Evangel...dichotomy?

[eaglesway]

Yea, I see your point. I wouldnt want to argue it. :o)

I see things like this as being divine paradoxes.

I see the prophecies of being foresight of what would happen, not absolute proof that it was never possible for Jesus to sin, or maybe better to say- the option was there.

Someone says He could not choose it, and thats ok.

I prefer He did not choose it, and that was His victory, and that was foreknown and foretold, but that is a fine line that makes for an interesting discussion, but perhaps a ridiculous debate ;o)

[eaglesway]

I think where some confusion comes in is this. The scriptures clearly say that Jesus was tempted. That was not a play act. If there was no option to transgress there was no temptation and the scriptures are broken.

However, some people assume that because Jesus wore a body He had a carnal nature. Jesus did not have a carnal nature. He was the fulness of deity in bodily form. He was the radiance of the Father's glory and the exact representation of His nature. He was the word made flesh. God was in Christ reconciling the world unto Himself.. As the second Adam, He made a different choice than the first Adam. The carnal nature comes from membership in Adam number one, which Jesus never shared, because He never sinned.

But Jesus did not walk in some kind of impervious bubble. He overcame by His faith and love for us and for the Father. He walked as a man by faith, believing, and he did it perfectly because of the greatness of His love. He had to rise up and pray, and He did. He had to wrestle with the spectre of physical suffering, and He did(Mt 26:36-46).

But in all these things he overcame because of the love that powered His character and nature, which he received from His Father.

During the days of Jesus' earthly life, He offered up prayers and petitions with loud cries and tears to the One who could save Him from death, and He was heard because of His reverence. Although He was a Son, He learned obedience from what He suffered,...Heb 5:6-8

We know, absolutely, that Jesus was tempted periodically. We do not know the details of that temptation, and imo we tend to think too often and much about sexual sins when we read such words.

For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who in every respect has been tempted as we are, yet without sin. Heb 4:15

Some of the most evil men who ever lived were tempted by power, money and acclaim- way more than by any perversity in their sexual habits. But we just dont know exactly how or how often Jesus was tempted and we should not speculate.

Suffice it to say tho, that He overcame in all instances and I think it is because he prayed without ceasing and walked in the Spirit at all times, as His Father's son that was His nature.

[CST]

You're misunderstanding me, it's not a literal voice that not my point. My point is that we have no objective way to know when we are walking in the Spirit and when we're not because we have know way of determining our own thoughts and ideas from other duplicitous sinful ones that may come we can pervert the definition of 'love' in our mind and if we pray we have no real way of knowing if the answer we think we've got is actually the answer God wanted to give. There isn't a semi-imaginary path of the Spirit unfolding before us showing which way to go. These are metaphors and metaphors don't give real information. The written law gives real information the suggestion that people have to think about it leads every opportunity for human sin to creep in and pull us right off course.

We do have objective ways of knowing that. The Apostles provided a new law "believe in Jesus and love each other." Then they provided definitions "Love is patient, love is kind, etc....." This is why Paul said that the works of the flesh are obvious. Some may be less obvious and require more prayer and help through fellowship. However, if someone perverts the definition of love in their own minds so that they think that murder is loving, or rape is loving, or incest is loving, then they will simply have to be shown why they are wrong, either now or later. A written Law cannot do what you are talking about either, because people have to think about what the Law says as well, and if we allow sinful thoughts to lead us, we will find a way to manipulate the general language of the written Law the same as if we didn't have one.

Eventually, the Lord will clear up where we went wrong, if we went wrong. When people really want to sin, they will find a way to justify it whether with a written law or without one.

That's all in God's hands anyway. He is in control of who he sanctifies so that they cannot be deceived.

He didn't have to be Baptized either technically except I think it is generally understood paradoxically that even though He was innocent He would have sinned if He hadn't kept the commandments given at the time so at the same time He did so He could maintain His innocence, which of course He did. I think that's how these things are understood.

My view is that because he was completely sanctified by the Spirit, it was impossible for him to sin.

Gah, this thread has been quiet for so long I've forgotten my own thinking on it. Every so often it comes back to me (or some of it does) but not at present.

Love is patient, love is kind, it also says that love does not insist on its own way, and does not keep a record of wrongs.

OK, really? Well, what's God got in those books He's going to judge us by then why does love bother passing any laws at all, if it makes no demand that we follow them?

I find that passage really odd. It's at the end of that self same letter that begins with this event where Paul insists, insists, that this man be put out of the Church for this wrong he has done and then ends the letter by saying love doesn't remember wrongs and doesn't insist on things.

Now I don't have much of a problem with love not insisting on its own way, the results pof sin are the results of sin whether we're warning off them or not and I agree that eventually we'll have to learn that. Except, of course, that there are numerous times in the Bible, which proclaims God to be Love, where He clearly insists on His own way. Now He's the Lord this seems reasonable, suggesting that being love He wouldn't does not.

It also say He judges wrongdoing and will do so until there is no wrongdoing left to judge. But He quite clearly identifies and records the wrongs people do, again contrary to Paul's definition of Love. Now ETers and EDers are more likely as not right about the fact that God is not only love (although I have some difficulties with that) but Paul's definition of Love seems to make it impotent in a way Paul's behaviour and application of it don't allow. Perhaps that's why the KJV translators choose to translate it as 'charity' at that point. That could see the problems and tried to hide them.

Agrees, but I still think being Baptized was probably part of a process He had to go through so as to uphold that in practise.

[CST]

There are two possible reasons for being tested, that I can see. One, to prove something to one's self. Or, to prove something to another person. If God wanted to prove to man that Jesus was the spotless lamb, predestined to be so, the best way to do it would be to test him and show that he passed the test.

God predestined him to be who he was at that moment. If it were possible for Jesus to sin, then it was possible for the prophecies to fail. He would be the spotless lamb, so the prophecies said, and if God had to keep trying over and over for to make a perfect human being fulfill his will, then we can't trust God to fulfill anything.

More simply, if it was possible for Jesus to sin, it was possible for Jesus to fail and if it was possible for Jesus to fail it was possible for God to fail and that cannot be or else the concept of UR is undermined.

So I suppose it is relatively true that is was possible for Jesus to sin. But it is absolutely untrue that is was possible for Jesus to sin.

[Seth]

I think where some confusion comes in is this. The scriptures clearly say that Jesus was tempted. That was not a play act. If there was no option to transgress there was no temptation and the scriptures are broken.

However, some people assume that because Jesus wore a body He had a carnal nature. Jesus did not have a carnal nature. He was the fulness of deity in bodily form. He was the radiance of the Father's glory and the exact representation of His nature. He was the word made flesh. God was in Christ reconciling the world unto Himself.. As the second Adam, He made a different choice than the first Adam. The carnal nature comes from membership in Adam number one, which Jesus never shared, because He never sinned.

Yes, the nature of Christ is the easiest topic to understand. Just kidding, it's the hardest and most enigmatic, in my opinion. And, I am in no way saying that my view is absolutely right. I might be shown to be wrong.

The thing I ask about Adam 1 vs Adam 2 is what powers the choices. For Christ, it was the Holy Spirit. I believe Adam 1 was tested to demonstrate human failure, where Christ was tested to demonstrate Divine success.

Meaning, as I don't believe it was possible for Christ to have failed, I also don't believe it was possible for Adam to have succeeded. He wasn't even decieved. I think this shows that some kind of power other than human spunk and determination was needed to save us, and with Christ I think his temptation reveals that his power was not of the flesh but the Spirit, which means he was formed as clay to be what he was. Not that God was waiting and hoping for Jesus to make the right choice.

But Jesus did not walk in some kind of impervious bubble. He overcame by His faith and love for us and for the Father. He walked as a man by faith, believing, and he did it perfectly because of the greatness of His love. He had to rise up and pray, and He did. He had to wrestle with the spectre of physical suffering, and He did(Mt 26:36-46).

I totally agree. He overcame fear, overcame physical pain, overcame the things that made him weaker as a human being than he was before that. But I believe he didn't overcome just because he had faith (that too) or just because he had love, but because he was formed by the Spirit and protected from the evil one deceiving him. He could not be deceived because he was elected. And his protection was the presence of God within him.

And his temptation, I believe, was to demonstrate the power of the Spirit in overcoming the flesh. Jesus did not do what he did without his Father's intervention, which is why the Spirit was given. Because we cannot do it ourselves. The flesh is too weak. We need empowerment not of ourselves.

I'm not even questioning whether or not Jesus felt temptation to sin. I don't think he felt emotional temptation to molest a little boy, but I don't think that disqualifies him from being the savior of a child molester.

But, that is beside the point to me. The point is whether it was possible for Christ to have sinned, not whether he felt those feelings. Even if he did, I believe the very point of his testing was to show that the Spirit made it impossible for him to sin so that he could be formed by the election of God not of his own self-determination.

[Seth]

OK, really? Well, what's God got in those books He's going to judge us by then why does love bother passing any laws at all, if it makes no demand that we follow them?

I think it's to show that what man needs in order to follow God is INTERNAL rather than EXTERNAL. I think the reason that the tablets were made of stone, rather than giving Moses a pen and paper, is not just to show the immutable nature of love, but also the external stones were hard and cold. They were talking from the outside in, and that is why people fail to do them.

The new way is inside out, so that it becomes natural, rather than needing directives to love each other. We just do it, so we don't need a written law.

An example of my own personal experience is this: I couldn't stop swearing. I mean I had a really bad mouth, really crude. But it was difficult to stop, and making myself remember in the moment wasn't working. When I prayed about it one time, in real earnest, I felt the power of the Spirit, and I simply stopped.

To this day, I don't have a habit of streaming profanity. But, sometimes it slips out if I get angry or something. I don't stress that, but remember that I am human and I go to God with it. However, I didn't stop the streaming profanity because of a voice in my head, or some external Law said so, or even because the Bible says so. It wasn't my own power. I just stopped because God helped me do what I couldn't do before.

I find that passage really odd. It's at the end of that self same letter that begins with this event where Paul insists, insists, that this man be put out of the Church for this wrong he has done and then ends the letter by saying love doesn't remember wrongs and doesn't insist on things.

