the grammar in Genesis 1:26 is in the
'imperfect tense.', which denotes an action in time past, then present, but
'not finished'.
Check it out:
Genesis 1:26
"And God430 said559 [8799], Let us make6213 [8799] man120 in our image6754, after our likeness1823"
(The bracketed number [8799] stands for the 'imperfect tense.')Paul confirms this:
1 Corinthians 15:44-50 "It is
sown a natural body; it is
raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body. And so it is written,
The first man Adam was made a living soul;
the last Adam was made a quickening spirit. Howbeit that
WAS NOT FIRST which is spiritual
["conformed to the image of His Son", Romans 8:29 - see below] , but that which is natural; and
AFTERWARD that which is spiritual. The
FIRST MAN IS OF THE EARTH, earthy: the
SECOND MAN is the Lord FROM HEAVEN. As is the earthy, such are they also that are earthy: and as is the heavenly, such are they also that are heavenly. And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly. Now this I say, brethren, that
flesh and blood ["the first man Adam"] cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption."
And God also did predestinate man
TO BE conformed to the image of His Son:
Romans 8:29 "For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate
to be conformed to the IMAGE of his Son [the finished product], that he might be the firstborn among many brethren."
The
first man Adam is but the
first step to
"the image of the heavenly" which will indeed be
"conformed to the image of His Son" (truly "in the image of God"). God is 'making' (in the process of making) mankind into His image, and the first part of that process is, by design,
"marred in the hand of The Potter":
Jeremiah 18:4 "And the vessel that he made of clay
was marred in the hand of the potter: so he made it again
another vessel, as seemed good to the potter to make it."
Adam was intended to be
THE FIGURE of Him that was to come:
Romans 5:14 "Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression,
who is THE FIGURE of him that was to come."
In other words:
Jeremiah 18:4 "And
the vessel that he made of clay [the first man Adam] was marred in the hand of the potter: so he made it again
ANOTHER VESSEL [the LAST ADAM], as seemed good to the potter to make it."
"He makes it another vessel." Paul speaks of this "
NEW MAN"
[another vessel]:Colossians 3:10 "And have put on the
new man, which is renewed in knowledge
after the IMAGE of him that created him."
It is the
new man (vessel) who being made into
"the LAST Adam... after the IMAGE OF HIM that created him", who began as a "
marred vessel" in the
"FIRST MAN Adam," who was
"subject to vanity, not WILLINGLY [not by his own will], but BY REASON OF HIM":
Romans 8:20 "For
the creature was made subject to vanity,
not willingly,
but by reason of him who hath subjected the same
in hope."
:2c:
:iagree:
Amazing, just amazing. :dsunny:
Quote from: Illuin on January 22, 2013, 11:57:22 PM
Quote from: misszoolander on January 22, 2013, 02:58:27 AM
And I actually agree on the last part of Adam, Adam never fell from perfection, as he was not made perfect/complete. IMO"
EDIT: Please note, this is my opinion, which of course can be wrong, however I don't mind to be corrected :Peace2:
I agree.
Genesis 1:26 "And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness"
IMO, God did not make (past tense) man in His image, but God IS MAKING man in His image. The "first man Adam" (1 Corinthians 15:45) is simply the first step in that creation process of "creating man... in His image."
The word "make" - the grammar in Genesis 1:26 is in the 'imperfect tense.', which denotes an action in time past, then present, but 'not finished'.
Check it out:
Genesis 1:26 "And God430 said559 [8799], Let us make6213 [8799] man120 in our image6754, after our likeness1823"
(The bracketed number [8799] stands for the 'imperfect tense.')
Paul confirms this:
1 Corinthians 15:44-50 "It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body. And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit. Howbeit that WAS NOT FIRST which is spiritual ["conformed to the image of His Son", Romans 8:29 - see below] , but that which is natural; and AFTERWARD that which is spiritual. The FIRST MAN IS OF THE EARTH, earthy: the SECOND MAN is the Lord FROM HEAVEN. As is the earthy, such are they also that are earthy: and as is the heavenly, such are they also that are heavenly. And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly. Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood ["the first man Adam"] cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption."
And God also did predestinate man TO BE conformed to the image of His Son:
Romans 8:29 "For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the IMAGE of his Son [the finished product], that he might be the firstborn among many brethren."
The first man Adam is but the first step to "the image of the heavenly" which will indeed be "conformed to the image of His Son" (truly "in the image of God"). God is 'making' (in the process of making) mankind into His image, and the first part of that process is, by design, "marred in the hand of The Potter":
Jeremiah 18:4 "And the vessel that he made of clay was marred in the hand of the potter: so he made it again another vessel, as seemed good to the potter to make it."
Adam was intended to be THE FIGURE of Him that was to come:
Romans 5:14 "Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is THE FIGURE of him that was to come." In other words:
Jeremiah 18:4 "And the vessel that he made of clay [the first man Adam] was marred in the hand of the potter: so he made it again ANOTHER VESSEL [the LAST ADAM], as seemed good to the potter to make it."
"He makes it another vessel." Paul speaks of this "NEW MAN [VESSEL]":
Colossians 3:10 "And have put on the new man, which is renewed in knowledge after the IMAGE of him that created him."
It is the new man (vessel) who being made into "the LAST Adam... after the IMAGE OF HIM that created him", who began as a "marred vessel" in the "FIRST MAN Adam," who was "subject to vanity, not WILLINGLY [not by his own will], but BY REASON OF HIM":
Romans 8:20 "For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope."
:2c:
thankyou! :dsunny:
:dsunny: :HeartThrob:It's like reading Willie H!
Quote from: Illuin on January 22, 2013, 11:57:22 PM
The word "make" - the grammar in Genesis 1:26 is in the 'imperfect tense.', which denotes an action in time past, then present, but 'not finished'.
Okay, you have to stop this!!! There is no tense in The Old Testament (I have spent years trying to come to terms with that), time is gleaned from context (and vav's). You can't impose context and claim you're right. One of the reasons prophecy is so hard in The Old Testament is because the whole notion of time as we see it, in our Greek line of thought, just doesn't exist in Hebrew,
Let's just say that with a smile and an IMO and, "We be good din" :laughing7:
Quote from: eaglesway on January 24, 2013, 07:15:47 AM
Let's just say that with a smile and an IMO and, "We be good din" :laughing7:
I apologize. It was not my objective to be combative.