This is a good point, but consider the nuance. I think keeping a record of wrong doing has to do with grudge holding, not a healthy dose of consequences. All through the Bible God uses expulsion as a way of making the expelled remember the good, remember the reason why being part of the fold was better than chasing sin. Why do we send our children to their room? Because we are keeping a record? Or because we want them to learn something? What happens if we NEVER discipline them? And why should we be able to discipline our children out of love but that shouldn't work for God or the church?

Now I don't have much of a problem with love not insisting on its own way, the results pof sin are the results of sin whether we're warning off them or not and I agree that eventually we'll have to learn that. Except, of course, that there are numerous times in the Bible, which proclaims God to be Love, where He clearly insists on His own way.

Again, consider nuances. If a man is hanging on a cliff and wanted to be saved but loses all hope and says, "Just let me go, I can't make it" but the other man insists on holding on and dragging him up. Technically he insisted on his own way, and ignored him. Was that loving or unloving? When we listen to a song, we can read the words but we also must hear the music. We must judge the words based on the underlying criticism of selfishness that the church was demonstrating and then we can know that the definition of love is contrasting with that. We shouldn't just take out the words in isolation from what Paul has been talking about the whole time, then make them stand alone.

What are the intentions behind the words? Insisting on one's own way in the context of being the opposite of love is like when someone takes the head of the table to glorify himself when everyone else eats scraps. That's what I believe Paul is addressing.

[Seth]

If two children are yelling at each other and a mother comes in and says "don't yell! It's unacceptable." Should that child assume that she cannot yell if she's being kidnapped? Of course not. We don't reason that way in life why should we reason that way in scripture discussion? The mother meant it's unacceptable to yell in the context and manner she was addressing. Same kind of reasoning applies to the definition of Love. Is God insisting on his own way in the manner the carnal church was? Out selfishness and carnal satisfaction, or because his ways are better than ours?

[CHB]

I think Jesus had the power to make and break any law because he is the one who made them. I also don't think Jesus could sin because of who he was. Maybe his fleshly part had the ability to sin but he conquered sin in the flesh. He put to death the sinful flesh. (Rom. 8:3) "God sending his own Son in the LIKENESS of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh." Jesus created this flesh he knew how it worked, he knew how to avoid all of the temptations that was presented to him. Jesus had the advantage over sin much more than we do, I would think. 

Just my thoughts

CHB

[Seth]

I break Pakastani laws all the time  :laughing7:

[CST]

Meaning, as I don't believe it was possible for Christ to have failed, I also don't believe it was possible for Adam to have succeeded. He wasn't even decieved. I think this shows that some kind of power other than human spunk and determination was needed to save us, and with Christ I think his temptation reveals that his power was not of the flesh but the Spirit, which means he was formed as clay to be what he was. Not that God was waiting and hoping for Jesus to make the right choice.

Indeed, but that's another part of the scripture that I really struggle with and can't help suspecting that Paul is unintentionally slipping back into the yeast of the Pharisees which he's been taught, imbibed and then not noticed there might be something not quite right with it.

In context in the letter to Timothy what Paul actually says is that Adam was not deceived (by Satan) but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor/sinner.  That's what says he's arguing that man should be the boss over woman because women are sinners and stupid with it is what he seems to be suggesting. It looks like he's saying that since that man wasn't deceived he also didn't become a sinner and thus should be in charge but that argument so contradicts what it says in Genesis I gawk as the passage probably more than any other passage I've seen in the Bible. It's in the Bible it must be inspired but Paul seems to be making a statement that is so fundamentally untrue, and he must know that really, I have know idea what to do with it. He must be saying something I don't remotely understand but this is the major passage the church continues to use in denying woman today places at the top of its hierarchy nevermind how many female disciples Jesus had or the fact that women were the first witnesses to the resurrection or that Christ only Earthly parent is a woman. Paul says this so woman aren't allowed to lead in service. And yet it looks incorrect. Obviously I don't believe Adam could have succeeded because then Christ might well have not needed to come, but this passage, what on Earth?

I totally agree. He overcame fear, overcame physical pain, overcame the things that made him weaker as a human being than he was before that. But I believe he didn't overcome just because he had faith (that too) or just because he had love, but because he was formed by the Spirit and protected from the evil one deceiving him. He could not be deceived because he was elected. And his protection was the presence of God within him.

I'm not sure 'elected' is the right word for Jesus here given that Jesus is God and only God can achieve the end He came to achieve. Elected suggests God had options of beings to choose from. It also suggests that the other elect might be without sin in the way Jesus is and they are clearly not, only Jesus is without sin or else the elect wouldn't need Jesus.

I think it's to show that what man needs in order to follow God is INTERNAL rather than EXTERNAL. I think the reason that the tablets were made of stone, rather than giving Moses a pen and paper, is not just to show the immutable nature of love, but also the external stones were hard and cold. They were talking from the outside in, and that is why people fail to do them.

The new way is inside out, so that it becomes natural, rather than needing directives to love each other. We just do it, so we don't need a written law.

Personally, I'm pretty sure that tablets were made of stone so that Moses could come down the mountain and shatter them when he saw the Israelites breaking them almost as soon as they'd received them. It's illustrative, not that he was instructed to do it. God than makes new tablets. Of course that doesn't diminished your reading they're not mutually exclusive.

And then there's the new covenant written in the body and blood of Jesus and the Israelites went and broke that too. Of course, God raised that covenant from the dead he didn't simply make a new Jesus. As you say it's internal, in the flesh and somewhat more flexible. It also won't be broken so easily.

An example of my own personal experience is this: I couldn't stop swearing. I mean I had a really bad mouth, really crude. But it was difficult to stop, and making myself remember in the moment wasn't working. When I prayed about it one time, in real earnest, I felt the power of the Spirit, and I simply stopped.

To this day, I don't have a habit of streaming profanity. But, sometimes it slips out if I get angry or something. I don't stress that, but remember that I am human and I go to God with it. However, I didn't stop the streaming profanity because of a voice in my head, or some external Law said so, or even because the Bible says so. It wasn't my own power. I just stopped because God helped me do what I couldn't do before.

I'm not so sure how much you should worry about swearing, obviously if it bothers you it's in your interest to stop, which you're attempting to do. But the Bible doesn't seem to have laws against the words in our language only how we use the language we have. It's got a lot of warnings about that and obviously swearing is frequently used to disparage others but a lot of the opposition comes from social traditions and customs designed to dictate to people not what God tells us to do. For all I know there could be swear words in the original language of the Bible but unless you know what a swear word in another language is you won't see them. And a translator would almost certainly never try to put them in. Although I often suspect that in the original the word 'Hebrew' might actually have started as and ethnic slur. The way it's used particularly in the earlier books makes me wonder about that.

In the same way, the church will tell us that using the word 'God' or 'Jesus' or 'Christ' as an interjection is a violation of the third commandment. Well God knows our heart better than they do and such arguments really miss the meaning of the third commandment which refers to how you use the 'special' name YHWH and thus how you represent the God of Isreal to others. From a UR perspective, churches of ET or ED persuasion are far guiltier of violating the third commandment than people who start to call on God then don't really know how to finish which is what seems, to me, to be happening in a lot of those cases.

[/quote]This is a good point, but consider the nuance. I think keeping a record of wrong doing has to do with grudge holding, not a healthy dose of consequences. All through the Bible God uses expulsion as a way of making the expelled remember the good, remember the reason why being part of the fold was better than chasing sin. Why do we send our children to their room? Because we are keeping a record? Or because we want them to learn something? What happens if we NEVER discipline them? And why should we be able to discipline our children out of love but that shouldn't work for God or the church?[/quote]

Quite possible and I'm sure some translations present it that way, however I'm not sure which is the more literal rendering and which is simply what the translator has put because they can see that interpretation I've made and want to draw people away from it. What does the Greek actually say. The thought sounds plausible but how well can it be supported in the text. Yes, this is absolutely true about discipline but as I said (I think) this doesn't really concern me beyond taken as presented how does God judge anything.

Again, consider nuances. If a man is hanging on a cliff and wanted to be saved but loses all hope and says, "Just let me go, I can't make it" but the other man insists on holding on and dragging him up. Technically he insisted on his own way, and ignored him. Was that loving or unloving? When we listen to a song, we can read the words but we also must hear the music. We must judge the words based on the underlying criticism of selfishness that the church was demonstrating and then we can know that the definition of love is contrasting with that. We shouldn't just take out the words in isolation from what Paul has been talking about the whole time, then make them stand alone.

What are the intentions behind the words? Insisting on one's own way in the context of being the opposite of love is like when someone takes the head of the table to glorify himself when everyone else eats scraps. That's what I believe Paul is addressing.

My main point here remains that Paul opens the book insisting that the church in Corinth punish someone that, presumably, their own understanding of love had let off. What's the hierarchy here were does Paul get to insist they do it his way over there's. Presumably that they written to him suggests some sort of deference but we don't know who wrote.

Now, on you main point I have no problem the social commandment remains to love your neighbour as yourself. Now this is often compared to do as you would be done by. It really isn't, do as you would be done by only point to the positives. The man you imagine just gives up. He obviously wants to be saved but lacks strength to persevere. Of course it's loving. So is disciplining the man obviously, but provided you get the circumstances right. No one wants to be discipline in the short term so do as you would be done by falls down at this point. In the long term they may thank you for it but only if you read the situation right or else there's a danger they'll just become resentful.

Love your neighbour... allows this form of discipline in but you really need to be careful how you apply it. I'm not sure how careful Paul can be when he's not there.

If two children are yelling at each other and a mother comes in and says "don't yell! It's unacceptable." Should that child assume that she cannot yell if she's being kidnapped? Of course not. We don't reason that way in life why should we reason that way in scripture discussion? The mother meant it's unacceptable to yell in the context and manner she was addressing. Same kind of reasoning applies to the definition of Love. Is God insisting on his own way in the manner the carnal church was? Out selfishness and carnal satisfaction, or because his ways are better than ours?

That would depend on the mental development of the child at the time whether they would understand properly or not. I suspect understand or not though instinct would overrule in the circumstances you describe.

I think Jesus had the power to make and break any law because he is the one who made them. I also don't think Jesus could sin because of who he was. Maybe his fleshly part had the ability to sin but he conquered sin in the flesh. He put to death the sinful flesh. (Rom. 8:3) "God sending his own Son in the LIKENESS of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh." Jesus created this flesh he knew how it worked, he knew how to avoid all of the temptations that was presented to him. Jesus had the advantage over sin much more than we do, I would think. 

Just my thoughts

CHB

To God, sinning would be to oppose or give up on His own purposes. He won't do it, He can't do it. He must succeed.

[Seth]

Indeed, but that's another part of the scripture that I really struggle with and can't help suspecting that Paul is unintentionally slipping back into the yeast of the Pharisees which he's been taught, imbibed and then not noticed there might be something not quite right with it.

In context in the letter to Timothy what Paul actually says is that Adam was not deceived (by Satan) but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor/sinner.  That's what says he's arguing that man should be the boss over woman because women are sinners and stupid with it is what he seems to be suggesting. It looks like he's saying that since that man wasn't deceived he also didn't become a sinner and thus should be in charge but that argument so contradicts what it says in Genesis I gawk as the passage probably more than any other passage I've seen in the Bible.

He did say that Adam wasn't deceived by the serpent, but that doesn't mean he didn't sin. He confirms that in Romans 5. Adam definitely sinned but not through the deception of the serpent. He sinned by going along with Eve, for whatever reason, because he was tempted or because he wanted to please her, or some reason the text doesn't say.

I'm not sure 'elected' is the right word for Jesus here given that Jesus is God and only God can achieve the end He came to achieve. Elected suggests God had options of beings to choose from. It also suggests that the other elect might be without sin in the way Jesus is and they are clearly not, only Jesus is without sin or else the elect wouldn't need Jesus.

Of course, this gets into the nature of Christ and his relationship with the Father, which is very enigmatic. Christ does make a clear distinction between himself and his Father and the rest of the NT writing does so as well. Election just means chosen for a purpose, not that Christ is the same as the other elect. Jesus is the end point of the journey that the elect will go on to perfection. He is the model. Yes, they are imperfect now, but that will not always be so.

Personally, I'm pretty sure that tablets were made of stone so that Moses could come down the mountain and shatter them when he saw the Israelites breaking them almost as soon as they'd received them. It's illustrative, not that he was instructed to do it. God than makes new tablets. Of course that doesn't diminished your reading they're not mutually exclusive.

Right. It's not a zero-sum thing. I like the way you read it too.

And then there's the new covenant written in the body and blood of Jesus and the Israelites went and broke that too. Of course, God raised that covenant from the dead he didn't simply make a new Jesus. As you say it's internal, in the flesh and somewhat more flexible. It also won't be broken so easily.

I'm not so sure how much you should worry about swearing, obviously if it bothers you it's in your interest to stop, which you're attempting to do. But the Bible doesn't seem to have laws against the words in our language only how we use the language we have.

It's not that I worry about it. It's taken care of. I didn't need to try. But a crude mouth reflects a crude mind. That's the journey I believe we go on, to take captive every thought, and we don't do that without help.

My main point here remains that Paul opens the book insisting that the church in Corinth punish someone that, presumably, their own understanding of love had let off. What's the hierarchy here were does Paul get to insist they do it his way over there's. Presumably that they written to him suggests some sort of deference but we don't know who wrote.

I think that has to do with the wisdom Christ instilled in him to establish the NT covenant through his Apostleship. They were not Apostles, but he was. And, again, I think that the "insistence on one's own way" must be read in context with what Paul was criticizing in the church, and should not be drawn out of the text and isolated, otherwise weird things will occur. Like, if a mom walks into the room with screaming children, tells them that it's unacceptable to yell, that doesn't mean they shouldn't yell if they are being kidnapped.

You have to understand the intention of the words based on the context they are meant to be read in.

Love your neighbour... allows this form of discipline in but you really need to be careful how you apply it. I'm not sure how careful Paul can be when he's not there.

Paul says he was there in the Spirit, and he had a connection with Christ as a chosen Apostle to establish doctrine. He wasn't just flying by the seat of his pants without Christ to guide him.

That would depend on the mental development of the child at the time whether they would understand properly or not.

Right. That's why we shouldn't reason as they would. We should reason based on nuance of context, which children have a difficult time doing.

[marie glen]

   some people assume that because Jesus wore a body He had a carnal nature. Jesus did not have a carnal nature. He was the fulness of deity in bodily form. He was the radiance of the Father's glory and the exact representation of His nature. He was the word made flesh. God was in Christ reconciling the world unto Himself.. As the second Adam, He made a different choice than the first Adam. The carnal nature comes from membership in Adam number one, which Jesus never shared, because He never sinned.

This, to me, is worth highlighting.. as those crafty gnostics taught that it was the body itself - matter/physis - which mankind has to be saved from, rather than realizing it's the fallen, imperfect nature and character - a within quality -  which we have to be rescued from. To view the physical creation and body as the problem, is to find fault with what God created, blaming God, essentially, rather than the 'blame' being the fallen, imperfect character, heart, and psyche.

And 'blame' actually, i say rather loosely, as it was the Father, creator who endowed our powers of rationalization.. which with thinking ability comes the ability (sooner or later) to make choices - but once we choose anything, in any tiny way, in thought, word or deed which differs from what He chooses, we become imperfect (fallen).

So since He Himself opened this whole Pandora's box, how could we ever possibly imagine that the rescue He built in from the foundation (beginning) won't be sufficient enough to rescue all..?? [Seeing that the result of sin is death/nonlife/perishing.] ..And from what He put in motion by endowing rationality.. From what He engineered.. (imo?)

[So just why did He wait and create the universe and man and woman, only after, full blown rebellion had matured in once high angel Lucifer, now called the dragon? It's my opinion He did it in just that way so all would take this unavoidable journey and lesson all together at once.. (Instead of one rational creature straying now.. another later.. and another yet later and so on and so on.. taking how long? and being rather disorganized and messy)

Also, I think ultimately, God's law is Love, the perfect law of liberty, for it sets free from all wrong doing, all dislike, all resentment, etc, etc.. "Love works no ill" .."fulfills - The Law". Love God - be being filled with Him (who iS love) and love works no ill..
"smile"

[Dandelion]

In searching the Bible, I found this. Perhaps this will add some more insight.

Hebrews 4:14-10:22

Jesus the Great High Priest
14 Therefore, since we have a great high priest who has ascended into heaven,[a] Jesus the Son of God, let us hold firmly to the faith we profess. 15 For we do not have a high priest who is unable to empathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are—yet he did not sin. 16 Let us then approach God's throne of grace with confidence, so that we may receive mercy and find grace to help us in our time of need.[/b]

5 Every high priest is selected from among the people and is appointed to represent the people in matters related to God, to offer gifts and sacrifices for sins. 2 He is able to deal gently with those who are ignorant and are going astray, since he himself is subject to weakness. 3 This is why he has to offer sacrifices for his own sins, as well as for the sins of the people. 4 And no one takes this honor on himself, but he receives it when called by God, just as Aaron was.

5 In the same way, Christ did not take on himself the glory of becoming a high priest. But God said to him,

"You are my Son;
    today I have become your Father."
6 And he says in another place,

"You are a priest forever,
    in the order of Melchizedek."
7 During the days of Jesus' life on earth, he offered up prayers and petitions with fervent cries and tears to the one who could save him from death, and he was heard because of his reverent submission. 8 Son though he was, he learned obedience from what he suffered 9 and, once made perfect, he became the source of eternal salvation for all who obey him 10 and was designated by God to be high priest in the order of Melchizedek.

Warning Against Falling Away
11 We have much to say about this, but it is hard to make it clear to you because you no longer try to understand. 12 In fact, though by this time you ought to be teachers, you need someone to teach you the elementary truths of God's word all over again. You need milk, not solid food! 13 Anyone who lives on milk, being still an infant, is not acquainted with the teaching about righteousness. 14 But solid food is for the mature, who by constant use have trained themselves to distinguish good from evil.

6 Therefore let us move beyond the elementary teachings about Christ and be taken forward to maturity, not laying again the foundation of repentance from acts that lead to death,[d] and of faith in God, 2 instruction about cleansing rites,[e] the laying on of hands, the resurrection of the dead, and eternal judgment. 3 And God permitting, we will do so.

4 It is impossible for those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, who have shared in the Holy Spirit, 5 who have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the coming age 6 and who have fallen[f] away, to be brought back to repentance. To their loss they are crucifying the Son of God all over again and subjecting him to public disgrace. 7 Land that drinks in the rain often falling on it and that produces a crop useful to those for whom it is farmed receives the blessing of God. 8 But land that produces thorns and thistles is worthless and is in danger of being cursed. In the end it will be burned.

9 Even though we speak like this, dear friends, we are convinced of better things in your case—the things that have to do with salvation. 10 God is not unjust; he will not forget your work and the love you have shown him as you have helped his people and continue to help them. 11 We want each of you to show this same diligence to the very end, so that what you hope for may be fully realized. 12 We do not want you to become lazy, but to imitate those who through faith and patience inherit what has been promised.

The Certainty of God's Promise
13 When God made his promise to Abraham, since there was no one greater for him to swear by, he swore by himself, 14 saying, "I will surely bless you and give you many descendants."[g] 15 And so after waiting patiently, Abraham received what was promised.

16 People swear by someone greater than themselves, and the oath confirms what is said and puts an end to all argument. 17 Because God wanted to make the unchanging nature of his purpose very clear to the heirs of what was promised, he confirmed it with an oath. 18 God did this so that, by two unchangeable things in which it is impossible for God to lie, we who have fled to take hold of the hope set before us may be greatly encouraged. 19 We have this hope as an anchor for the soul, firm and secure. It enters the inner sanctuary behind the curtain, 20 where our forerunner, Jesus, has entered on our behalf. He has become a high priest forever, in the order of Melchizedek.

Melchizedek the Priest
7 This Melchizedek was king of Salem and priest of God Most High. He met Abraham returning from the defeat of the kings and blessed him, 2 and Abraham gave him a tenth of everything. First, the name Melchizedek means "king of righteousness"; then also, "king of Salem" means "king of peace." 3 Without father or mother, without genealogy, without beginning of days or end of life, resembling the Son of God, he remains a priest forever.

4 Just think how great he was: Even the patriarch Abraham gave him a tenth of the plunder! 5 Now the law requires the descendants of Levi who become priests to collect a tenth from the people—that is, from their fellow Israelites—even though they also are descended from Abraham. 6 This man, however, did not trace his descent from Levi, yet he collected a tenth from Abraham and blessed him who had the promises. 7 And without doubt the lesser is blessed by the greater. 8 In the one case, the tenth is collected by people who die; but in the other case, by him who is declared to be living. 9 One might even say that Levi, who collects the tenth, paid the tenth through Abraham, 10 because when Melchizedek met Abraham, Levi was still in the body of his ancestor.

Jesus Like Melchizedek
11 If perfection could have been attained through the Levitical priesthood—and indeed the law given to the people established that priesthood—why was there still need for another priest to come, one in the order of Melchizedek, not in the order of Aaron? 12 For when the priesthood is changed, the law must be changed also. 13 He of whom these things are said belonged to a different tribe, and no one from that tribe has ever served at the altar. 14 For it is clear that our Lord descended from Judah, and in regard to that tribe Moses said nothing about priests. 15 And what we have said is even more clear if another priest like Melchizedek appears, 16 one who has become a priest not on the basis of a regulation as to his ancestry but on the basis of the power of an indestructible life. 17 For it is declared:

"You are a priest forever,
    in the order of Melchizedek."[h]
18 The former regulation is set aside because it was weak and useless 19 (for the law made nothing perfect), and a better hope is introduced, by which we draw near to God.

20 And it was not without an oath! Others became priests without any oath, 21 but he became a priest with an oath when God said to him:

"The Lord has sworn
    and will not change his mind:
    'You are a priest forever.'"
22 Because of this oath, Jesus has become the guarantor of a better covenant.

23 Now there have been many of those priests, since death prevented them from continuing in office; 24 but because Jesus lives forever, he has a permanent priesthood. 25 Therefore he is able to save completely[j] those who come to God through him, because he always lives to intercede for them.

26 Such a high priest truly meets our need—one who is holy, blameless, pure, set apart from sinners, exalted above the heavens. 27 Unlike the other high priests, he does not need to offer sacrifices day after day, first for his own sins, and then for the sins of the people. He sacrificed for their sins once for all when he offered himself. 28 For the law appoints as high priests men in all their weakness; but the oath, which came after the law, appointed the Son, who has been made perfect forever.

The High Priest of a New Covenant
8 Now the main point of what we are saying is this: We do have such a high priest, who sat down at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in heaven, 2 and who serves in the sanctuary, the true tabernacle set up by the Lord, not by a mere human being.

3 Every high priest is appointed to offer both gifts and sacrifices, and so it was necessary for this one also to have something to offer. 4 If he were on earth, he would not be a priest, for there are already priests who offer the gifts prescribed by the law. 5 They serve at a sanctuary that is a copy and shadow of what is in heaven. This is why Moses was warned when he was about to build the tabernacle: "See to it that you make everything according to the pattern shown you on the mountain."[k] 6 But in fact the ministry Jesus has received is as superior to theirs as the covenant of which he is mediator is superior to the old one, since the new covenant is established on better promises.

7 For if there had been nothing wrong with that first covenant, no place would have been sought for another. 8 But God found fault with the people and said[l]:

"The days are coming, declares the Lord,
    when I will make a new covenant
with the people of Israel
    and with the people of Judah.
9 It will not be like the covenant
    I made with their ancestors
when I took them by the hand
    to lead them out of Egypt,
because they did not remain faithful to my covenant,
    and I turned away from them,
declares the Lord.
10 This is the covenant I will establish with the people of Israel
    after that time, declares the Lord.
I will put my laws in their minds
    and write them on their hearts.
I will be their God,
    and they will be my people.
11 No longer will they teach their neighbor,
    or say to one another, 'Know the Lord,'
because they will all know me,
    from the least of them to the greatest.
12 For I will forgive their wickedness
    and will remember their sins no more."[m]
13 By calling this covenant "new," he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and outdated will soon disappear.

Worship in the Earthly Tabernacle
9 Now the first covenant had regulations for worship and also an earthly sanctuary. 2 A tabernacle was set up. In its first room were the lampstand and the table with its consecrated bread; this was called the Holy Place. 3 Behind the second curtain was a room called the Most Holy Place, 4 which had the golden altar of incense and the gold-covered ark of the covenant. This ark contained the gold jar of manna, Aaron's staff that had budded, and the stone tablets of the covenant. 5 Above the ark were the cherubim of the Glory, overshadowing the atonement cover. But we cannot discuss these things in detail now.

6 When everything had been arranged like this, the priests entered regularly into the outer room to carry on their ministry. 7 But only the high priest entered the inner room, and that only once a year, and never without blood, which he offered for himself and for the sins the people had committed in ignorance. 8 The Holy Spirit was showing by this that the way into the Most Holy Place had not yet been disclosed as long as the first tabernacle was still functioning. 9 This is an illustration for the present time, indicating that the gifts and sacrifices being offered were not able to clear the conscience of the worshiper. 10 They are only a matter of food and drink and various ceremonial washings—external regulations applying until the time of the new order.

The Blood of Christ
11 But when Christ came as high priest of the good things that are now already here,[n] he went through the greater and more perfect tabernacle that is not made with human hands, that is to say, is not a part of this creation. 12 He did not enter by means of the blood of goats and calves; but he entered the Most Holy Place once for all by his own blood, thus obtaining

• eternal redemption. 13 The blood of goats and bulls and the ashes of a heifer sprinkled on those who are ceremonially unclean sanctify them so that they are outwardly clean. 14 How much more, then, will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself unblemished to God, cleanse our consciences from acts that lead to death,[p] so that we may serve the living God!
  
  15 For this reason Christ is the mediator of a new covenant, that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance—now that he has died as a ransom to set them free from the sins committed under the first covenant.
  
  16 In the case of a will,[q] it is necessary to prove the death of the one who made it, 17 because a will is in force only when somebody has died; it never takes effect while the one who made it is living. 18 This is why even the first covenant was not put into effect without blood. 19 When Moses had proclaimed every command of the law to all the people, he took the blood of calves, together with water, scarlet wool and branches of hyssop, and sprinkled the scroll and all the people. 20 He said, "This is the blood of the covenant, which God has commanded you to keep."[r] 21 In the same way, he sprinkled with the blood both the tabernacle and everything used in its ceremonies. 22 In fact, the law requires that nearly everything be cleansed with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness.
  
  23 It was necessary, then, for the copies of the heavenly things to be purified with these sacrifices, but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these. 24 For Christ did not enter a sanctuary made with human hands that was only a copy of the true one; he entered heaven itself, now to appear for us in God's presence. 25 Nor did he enter heaven to offer himself again and again, the way the high priest enters the Most Holy Place every year with blood that is not his own. 26 Otherwise Christ would have had to suffer many times since the creation of the world. But he has appeared once for all at the culmination of the ages to do away with sin by the sacrifice of himself. 27 Just as people are destined to die once, and after that to face judgment, 28 so Christ was sacrificed once to take away the sins of many; and he will appear a second time, not to bear sin, but to bring salvation to those who are waiting for him.
  
  Christ's Sacrifice Once for All
  10 The law is only a shadow of the good things that are coming—not the realities themselves. For this reason it can never, by the same sacrifices repeated endlessly year after year, make perfect those who draw near to worship. 2 Otherwise, would they not have stopped being offered? For the worshipers would have been cleansed once for all, and would no longer have felt guilty for their sins. 3 But those sacrifices are an annual reminder of sins. 4 It is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins.
  
  5 Therefore, when Christ came into the world, he said:
  
  "Sacrifice and offering you did not desire,
      but a body you prepared for me;
  6 with burnt offerings and sin offerings
      you were not pleased.
  7 Then I said, 'Here I am—it is written about me in the scroll—
      I have come to do your will, my God.'"
  8 First he said, "Sacrifices and offerings, burnt offerings and sin offerings you did not desire, nor were you pleased with them"—though they were offered in accordance with the law. 9 Then he said, "Here I am, I have come to do your will." He sets aside the first to establish the second. 10 And by that will, we have been made holy through the sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.
  
  11 Day after day every priest stands and performs his religious duties; again and again he offers the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. 12 But when this priest had offered for all time one sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God, 13 and since that time he waits for his enemies to be made his footstool. 14 For by one sacrifice he has made perfect forever those who are being made holy.
  
  15 The Holy Spirit also testifies to us about this. First he says:
  
  16 "This is the covenant I will make with them
      after that time, says the Lord.
  I will put my laws in their hearts,
      and I will write them on their minds."[t]
  17 Then he adds:
  
  "Their sins and lawless acts
      I will remember no more."
  18 And where these have been forgiven, sacrifice for sin is no longer necessary.
  
  A Call to Persevere in Faith
  19 Therefore, brothers and sisters, since we have confidence to enter the Most Holy Place by the blood of Jesus, 20 by a new and living way opened for us through the curtain, that is, his body, 21 and since we have a great priest over the house of God, 22 let us draw near to God with a sincere heart and with the full assurance that faith brings, having our hearts sprinkled to cleanse us from a guilty conscience and having our bodies washed with pure water.
  
  
  Hope this is helpful. I know it is long. Forgive me, but without its entirety, it loses its cohesiveness.
  
  Jesus was the complete fulfillment of the Law.....the embodiment of Love, given to us directly by God, to complete the Law........Love incarnate, yet still a human who could relate to us, and be one of us.....He came unto His own, but His own received Him not.....yet, He gave us the ability to become children of God.
  
  D.                              :cloud9:

[CST]

He did say that Adam wasn't deceived by the serpent, but that doesn't mean he didn't sin. He confirms that in Romans 5. Adam definitely sinned but not through the deception of the serpent. He sinned by going along with Eve, for whatever reason, because he was tempted or because he wanted to please her, or some reason the text doesn't say.

But that's my problem. I know it says Adam sinned elsewhere in the Bible, I know Paul says he sinned elsewhere but I don't know in my head how one letter relates to the next necessarily. Here in this letter to Timothy Paul writes "[A]nd Adam was not deceived but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. (1 Tim. 2:14)

That's what it says being deceived is presented here as the cause of the woman sinning, Adam was not deceived so did not sin. That's how it's written here. Like he ate from the fruit because his wife presented it to him and he ate it trusting her not realizing what it was (which seems to be what he suggests in Genesis but that still feels like a form of deception to me) or else he went, 'bother, she's eaten it now I have eat it, can't have her fall alone, which sounds wrong but may well have been what the Pharisees thought.

The point is the text only writes about Adam in the negative here so it's really the most natural reading to say he wasn't deceived so he didn't sin but the woman was deceived so ended up sinning. If I didn't the other texts I wouldn't be able to show that Paul isn't saying Adam didn't sin. That's my problem.

Paul seems to be arguing that sinning through being deceived, which would have thought of as mitigation, is worse than sinning with your eyes wide open because the 'reward' of sinning with your eyes wide open is that you get to be master of the one who sinned because they were deceived. That's what Paul seems to be saying here, the woman being deceived is more costly to her and her daughters than the man who happened not to be deceived, because obviously men have been deceived since woman have a monopoly on being fooled. Paul's argument here seems empty which is why I'm not at all sure about it.

Obviously, there a many translations of this passage but all the major ones I can see seem to be saying exactly the same thing the woman was deceived and sinned the man wasn't and, at least by implication and sometimes more, didn't.

Of course, this gets into the nature of Christ and his relationship with the Father, which is very enigmatic. Christ does make a clear distinction between himself and his Father and the rest of the NT writing does so as well. Election just means chosen for a purpose, not that Christ is the same as the other elect. Jesus is the end point of the journey that the elect will go on to perfection. He is the model. Yes, they are imperfect now, but that will not always be so.

My primary point remains the same, the word 'elected' suggests there was a choice of beings or people who God could choose His Messiah from, to me the Bible is pretty clear that there wasn't and isn't.

Right. It's not a zero-sum thing. I like the way you read it too.

Does that include how I read Jesus in parallel, sometimes I think that's an overreach?

It's not that I worry about it. It's taken care of. I didn't need to try. But a crude mouth reflects a crude mind. That's the journey I believe we go on, to take captive every thought, and we don't do that without help.

I got the impression it formerly bothered you at least or you wouldn't have even thought to try to reduce or stop. But I certainly recognize your understanding although some people have different ideas of what crude is. Language can be crude and reflect a crude mind but it can also be vicious and reflect a vicious mind. I'm not absolutely sure how important it is to address the crude mind, I'd definitely think about address the vicious one. Assuming it isn't to vicious to recognize the fact.

I think that has to do with the wisdom Christ instilled in him to establish the NT covenant through his Apostleship. They were not Apostles, but he was. And, again, I think that the "insistence on one's own way" must be read in context with what Paul was criticizing in the church, and should not be drawn out of the text and isolated, otherwise weird things will occur. Like, if a mom walks into the room with screaming children, tells them that it's unacceptable to yell, that doesn't mean they shouldn't yell if they are being kidnapped.

You have to understand the intention of the words based on the context they are meant to be read in.

Yeah, but we're inclined to infer the context as much a we are anything else because we don't have have the reports/letters Paul received and is responding to. Presumably he may think it's as much in the interests of the church of Corinth to execute this piece of discipline as much as it is in the interests of the man in question to receive it. Perhaps more so it's a growing church with many problems. But we don't know. You can't really say it has no Apostles though unless you strain the definition of 'apostle' it had church leaders who were expected to teach, that is be Apostles, to the others in the church, that's why they're executing this act of discipline in the first place. Or else Paul is giving them an instruction none of the is empowered to follow. In this equation Paul is at best a senior apostle, it doesn't mean Corinth doesn't happen.

But on the question of context here's something I wondered about UR and the idea we are often told that most of the earlier church believed in UR. If that's true then why do we have the UR material we use in the Bible. Why did Paul, for example feel the need, to write to the Romans to tell the all Israel will be saved? They're Romans why do they care, wouldn't they rather hear that all Rome will be saved? Why did Paul feel the need to tell them this especially after he'd all ready told them that all who fell, in Adam (IE everyone) would be raised in Christ surely, they could work out for themselves this must include Israel. So what ideas about salvation were doing the rounds in the Church of Rome at the time that Paul felt he needed to tell them that God was going to save everyone like they didn't already know? If that was what the church universally believed at the time, surely, he wouldn't have needed to say it. Of course, he did say it no worry there, but it does suggest that this may be a very old controversy we're involved in.

Paul says he was there in the Spirit, and he had a connection with Christ as a chosen Apostle to establish doctrine. He wasn't just flying by the seat of his pants without Christ to guide him.

That sounds suspiciously like dogma to me. Of course, there comes a point where faith means you have to accept certain things as true and this seems like it may well be one of them. But it doesn't play so well in debates like we're having to just fall back on it, there's probably stronger evidence in the text if we understood it better.

Right. That's why we shouldn't reason as they would. We should reason based on nuance of context, which children have a difficult time doing.

And yet, Jesus tells us unless we do exactly that we won't get into Heaven. I think that's right I can't become a physical child again I don't think.

[rosered]

Quote
Right. That's why we shouldn't reason as they would. We should reason based on nuance of context, which children have a difficult time doing.

And yet, Jesus tells us unless we do exactly that we won't get into Heaven. I think that's right I can't become a physical child again I don't think.

  Born again , not of flesh and blood ,
  but of the Spirit of Life   ,   being a child of GOD WHOM IS THE LIFE   in all living things   
   children of the day being the truth  that sets us free   from the flesh and blood and sin and death  error  in our ways of thinking ..
  pure and HOLY THOUGHTS   are that  promised  rest !!!

  Being seated with CHRIST IN HEAVENLY PLACES    , This anointing    is the smearing of the  Holy Spirits oil   , the olive !!
  the young olive trees planted by the FATHER!!  Psalm 52:8

But as for me, I am like a green olive tree in the house of God; I trust in the lovingkindness of God forever and ever.

Judgment begins in the house of God   1 Peter 4 For it is time for judgment to begin with God's household; and if it begins with us, what will the outcome be for those who do not obey the gospel of God?

   the LORD CHASTENS WHOM HE LOVES   Hebrews 12 because the Lord disciplines the one he loves, and he chastens everyone he accepts as his son."


   Our cross to bear is , HIS WORD  ABIDING IN US  and working in us !

  to be lopped  the unfruitful branches   as painful as that is     the TREE OF LIFE    THRIVES !
REV 22  The River of Life
1 Then the angel showed me a river of the water of life, as clear as crystal,

flowing from the throne of God and of the Lamb,

2down the middle of the main street of the city.

On either side of the river stood a tree of life, producing twelve kinds of fruit and yielding a fresh crop for each month.

And the leaves of the tree are for the healing of the nations. 3No longer will there be any curse. The throne of God and of the Lamb will be within the city, and His servants will worship Him....

jOHN 4 ...23But a time is coming and has now come when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and in truth, for the Father is seeking such as these to worship Him. 24God is Spirit, and His worshipers must worship Him in spirit and in truth." 25The woman said, "I know that Messiah (called Christ) is coming. When He comes, He will explain everything to us."

Emmanuel GOD IS WITH US   MATT 1 ;23

Isaiah 9:6
For a child will be born to us, a son will be given to us; And the government will rest on His shoulders; And His name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace.
7
There will be no end to the increase of His government or of peace, On the throne of David and over his kingdom, To establish it and to uphold it with justice and righteousness From then on and forevermore. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will accomplish this.

[Seth]

But that's my problem. I know it says Adam sinned elsewhere in the Bible, I know Paul says he sinned elsewhere but I don't know in my head how one letter relates to the next necessarily. Here in this letter to Timothy Paul writes "[A]nd Adam was not deceived but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. (1 Tim. 2:14)

That's what it says being deceived is presented here as the cause of the woman sinning, Adam was not deceived so did not sin.

That's not what it presents, it's just the way you read it. Another way of reading that is that Adam sinned willfully but Eve was deceived.

My primary point remains the same, the word 'elected' suggests there was a choice of beings or people who God could choose His Messiah from, to me the Bible is pretty clear that there wasn't and isn't.

It may suggest that to you, but I am just saying what the word means. Christ was a chosen vessel from before he was born, chosen to fulfill scripture. He is not the same as his Father, but claims his Father is greater than he. Therefore, he was chosen by a being greater than he.s

Right. It's not a zero-sum thing. I like the way you read it too.

Does that include how I read Jesus in parallel, sometimes I think that's an overreach?

Not sure I understand your meaning here.

I got the impression it formerly bothered you at least or you wouldn't have even thought to try to reduce or stop. But I certainly recognize your understanding although some people have different ideas of what crude is. Language can be crude and reflect a crude mind but it can also be vicious and reflect a vicious mind. I'm not absolutely sure how important it is to address the crude mind, I'd definitely think about address the vicious one. Assuming it isn't to vicious to recognize the fact.

But the point is, it's not a Law that caused me to stop, or a voice in my head. It happened when I wasn't able to do it myself.

That sounds suspiciously like dogma to me. Of course, there comes a point where faith means you have to accept certain things as true and this seems like it may well be one of them. But it doesn't play so well in debates like we're having to just fall back on it, there's probably stronger evidence in the text if we understood it better.

I don't consider it a debate. I am just explaining where I believe Paul got his wisdom and authority to make a judgement in that case, seeing as he said he was present in Spirit.

And yet, Jesus tells us unless we do exactly that we won't get into Heaven. I think that's right I can't become a physical child again I don't think.

It also says,

1 Corinthians 13
When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.

So again, we have to have a sense of nuance and context. In what ways should we be mature, and in what ways should we be childlike. How about, mature in our capacity to take captive every thought and develop a resistance to the pull of the flesh, and childlike in our willingness to learn and be led by God?

Matthew 18
1At that time the disciples came to Jesus and asked, "Who, then, is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?"
2He called a little child to him, and placed the child among them. 3And he said: "Truly I tell you, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. 4Therefore, whoever takes the lowly position of this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven. 5And whoever welcomes one such child in my name welcomes me.

Jesus' point here is not that we should be childish. It's that we should take a lowly, humble position of a child with respect to our opinion of ourselves. They were busy wondering who is great. He's saying to be great is to be humble, and lowly, like how Christ emptied himself and made himself of no reputation.

[CST]

   some people assume that because Jesus wore a body He had a carnal nature. Jesus did not have a carnal nature. He was the fulness of deity in bodily form. He was the radiance of the Father's glory and the exact representation of His nature. He was the word made flesh. God was in Christ reconciling the world unto Himself.. As the second Adam, He made a different choice than the first Adam. The carnal nature comes from membership in Adam number one, which Jesus never shared, because He never sinned.

This, to me, is worth highlighting.. as those crafty gnostics taught that it was the body itself - matter/physis - which mankind has to be saved from, rather than realizing it's the fallen, imperfect nature and character - a within quality -  which we have to be rescued from. To view the physical creation and body as the problem, is to find fault with what God created, blaming God, essentially, rather than the 'blame' being the fallen, imperfect character, heart, and psyche.

And 'blame' actually, i say rather loosely, as it was the Father, creator who endowed our powers of rationalization.. which with thinking ability comes the ability (sooner or later) to make choices - but once we choose anything, in any tiny way, in thought, word or deed which differs from what He chooses, we become imperfect (fallen).

So since He Himself opened this whole Pandora's box, how could we ever possibly imagine that the rescue He built in from the foundation (beginning) won't be sufficient enough to rescue all..?? [Seeing that the result of sin is death/nonlife/perishing.] ..And from what He put in motion by endowing rationality.. From what He engineered.. (imo?)

[So just why did He wait and create the universe and man and woman, only after, full blown rebellion had matured in once high angel Lucifer, now called the dragon? It's my opinion He did it in just that way so all would take this unavoidable journey and lesson all together at once.. (Instead of one rational creature straying now.. another later.. and another yet later and so on and so on.. taking how long? and being rather disorganized and messy)

Also, I think ultimately, God's law is Love, the perfect law of liberty, for it sets free from all wrong doing, all dislike, all resentment, etc, etc.. "Love works no ill" .."fulfills - The Law". Love God - be being filled with Him (who iS love) and love works no ill..
"smile"

This is rather the nub of the problem. Obviously the Gnostics were deriving their ideas from Greek philosophy but they did read the Bible into too and they did obviously have a lot of flesh bashing stuff to jump onto, mainly because the term 'spirit' seems to have a much broader use in Biblical language than 'flesh' does. I imagine it does anyway after the earlier discussion.

Hope this is helpful. I know it is long. Forgive me, but without its entirety, it loses its cohesiveness.

Jesus was the complete fulfillment of the Law.....the embodiment of Love, given to us directly by God, to complete the Law........Love incarnate, yet still a human who could relate to us, and be one of us.....He came unto His own, but His own received Him not.....yet, He gave us the ability to become children of God.

D.                              :cloud9:

Hi, Dandelion I'm glad you're still here I thought you'd left. I tried to look at your profile and was told you didn't exist.

Quote
Right. That's why we shouldn't reason as they would. We should reason based on nuance of context, which children have a difficult time doing.

And yet, Jesus tells us unless we do exactly that we won't get into Heaven. I think that's right I can't become a physical child again I don't think.

  Born again , not of flesh and blood ,
  but of the Spirit of Life   ,   being a child of GOD WHOM IS THE LIFE   in all living things   
   children of the day being the truth  that sets us free   from the flesh and blood and sin and death  error  in our ways of thinking ..
  pure and HOLY THOUGHTS   are that  promised  rest !!!

  Being seated with CHRIST IN HEAVENLY PLACES    , This anointing    is the smearing of the  Holy Spirits oil   , the olive !!
  the young olive trees planted by the FATHER!!  Psalm 52:8

But as for me, I am like a green olive tree in the house of God; I trust in the lovingkindness of God forever and ever.

Judgment begins in the house of God   1 Peter 4 For it is time for judgment to begin with God's household; and if it begins with us, what will the outcome be for those who do not obey the gospel of God?

   the LORD CHASTENS WHOM HE LOVES   Hebrews 12 because the Lord disciplines the one he loves, and he chastens everyone he accepts as his son."


   Our cross to bear is , HIS WORD  ABIDING IN US  and working in us !

  to be lopped  the unfruitful branches   as painful as that is     the TREE OF LIFE    THRIVES !
REV 22  The River of Life
1 Then the angel showed me a river of the water of life, as clear as crystal,

flowing from the throne of God and of the Lamb,

2down the middle of the main street of the city.

On either side of the river stood a tree of life, producing twelve kinds of fruit and yielding a fresh crop for each month.

And the leaves of the tree are for the healing of the nations. 3No longer will there be any curse. The throne of God and of the Lamb will be within the city, and His servants will worship Him....

jOHN 4 ...23But a time is coming and has now come when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and in truth, for the Father is seeking such as these to worship Him. 24God is Spirit, and His worshipers must worship Him in spirit and in truth." 25The woman said, "I know that Messiah (called Christ) is coming. When He comes, He will explain everything to us."

Emmanuel GOD IS WITH US   MATT 1 ;23

Isaiah 9:6
For a child will be born to us, a son will be given to us; And the government will rest on His shoulders; And His name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace.
7
There will be no end to the increase of His government or of peace, On the throne of David and over his kingdom, To establish it and to uphold it with justice and righteousness From then on and forevermore. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will accomplish this.

"Truly I tell you, anyone who will not receive the kingdom of God like a little child will never enter it." (Mar. 10:15)

I don't think that can really be interpreted as being born again, if God wanted me to be born again and receive the kingdom of God like an adult I'm sure He could manage it.

That's not what it presents, it's just the way you read it. Another way of reading that is that Adam sinned willfully but Eve was deceived.

That's not an argument that's just you arbitrarily telling me I'm reading it wrong when all I'm reading is what the passage says and the passage says the woman sinned the passage does not say anywhere that Adam sinned and would seem by implication or more in some translation that he did not.

https://www.blueletterbible.org/rsv/1ti/2/1/t_bibles_1121014

It may suggest that to you, but I am just saying what the word means. Christ was a chosen vessel from before he was born, chosen to fulfill scripture. He is not the same as his Father, but claims his Father is greater than he. Therefore, he was chosen by a being greater than he.s

But it's not a democracy, there wasn't a competition. There wasn't an election there was simply a selection from a choice of one. The Father didn't have alternatives here to choose from.

Not sure I understand your meaning here.

Not sure I do either. In my original post I made a statement paralleling the Sinai Israelites rejecting and breaking the covenant they previously accepted resulting in Moses coming down the mountain and smashing the tablets of the Ten Commandments with the Jerusalem Israelites cheering Jesus when He came into Jerusalem on Palm Sunday with them demanding His death by the end of the week resulting in Jesus, who embodies the new covenant, being broken by crucifixion. You did quote it but it was either some sort of mistake or you didn't get round to writing the reply so I'm just checking what you think.

But the point is, it's not a Law that caused me to stop, or a voice in my head. It happened when I wasn't able to do it myself.

OK, that sounds like a paradox when written but I understand what you are trying to claim, I think.

I don't consider it a debate. I am just explaining where I believe Paul got his wisdom and authority to make a judgement in that case, seeing as he said he was present in Spirit.

Right, then I'm not sure what we're doing here. I'm not even sure what being present in Spirit is meant to mean. How does Paul experience that?

It also says,

1 Corinthians 13
When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.

So again, we have to have a sense of nuance and context. In what ways should we be mature, and in what ways should we be childlike. How about, mature in our capacity to take captive every thought and develop a resistance to the pull of the flesh, and childlike in our willingness to learn and be led by God?

Matthew 18
1At that time the disciples came to Jesus and asked, "Who, then, is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?"
2He called a little child to him, and placed the child among them. 3And he said: "Truly I tell you, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. 4Therefore, whoever takes the lowly position of this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven. 5And whoever welcomes one such child in my name welcomes me.

Jesus' point here is not that we should be childish. It's that we should take a lowly, humble position of a child with respect to our opinion of ourselves. They were busy wondering who is great. He's saying to be great is to be humble, and lowly, like how Christ emptied himself and made himself of no reputation.

You're not arguing my point here you're just reinforcing it. Why would someone assume Jesus means humility when he presents that child, there's no reason to think that the child was being particularly humble we know nothing about what the child was doing you are just making an assumption that the only use for children for Jesus is as illustrations of humility when many children are not at all humble and can be highly unruly, the yelling child you cited in your example isn't at all humble. Jesus used children in a lot of examples often referring to concern as protection. Paul put away childish things but that doesn't mean that works for everyone.

Paul was making an example about change he was talking about how when he became and adult certain things changed. I did used to have some trouble with what Paul said because I do think what Jesus says, if they're in conflict, must always overrule. But Paul isn't talking about specific children and there characteristics he's talking about how thing change an illustration of growing into completion what was formerly incomplete. It's an example it doesn't have to speak to real children and their relationship with Jesus. I don't know whether or not I should point out, I think I need to but as carefully as I can think to. That the first thing Paul did when he became a man was become a Pharisee and start murdering Christians. Paul knows this and keeps mentioning and confessing it, but you have to remembering that it would mean that when he became a man he still hadn't received completion because Jesus had barely started with him at that point.

Hence my issue with things like this and the letter to Timothy. Paul also says in that letter to Timothy "I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over men; she is to keep silent." (1 Tim. 2:12) Jesus appointed women as apostles so obviously they taught, God appointed women as prophetesses so obviously they had authority over many men. So what happened, why does Paul deny what God already seems to have given?

[rosered]

"Truly I tell you, anyone who will not receive the kingdom of God like a little child will never enter it." (Mar. 10:15)

I don't think that can really be interpreted as being born again, if God wanted me to be born again and receive the kingdom of God like an adult I'm sure He could manage it.

I am so sorry  CST , but to be carnally minded is  death      and even the little ones [babes in Christ are yet canal / abiding in death  still    ] but sins are forgen them for His names sake and NOT holding that against them   , still in the dark and ignorance of their own minds ,

1John 2 A New Commandment
...11But whoever hates his brother is in the darkness and walks in the darkness.

He does not know where he is going, because the darkness has blinded his eyes.

12I am writing to you, little children, because your sins have been forgiven through His name. 13I am writing to you, fathers, because you know Him who is from the beginning. I am writing to you, young men, because you have overcome the evil one. I have written to you, children, because you know the Father.

when I was a child  childish things   1 Cor 13 Love
...10but when the perfect comes, the partial passes away.


11When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child.

When I became a man, I set aside childish ways. 12Now we see but a dim reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known....

Paul was an excellent example of being a child   under the law and ministration of death  thinking he was doing God a great service    killing all   the new born baby christians    ,  this was contrary    to the law  of moses and this new upstart  JESUS CHRIST     was considered a blasphemer    and   a false  prophet   and put to death and them  NOT seeing anything   from the    natural eyes  to   prove  anything  different 
  TILL   THE LORD HIMSELF   got a hold of  Saul / Paul    and changed the whole course of his   natural and spiritual life ...        Paul was now a slave to Jesus Christ   and no longer a slave to sin   

  we are NOT our own    we belong to one   or the other       , the Lord   the Light and life of the world    or the world     that  still  abides in death   according  to the natural eye  and not seen with any observation    as changed ..

CST     spiritual eyes are of God Himself   doing the works of Light and life within us     

  No man knows and no man understands   that  part and mystery   of Gods    desire

they remain in the dark age  of no hope and  no rest ..

[CST]

"Truly I tell you, anyone who will not receive the kingdom of God like a little child will never enter it." (Mar. 10:15)

I don't think that can really be interpreted as being born again, if God wanted me to be born again and receive the kingdom of God like an adult I'm sure He could manage it.

I am so sorry  CST , but to be carnally minded is  death      and even the little ones [babes in Christ are yet canal / abiding in death  still    ] but sins are forgen them for His names sake and NOT holding that against them   , still in the dark and ignorance of their own minds ,

1John 2 A New Commandment
...11But whoever hates his brother is in the darkness and walks in the darkness.

He does not know where he is going, because the darkness has blinded his eyes.

12I am writing to you, little children, because your sins have been forgiven through His name. 13I am writing to you, fathers, because you know Him who is from the beginning. I am writing to you, young men, because you have overcome the evil one. I have written to you, children, because you know the Father.

when I was a child  childish things   1 Cor 13 Love
...10but when the perfect comes, the partial passes away.


11When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child.

When I became a man, I set aside childish ways. 12Now we see but a dim reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known....

Paul was an excellent example of being a child   under the law and ministration of death  thinking he was doing God a great service    killing all   the new born baby christians    ,  this was contrary    to the law  of moses and this new upstart  JESUS CHRIST     was considered a blasphemer    and   a false  prophet   and put to death and them  NOT seeing anything   from the    natural eyes  to   prove  anything  different 
  TILL   THE LORD HIMSELF   got a hold of  Saul / Paul    and changed the whole course of his   natural and spiritual life ...        Paul was now a slave to Jesus Christ   and no longer a slave to sin   

  we are NOT our own    we belong to one   or the other       , the Lord   the Light and life of the world    or the world     that  still  abides in death   according  to the natural eye  and not seen with any observation    as changed ..

CST     spiritual eyes are of God Himself   doing the works of Light and life within us     

  No man knows and no man understands   that  part and mystery   of Gods    desire

they remain in the dark age  of no hope and  no rest ..

It seems we read things differently. I don't think being 'like a child' means being carnally minded when Jesus says it, and I don't think you you have to be born again. But being born again, does fit in the context given that Jesus says become like a little child and uses a real little child as am example. What I think about St. Paul's use of that passage above. Because of the context, that he's using it allegorically. It's hard to read it as meaning 'before he was a Christian.' that doesn't make sense in the context of a society where childhood actually often lasted a lot less long than it does these days. Paul would have spent a lot of his childhood learning to be a Pharisee, then he stopped learning and became a full blown Pharisee at which point he would also have been considered a 'man' by the society he was in.

As I mentioned in the above post he wasn't a very nice person when he was a Pharisee. But that doesn't mean he wasn't recognized as a man. Although there are so many symbolic ways to present this too, people can problem transcend from child to adult countless times in all sorts of areas of their life as they go through it.

[Seth]

That's not an argument that's just you arbitrarily telling me I'm reading it wrong when all I'm reading is what the passage says and the passage says the woman sinned the passage does not say anywhere that Adam sinned and would seem by implication or more in some translation that he did not.

You are not JUST reading the passage. You are providing an interpretation. The passage does not say "Adam did not sin at any time." If it did, case closed. It says that he was not deceived by Satan, not that he never sinned. It says that Eve was deceived and became a transgressor. You are taking that to mean (as you said "seem by implication") that Adam did not sin. Adam was also a transgressor, as it says in other passages, only it wasn't through deception. The fact that it says that Eve was deceived and became a transgressor, does not mean that AFTER she became a transgressor, Adam did not also transgress at another time through means other than being deceived.

If I say

Person A was fooled and became a transgressor
Person B was not fooled.

That does not automatically mean that Person B didn't transgress later, or in another way than being fooled by Satan. That's where your interpretation is emerging.

But it's not a democracy, there wasn't a competition. There wasn't an election there was simply a selection from a choice of one. The Father didn't have alternatives here to choose from.

There doesn't need to be. There are three senses of "elected" that Webster's dictionary provides:

Full Definition of elect
1 :  carefully selected :  chosen
2 :  chosen for salvation through divine mercy
3 a :  chosen for office or position but not yet installed <the president-elect>
   b :  chosen for marriage at some future time <the bride-elect>

Sense number one is how I mean it and it does not depend on anything other than someone carefully selecting someone. There doesn't need to be a democracy.

Right, then I'm not sure what we're doing here. I'm not even sure what being present in Spirit is meant to mean. How does Paul experience that?

We are just discussing. A debate suggests that someone is trying to win something and therefore there are rules that will disqualify a winner. I am just providing my interpretation of where Paul derived his authority. What Paul means, or how he experienced being present in the Spirit is mysterious to me as well. But, he did claim to be present in a way other than being physically present.

You're not arguing my point here you're just reinforcing it. Why would someone assume Jesus means humility when he presents that child, there's no reason to think that the child was being particularly humble we know nothing about what the child was doing you are just making an assumption that the only use for children for Jesus is as illustrations of humility when many children are not at all humble and can be highly unruly, the yelling child you cited in your example isn't at all humble. Jesus used children in a lot of examples often referring to concern as protection. Paul put away childish things but that doesn't mean that works for everyone.

Paul was making an example about change he was talking about how when he became and adult certain things changed.

Jesus explains his intention within that scripture. It means to be lowly and of no reputation such as a child. They were asking Jesus what it means to be great. Jesus was saying to be great is to be lowly. He didn't mean that if a mother walks into a room and tells kids to stop yelling, that means they should ignore context and think that ALL yelling at ALL times is unacceptable. That's why God insisting on something doesn't automatically contradict with the definition of love. We need to look what Paul was contrasting his definition with just like we need to recognize what context the mother was forbidding yelling.

Hence my issue with things like this and the letter to Timothy. Paul also says in that letter to Timothy "I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over men; she is to keep silent." (1 Tim. 2:12) Jesus appointed women as apostles so obviously they taught, God appointed women as prophetesses so obviously they had authority over many men. So what happened, why does Paul deny what God already seems to have given?

Can you point me to the scripture that shows that women were given authority over men by Jesus?

[CST]

You are not JUST reading the passage. You are providing an interpretation. The passage does not say "Adam did not sin at any time." If it did, case closed. It says that Eve was deceived and became a transgressor. You are taking that to mean (as you said "seem by implication") that Adam did not sin. Adam was also a transgressor, as it says in other passages, only it wasn't through deception. The fact that it says that Eve was deceived and became a transgressor, does not mean that AFTER she became a transgressor, Adam did not also transgress at another time through means other than being deceived.

'And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.' (KJV)
'And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression.' (NKJV)
'And it was not Adam who was deceived by Satan. The woman was deceived, and sin was the result.' (NLT)
'And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner.' (NIV)
'and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor.' (ESV)
'And Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and transgressed.' (HCSB)
'And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being deceived, [fn]fell into transgression.' (NASB)
'And Adam was not deceived, but the woman, because she was fully deceived, fell into transgression.' (NET)
'and Adam was not beguiled, but the woman being beguiled hath fallen into transgression:' (ASV)
'and Adam was not deceived, but the woman, having been deceived, into transgression came,' (YLT)
'and Adam was not deceived; but the woman, having been deceived, was in transgression.' (DBY)
'And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.' (WEB)
'Adam wasn't deceived, but the woman, being deceived, has fallen into disobedience;' (HNV)

Thirteen translations there plus the one I've already used. None of them say that Adam sinned all of them say the woman sinned. In normal reading in wouldn't think it fair to read into it the statement that Adam actually did sin just because it doesn't specifically say that he didn't not given some of the very obvious translation up then including Young's Literal translation which says the woman felling into transgression due to being deceived not simply because she lusted after what she saw in the tree which is what Genesis says happened.

There doesn't need to be. There are three senses of "elected" that Webster's dictionary provides:

Full Definition of elect
1 :  carefully selected :  chosen
2 :  chosen for salvation through divine mercy
3 a :  chosen for office or position but not yet installed <the president-elect>
   b :  chosen for marriage at some future time <the bride-elect>

Sense number one is how I mean it and it does not depend on anything other than someone carefully selecting someone. There doesn't need to be a democracy.

Yeah, but sense number 1 says 'carefully' which suggests considered and thus some sort of choice. The only choice here seems to be to save or not to save.

We are just discussing. A debate suggests that someone is trying to win something and therefore there are rules that will disqualify a winner. I am just providing my interpretation of where Paul derived his authority. What Paul means, or how he experienced being present in the Spirit is mysterious to me as well. But, he did claim to be present in a way other than being physically present.

Ah, yes good. You're right of course. I'm just getting so passionate about this I'm inclined to use stronger terms. I'm not even sure which identified, 'gift of the Spirit' I would imagine Paul is describing here.

Jesus explains his intention within that scripture. It means to be lowly and of no reputation such as a child. They were asking Jesus what it means to be great. Jesus was saying to be great is to be lowly. He didn't mean that if a mother walks into a room and tells kids to stop yelling, that means they should ignore context and think that ALL yelling at ALL times is unacceptable. Jesus didn't mean that we should reason in every way such as a child. He meant that God considers greatness to be lowliness, which was counter-intuitive to them.

That depends how they understood greatness doesn't it, I only understand it in one way: God. Nothing else is meaningful to me on that matter. When I believed in ET Jesus would say that if you want to be first in the in the kingdom of Heaven you should try to be last and many of the first will be last and the last will be first (He's talking about Himself here in case you missed it) and I would think it's Heaven and trying to be last is too hard, why not just shoot for the middle, it's Heaven it's far better than being in Hell?

Can you point me to the scripture that shows that women were given authority over men by Jesus?

The fact the they are made the first witness to the resurrection is a pretty strong one. The prophets of the Old Testament, as I said, are another since they are all appointed by God to have authority over their area. Why would God reverse His behavior?

[Seth]

And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.' (KJV)
'And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression.' (NKJV)
'And it was not Adam who was deceived by Satan. The woman was deceived, and sin was the result.' (NLT)
'And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner.' (NIV)
'and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor.' (ESV)
'And Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and transgressed.' (HCSB)
'And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being deceived, [fn]fell into transgression.' (NASB)
'And Adam was not deceived, but the woman, because she was fully deceived, fell into transgression.' (NET)
'and Adam was not beguiled, but the woman being beguiled hath fallen into transgression:' (ASV)
'and Adam was not deceived, but the woman, having been deceived, into transgression came,' (YLT)
'and Adam was not deceived; but the woman, having been deceived, was in transgression.' (DBY)
'And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.' (WEB)
'Adam wasn't deceived, but the woman, being deceived, has fallen into disobedience;' (HNV)

Thirteen translations there plus the one I've already used. None of them say that Adam sinned all of them say the woman sinned. In normal reading in wouldn't think it fair to read into it the statement that Adam actually did sin just because it doesn't specifically say that he didn't not given some of the very obvious translation up then including Young's Literal translation which says the woman felling into transgression due to being deceived not simply because she lusted after what she saw in the tree which is what Genesis says happened.

Again, if I say

Person A was fooled and became a transgressor
Person B was not fooled.

That does not automatically mean that Person B didn't transgress later, or in another way than being fooled by Satan. That's where your interpretation is emerging. The passage does NOT say "Adam did not ever transgress." It says he wasn't deceived. His transgression did not occur through deception of Satan. Do you think Adam was perfect and sinless or something?

This is called the Argument to the Negative where lack of positive evidence must prove the opposite: "Adam must not have sinned because the verse doesn't say he did." Just because this particular verse doesn't say Adam sinned is not proof that he didn't at another point in time. It just doesn't say. It only says he wasn't deceived.

Yeah, but sense number 1 says 'carefully' which suggests considered and thus some sort of choice.

It doesn't suggest that to me. It just mean with care. Also, Jesus pre-existed. It could be that he was chosen over angels.

That depends how they understood greatness doesn't it, I only understand it in one way: God. Nothing else is meaningful to me on that matter. When I believed in ET Jesus would say that if you want to be first in the in the kingdom of Heaven you should try to be last and many of the first will be last and the last will be first (He's talking about Himself here in case you missed it) and I would think it's Heaven and trying to be last is too hard, why not just shoot for the middle, it's Heaven it's far better than being in Hell?

Well, however anyone understands greatness, the comparison Jesus is making to a child does not imply that we should reason or think as one about the scriptures. In some ways we should be like a child, and in other ways we should be more mature. Jesus provides the way in which we should be like children directly in the passage.

The fact the they are made the first witness to the resurrection is a pretty strong one. The prophets of the Old Testament, as I said, are another since they are all appointed by God to have authority over their area. Why would God reverse His behavior?

Being witness to the resurrection does not mean authority. Also, God required the Jews to avoid pork. Now we don't have to. I am looking for examples where Jesus gave authority to women over men in the church.

[rosered]

It seems we read things differently. I don't think being 'like a child' means being carnally minded when Jesus says it, and I don't think you you have to be born again. But being born again, does fit in the context given that Jesus says become like a little child and uses a real little child as am example. What I think about St. Paul's use of that passage above. Because of the context, that he's using it allegorically. It's hard to read it as meaning 'before he was a Christian.' that doesn't make sense in the context of a society where childhood actually often lasted a lot less long than it does these days. Paul would have spent a lot of his childhood learning to be a Pharisee, then he stopped learning and became a full blown Pharisee at which point he would also have been considered a 'man' by the society he was in.

As I mentioned in the above post he wasn't a very nice person when he was a Pharisee. But that doesn't mean he wasn't recognized as a man. Although there are so many symbolic ways to present this too, people can problem transcend from child to adult countless times in all sorts of areas of their life as they go through it.

  You have no  arguments from me   on how to see   GODS WORD ,CST ,,,

We are all in different places that is for sure ..  :friendstu:

  but     I should have said before    Christ Spirit   WITH GODS AS JOINED , come upon Him to teach Him a new and living way He was persecuting the Body of Christ  ..Acts    9

I sure can see him doing the works of   satan his father the  devil as a Pharisee    very prideful and ignorantly  in darkness without eyes to see or ears to hear or heart to understand the HOLY SPIRIT    as it was NOT given to him yet , as a      birthing out of due time   1Cor 15 Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me.  [  HE WAS BORN AGAIN ]    in my opinion   as Jesus did come as a thief in the night , his hour of darkness ..

17 Then Ananias went to the house and entered it. Placing his hands on Saul, he said, "Brother Saul, the Lord—Jesus, who appeared to you on the road as you were coming here—has sent me so that you may see again and be filled with the Holy Spirit." 18 Immediately, something like scales fell from Saul's eyes, and he could see again. He got up and was baptized, 19 and after taking some food, he regained his strength.

I do see the   old law of   Levi-athan    as the serpent of the seas many people's tongues and nations ..[ the King over all the children of PRIDE ]  Job 41 . [as the levi  priesthood  with many sacrifices     pride comes before  a FALL   , falling on your knees    to the earth  and descent   as  baptism   of death   ,   but to those whom betray ,  the sin remained because  of them saying WE SEE !
all allegorically     speaking      but GOD provided ONE LAMB  , By One would  it  change that  priesthood   forever    THIS ACT OR WORK  OPENLY,    to His own HOLY ONE   SET
as  perfect and never ending ..      Only God Himself can teach us His truth  , many speak  as I am to you today , but it is the Lord   whom freely gives us  His truth   so He is glorified in the earth as it is in heaven   as we   learn His righteousness &  judgments ..

[Dandelion]

Hope this is helpful. I know it is long. Forgive me, but without its entirety, it loses its cohesiveness.

Jesus was the complete fulfillment of the Law.....the embodiment of Love, given to us directly by God, to complete the Law........Love incarnate, yet still a human who could relate to us, and be one of us.....He came unto His own, but His own received Him not.....yet, He gave us the ability to become children of God.

D.                              :cloud9:

Hi, Dandelion I'm glad you're still here I thought you'd left. I tried to look at your profile and was told you didn't exist.

Thank you, CST, for noticing I wasn't around too much the last 2 weeks. I had a pretty close friend pass away, suddenly, so I had to make a few trips out to LI, and then paperwork for work, etc. I am very hard to get rid of....I tend to stick to things like glue.....so, if I am not here, there is a reason. I have no intentions of leaving 'the Tent' as I refer to it. Oh, yes, that is what my profile always says...not to worry.

I see the debate continues.............

D.

[marie glen]

I think I'm a bit behind in this thread.. and haven't time to carefully read all.. but wanted to mention one or two things.. The apostles after meeting with and listening to Paul, gave his gospel he was preaching to the gentiles (and Israel/synagogues) approval.. Paul called himself an apostle, lastly chosen as one out of time.. Some things Paul wrote about women's place I did not like.. but then again, he also wrote that in Jesus there is neither Jew nor greek, male nor female.. and Priscilla, for one, definitely seemed to be involved with teaching. As far as authority, I don't really trust "authority" figures, etc. but that's just me.. I do trust the apostles and their witness.. Which the scriptures say miracles in their day was a witness and testimony that what was occurring was truthful.

I have often pondered the truth of how Eve was deceived.. (didn't our heavenly Father know that would occur.. Deception, that is, when He created man and woman aFter the rebellion of Satan?) And doesn't the scripture say all are born into sin having been born of Adam's line? Including the "as in Adam all die, even so in Jesus all will live.."

I  decided to look up some of the greek in the verse - 1 Timothy 2:12 - to be quiet in church - http://studybible.info/strongs/G2271 "teach" - http://studybible.info/strongs/G1321 and "authority (over) - http://studybible.info/strongs/G831
- this one was the most interesting..

And as with all topics, I don't believe it is one verse (or section) but all pertaining verses.. so the "no male nor female in Christ" also applies.. I do feel one place where the women were told to be quiet, is a case where during church some ladies were carrying on conversations!

And also, male or female, I don't think we are supposed to bury talents nor gifts.. (wow, how frustrating that would be.. or only speak to other women? :Chinscratch: does Jesus love me less because I am a woman?  I do tend to prefer men to be the leaders.. if available.. And I do submit myself to my own husband.. and am not interested in any sort of authority over any others..

There's an ad I come across selling "women's head coverings for christian women" and I am offended by it whenever I see it.. It reminds me of that other god, alla h, and says to me, you are inferior.. Yes, I know Paul said about being covered, but I think it was a customs thing, and covered today is still decency.. (1 Cor 11)

Wasn't that part of the curse, when God told Eve the man would exercise authority over her.. You know, I hate cooking and all that domestic stuff all take for granted (which I've been doing all my life) if i had to confine myself to that :eek: bake sales.. :laughing7: no offense meant (please, and forgive me if my thoughts on this offend)
    :Peace2: :gsmile: