The Fall of Man

[peacemaker]

"The totality of any experience must be real and personal, not predicated on false beliefs."

peacemaker

[micah7:9]

Serpent  H5172
נחשׁ
nâchash
naw-khash'
A primitive root; properly to hiss, that is, whisper a (magic) spell; generally to prognosticate: -  X certainly, divine, enchanter, (use) X enchantment, learn by experience, X indeed, diligently observe.

What does it read?
What do you mean by that quote from Strong?

[micah7:9]

What does it read?

[micah7:9]

Man, Adam, mankind could not have "fallen."  But I must let this post of fallen man go. I realize by saying what I have said, has to do with man having a free-will or not. I find that debating this is useless. Please forgive me for inciting anything concerning this topic.

Peace and Love Through Jesus. and thank you.

[WhiteWings]

What does it read?

I'll simplify my question for you: Do you agree with what I quoted in post#85. Yes or No?

[WhiteWings]

Man, Adam, mankind could not have "fallen."

Why not?
I think we (all people in this thread) might have different defenitions of what "fallen" is. For me there is more than one way Adam and Eve could have fallen.
(assuming they fell)

[peacemaker]

What does it read?

I'll simplify my question for you: Do you agree with what I quoted in post#85. Yes or No?

Eve was speaking to a bright, shining upright being; who was serpentine in appearance.

In Classical Mythology:

These Reptilian beings were variously described as Serpents or Dragons, having an inflatable head crest,
resembling that of the crowns of Kings; who would kill with their breath (words), or at a mere glance.

"The voice of the sea casts its spell, holding the souls of men in its net."

[Molly]

I heard recently that people were required to go to  Roman Temple every week to worship their god.   There were many different gods worshipped by the Romans and it didn't matter which one, as long as they made the required attendance.  The Christians were also offered a place for their God in the Temple, but they refused.   This is why they were persecuted, because they refused to place their God on a level with the other Roman gods and worship him in Roman Temples.



In ancient Roman religion, practitioners often performed their worship at a temple, that is, a structure that housed the image of the deity and an altar. The English word "temple" derives from Latin templum, which was originally not a building, but a sacred area marked out ritually. The word templum later came to mean the building itself. Other words the Romans used for a temple or shrine are aedes, delubrum, and fanum.

Sacrifices would take place at an altar within the templum precinct. Since the public ceremonies took place outdoors, the building itself served mainly to house the cult statue which was kept in the main room (cella). The cella might also have a small altar for incense or libations. Behind the cella was a room or rooms used by the attendants for storage of equipment and offerings.

--Wikipedia




22So Paul, standing in the midst of the Areopagus, said: "Men of Athens, I perceive that in every way you are very religious. 23For as I passed along and observed the objects of your worship, I found also an altar with this inscription, 'To the unknown god.' What therefore you worship as unknown, this I proclaim to you. 24 The God who made the world and everything in it, being Lord of heaven and earth, does not live in temples made by man, 25nor is he served by human hands, as though he needed anything, since he himself gives to all mankind life and breath and everything. 26And he made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined allotted periods and the boundaries of their dwelling place, 27 that they should seek God, in the hope that they might feel their way toward him and find him. Yet he is actually not far from each one of us, 28for

   "'In him we live and move and have our being';


  as even some of your own poets have said,

   "'For we are indeed his offspring.'

--Acts 17

[WhiteWings]

I heard recently that people were required to go to  Roman Temple every week to worship their god.   There were many different gods worshipped by the Romans and it didn't matter which one, as long as they made the required attendance.

That's correct. There where favord gods, the ones the current ceasar worshipped, but there was never a state religion. Until Constantine...

[Cardinal]

Man, Adam, mankind could not have "fallen."  But I must let this post of fallen man go. I realize by saying what I have said, has to do with man having a free-will or not. I find that debating this is useless. Please forgive me for inciting anything concerning this topic.

Peace and Love Through Jesus. and thank you.

:cloud9: I understand what you're saying Micah, and I agree with you. Some here, including myself, though, are speaking of fallen referring to his spiritual condition of being lowered into vanity, not necessarily the ACTION taken to get "that way". God knew the end from the beginning, even of the garden experience, and was never "surprised" because He knew what was in man. Blessings....

[gregoryfl]

Paul once said that anyone who desired to be justified by law has fallen from grace. Now, does that mean that he is literally no longer within the grace of God, as though that grace has limits? God's grace is as limitless as God himself.

To fall from grace then, as I understand it, would mean that one would not be living in his own mind and experience as one under grace, but would once again be entering into the old way of thinking, which led to guilt, shame, sin consciousness, etc. It is to live in the ways of sin and death, as opposed to the way which is reality for them, of life and peace and freedom.

When Adam and Eve ate from the tree, their perception of themselves with relation to God changed, not literally, but in their mind. They SAW [changed perception] that they were naked, and felt shame, and the need to hide. God wasn't hiding from them though. He was seeking fellowship with them just as before. Jesus came to restore that lost identity, to reveal that, by means of his death, burial, and resurrection, that old man, with it's way of thinking, would be crucified with Christ on that cross, and thus man could once again experience, not BECOMING one with the Father and Son, but to BE one with them, for man has always been one with God. To "be" speaks of living as one already is. It is not the same as "becoming" something, which has to do with coming to "be" what you are not already.

Ron

[Molly]

Dietrich Bonhoeffer (1906—1945)


For Bonhoeffer, the foundation of ethical behaviour lay in how the reality of the world and the reality of God were reconciled in the reality of Christ. Both in his thinking and in his life, ethics were centered on the demand for action by responsible men and women in the face of evil. He was sharply critical of ethical theory and of academic concerns with ethical systems precisely because of their failure to confront evil directly. Evil, he asserted, was concrete and specific, and it could be combated only by the specific actions of responsible people in the world. The uncompromising position Bonhoeffer took in his seminal work Ethics, was directly reflected in his stance against Nazism. His early opposition turned into active conspiracy in 1940 to overthrow the regime. It was during this time, until his arrest in 1943, that he worked on Ethics.


The demand for responsible action in history is a demand no Christian can ignore. We are, accordingly, faced with the following dilemma: when assaulted by evil, we must oppose it directly. We have no other option. The failure to act is simply to condone evil. But it is also clear that we have no justification for preferring one response to evil over another. We seemingly could do anything with equal justification. Nevertheless, for Bonhoeffer, the reality of a demand for action without any (a priori) justification is just the moral reality we must face, if we want to be responsible people.


On the other hand, the escape to a domain of private virtue is, perhaps, of all temptations the most dangerous to the Christian. This is a pulling back from the petty and vulgar affairs of the world in order to avoid being contaminated by evil. This monastic urge is rejected by Bonhoeffer, because for him there is no such thing as escaping your responsibility to act. When faced with evil, there is no middle path. You either oppose the persecution of the innocent or you share in it. No one can preserve his or her private virtue by turning away from the world (Ethics, p.69).

Bonhoeffer's last category, duty, is perhaps the most important to him, because it is the most easily co-opted by evil; and again it makes no difference what laws we introduce to determine our duty. If a devotion to duty does not discriminate in terms of character, it will end up serving evil. "The man of duty," Bonhoeffer observes, "will end by having to fulfill his obligations even to the devil" (Ethics, p.69).

Through Jesus the reality of God has entered the world (Ethics, p.192). If an action is to have meaning, it must correspond to what is real. Since there is only the reality of Christ, Christ is the foundation of ethics. Any Christian who attempts to avoid falsehoods and meaninglessness in his or her life must act in accordance with this reality.

Furthermore, the sole guide for acting in accordance with this reality is the model of Jesus' selfless behavior in the New Testament. There are numerous dimensions to this model. First and foremost, your action can in no way be intended to reflect back on you, your character, or your reputation. You must, for the sake of the moment, unreservedly surrender all self-directed wishes and desires (Ethics, p.232). It is the other, another person, that is the focus of attention, and not yourself. In ethical action, the left hand really must be unaware of what the right hand is doing if the right hand is to do anything ethical. If not, your so-called good action becomes contaminated and its moral nature altered.

Bonhoeffer illustrates this notion of selfless action by contrasting the behavior of Jesus in the New Testament to that of the Pharisee. The Pharisee "...is the man to whom only the knowledge of good and evil has come to be of importance in his entire life..."(Ethics, p.30). Every moment of his life is a moment where he must choose between good and evil (Ethics, p.30). Every action, every judgment, no matter how small, is permeated with the choice of good and evil. He can confront no person without evaluating that person in terms of good and evil (Ethics, p.31). For him, all judgments are moral judgments. No gesture is immune to moral condemnation.

Jesus refuses to see the world in these terms. He lightly, almost cavalierly, casts aside many of the legal distinctions the Pharisee labors to maintain. He bids his disciples to eat on the Sabbath, even though starvation is hardly in question. He heals a woman on the Sabbath, although after eighteen years of illness she could seemingly wait a few more hours. Jesus exhibits a freedom from the law in everything he does, but nothing he does suggests all things are possible. There is nothing arbitrary about his behavior. There is, however, a simplicity and clarity. Unlike the Pharisee, he is unconcerned with the goodness or badness of those he helps, unconcerned with the personal moral worth of those he meets, talks to, dines with, or heals. He is concerned solely and entirely with the well being of another. He exhibits no other concern. He is the paradigm of selfless action, and the exact opposite of the Pharisee, whose every gesture is fundamentally self-reflective.

The responsible person is, thus, a selfless person, who does God's will by serving the spiritual and material needs of another, since "...what is nearest to God is precisely the need of one's neighbor" (Ethics, p.136).

The selfless model of Jesus is his or her only guide to responsible action. And second, the responsible person must not hesitate to act for fear of sin. Any attempt to avoid personal guilt, any attempt to preserve moral purity by withdrawing from conflicts is morally irresponsible. For Bonhoeffer, no one who lives in this world can remain disentangled and morally pure and free of guilt (Ethics, p.244). We must not refuse to act on our neighbor's behalf, even violently, for fear of sin. To refuse to accept guilt and bear it for the sake of another has nothing to do with Christ or Christianity. "If I refuse to bear guilt for charity's sake," Bonhoeffer argues, "then my action is in contradiction to my responsibility which has its foundation in reality" (Ethics, p.241). The risk of guilt generated by responsible action is great and cannot be mitigated in advance by self-justifying principles. There is no certainty in a world come of age. No one, in other words, can escape a complete dependency on the mercy and grace of God.

http://www.iep.utm.edu/bonhoeff/



There is not a place to which the Christian can withdraw from the world, whether it be outwardly or in the sphere of the inner life. Any attempt to escape from the world must sooner or later be paid for with a sinful surrender to the world.

--Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Ethics

[peacemaker]

"In him we live and move and have our being; For we are indeed his offspring."

:thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:

[willieH]

Rom 8:20  for to vanity was the creation made subject--not of its will, but because of Him who did subject it --in hope,

Premium post bro!  :goodpost:

...willieH  :happy3:

[willieH]

willieH: Hi brother N... :hithere:

What a post!  :bgdance:

I especially enjoyed this portion below:

Hi Nathan,

I think the Garden of Eden did/does exist on earth. I do believe there is a spiritual lesson to be learned from it all.

Where was the Garden of Eden?
http://www.askelm.com/secrets/sec096.htm

CHB

I agree, sometime we overspiritualize things because we don't understand it. But to me the garden of Eden has trees, fruits, man made from the Earth, Euphrates river, to many references to Earthly things, it may not make sense to the natural how Adam being Earthly can hear and see God and see the flaming Cherubims, but there's is bound to be a reasonable explanation, and one of those I came up with is that Adam's spirit was alive and did not become spiritually dead until eating the fruit. I think also the curse that God put upon Adam and Eve has something to do with it.

Overspiritualize?  See, I could reverse that and use your words for the same argument against the idea that it's a literal place.  But this isn't about winning a debate.  If it's overspiritualizing to you, I'm fine with that.  I didn't search out another meaning because I didn't understand the original one.  That's just it, I 'did" understand the original meaning in that there was a literal place east of Eden called the garden . . .I didn't go "looking" for another way to see it, I thought I was already seeing it.  But when one part of a belief starts to crumble, it affects the whole beleif system

My understanding of hell has collapsed.  My understanding of losing your salvation has collapsed.  My understanding of the rapture has collapsed it goes on and on and on.  Included in that "on and on" part is my understanding that the garden is a natural place.  I could swear I put a post out earlier today on this but I don't see it.

One reason why I don't think it was a natural place is dealing with the verse where God walked with Adam in the cool of the day . . .for whatever obsurd reason, the translators chose to us the word "cool" for the word that literally means "breath" or "breathe".  It's the same word used through the rest of the Old Testament for the word "spirit".  In that light, God walked with Adam IN THE SPIRIT of the DAY.  The Day being Christ.  The spirit being "spirit".  Meaning it was a spiritual place.

Out of the garden flowed "one" river with no name.  One, the number of sovereignty.  AFTER the river flowed through the garden, it formed into 4 other rivers.  4 is the number of the natural realm.  The earth consists of 4 major elements in water, fire, air and earth.  There are four seasons.  There are four major directions . ..when I see something change from one to four, for me, it's speaking of something passing from invisible to visible, from spirit to flesh.  I believe the river did indeed flow out of the garden, but it didn't "visibly" manifest until the four heads.

Incidentally, the Eurphrates is said to dry up in Revelation.  Coundless denominations and religious systems believe that to be literal.  It's supposed to dry up as preparation for the kings of the east.  I used to think that was literal to, until one does a LITTLE digging and finds that the modern technology today can EASILY maniupulate an army across a river whether it's dried up or not.

But in the kingdom perspective, I see the river is to be the great accomplishments of man's works.  It literally means fruitfulness.  Mans fruitfulness is going dry up.  All men, may not be all at once according to time in this realm, but regardless of whether it's instantaneous or a process, our personal accomplishments in our belief system will be/is drying up for the purpose of the kings of the east.  What that is, is the removal of an old system making way for the entrance of a new one.  The new one is us.  We are kings and we are priests.  And the fact that we are "of the east" speaks volumes to what our identity is.  East speaks of resurrection.  That's why the garden was "east" of Eden and the gate to the garden was also east.  Everything in the tabernacle of Moses faces the east.  Even when Jesus was born, the wisemen came from the east . . .it's all about resurrection, the rising of the Son. 

Or would I rather revert to the traditional beleif that a literal river is going to dry up so the warrirers of China can cross it.

The more I see Eden as a spiritual place, the more I see how that unlocks other things in Scripture when dealing with "ascended" places.  If Scripture depicts men as trees, and there were many trees in the garden of Eden . . .who's to say the other trees in the garden couldn't be connected to the offspring of Adam and Eve.  That was their directive early on, that they were to reproduce and multiply. 

When God was reexplaining what they were about to experience in thier new world . . .earth . . he didn't tell Eve that she'd now be able to reproduce.  Instead he said now when she does, it's going to be painful.  For me there's to much evidence there to think it's anything else "but" a spiritual place.

Good stuff bro...  :thumbsup:

...willieH  :cloud9:

[willieH]

willieH: Hi T-tank...  :cloud9:

I belive God is infinite, so if Adam had chosen the tree of life, then God would have had a different plan for Adam and the human race, but Adam choose the tree of knowledge and so God set up the redemption plan.

(no offense, brother T-Tank) but, ...what a lot of unfounded speculation...  :thumbdown:

Adam could NOT have "chosen" other than He did, for His choice was already noted by the WORD of GOD -- Isaiah 46:10 -- Rom 4:17 -- so no "alternate" imagined scenario was even possible.

Before even one second of this realm took place it was ALREADY DECLARED (by the WORD of God), END to BEGINNING, what (every UNDONE thing=everything) would take place...

This included ADAM & Eve choosing to eat, the Death & Resurrection of CHRIST, unto this DIGITAL day we now live in...  :dontknow:

:omg:  You propose that God "reacts" to the agenda/doings of man... Instead of the reverse!

Had Adam had such a "choice", and enacted it (picking the tree of Life) ...Then the KNOWLEDGE of Good and Evil (known only to GOD) would NOT have been shared with man, and therefore GOD would NOT and could NOT be ALL in ALL...  For the LIVING experience and REVELATION of that KNOWLEDGE would be "negated"...

There are no "what if's" with God, T-tank... "what if's" are nothing but imaginations... and concerning man, they are VAIN ones -- Rom 1:21 -- 2 Cor 10:5 -- Jer 17:9

It IS NOT GLORIFYING to God to note Him as needfully "REACTING" to the vanity of men (having to set up a "redemption plan", due to their "choosing")...  This portrays God as "kicking the wall" ...looking toward JESUS saying "dang!  Look what THEY DID!  Now YOU are going to have to go down there and DIE, to bring those dumb bozos home!  Why didn't they choose the RIGHT tree?"  :thumbdown:

It IS GLORIFYING to GOD to note that ALL MEN, having come to KNOW EVIL as well as GOOD (because GOD intended they KNOW what they have in His eternal kingdom -- ZERO suffering, pain, sorrow, loss, etc.), and all because HE was willing to sacrifice His ONLY PERFECT and SINLESS Son, to bring us (bozos) all HOME, and into SUBJECTION to Him [and His love] which is GOOD...  :thumbsup:

...willieH  :cloud9:

[micah7:9]

Man, Adam, mankind could not have "fallen."  But I must let this post of fallen man go. I realize by saying what I have said, has to do with man having a free-will or not. I find that debating this is useless. Please forgive me for inciting anything concerning this topic.

Peace and Love Through Jesus. and thank you.

:cloud9: I understand what you're saying Micah, and I agree with you. Some here, including myself, though, are speaking of fallen referring to his spiritual condition of being lowered into vanity, not necessarily the ACTION taken to get "that way". God knew the end from the beginning, even of the garden experience, and was never "surprised" because He knew what was in man. Blessings....

Then the teaching of a "falling" I do not believe is comprehendable nor does it edify. One does not fall from a postion if one held no postion of falling from.

[thinktank]

Man, Adam, mankind could not have "fallen."  But I must let this post of fallen man go. I realize by saying what I have said, has to do with man having a free-will or not. I find that debating this is useless. Please forgive me for inciting anything concerning this topic.

Peace and Love Through Jesus. and thank you.

:cloud9: I understand what you're saying Micah, and I agree with you. Some here, including myself, though, are speaking of fallen referring to his spiritual condition of being lowered into vanity, not necessarily the ACTION taken to get "that way". God knew the end from the beginning, even of the garden experience, and was never "surprised" because He knew what was in man. Blessings....

Then the teaching of a "falling" I do not believe is comprehendable nor does it edify. One does not fall from a postion if one held no postion of falling from.

Your welcome to believe what you want, however why do you believe we didn't fall?
The scriptures say that Adam and Eve transgressed and were driven out by God and also cursed, to me that's a fall, a falling from Gods favour/grace. The idea of Adam/Eve being angels is vanity and has no scriptural proof, I hope that doesn't offend anyone too much.

[thinktank]

:hihat:

I'm a bit sloppy writing this so please bare with me as it is late and I'm feeling drowsy.


(no offense, brother T-Tank) but, ...what a lot of unfounded speculation...  thumbdown


No offense taken. I realize that this is advanced stuff im proposing, as for one, the very thing I propose did not happen and did not come to pass, therefore it makes this position difficult for me on a scriptural basis. But nevertheless I do believe what I said is in harmony with the word of God and explains, why God gave the command to freely choose any tree, except that one tree. Gods commands are not in vain and there was a specific reason for that command and I belive that was the test towards Adam and Eve, just like how we today are tested by God on many occasions throughout our life. If they obeyed the command God would have done something else for humanity, you say they didn't and that is true but also an easy thing to say for it is history.


Adam could NOT have "chosen" other than He did, for His choice was already noted by the WORD of GOD -- Isaiah 46:10 -- Rom 4:17 -- so no "alternate" imagined scenario was even possible.

Before even one second of this realm took place it was ALREADY DECLARED (by the WORD of God), END to BEGINNING, what (every UNDONE thing=everything) would take place...

This included ADAM & Eve choosing to eat, the Death & Resurrection of CHRIST, unto this DIGITAL day we now live in... 


I don't see how that Romans verse explains why Adam ate the tree. That verse is talking about how Abraham, despite evidence to the contrary belived and had faith in God who calleth things that be not as though they are. This is what we do when we pray and excercise faith, we believe in things that are not as though they are, we believe in health when we are sick, believe in riches while we are poor etc.

The lord who declares things from the beginning is talking about major events, such as the birth of a messiah, the creation of the earth etc. He's not really concerned and declared that you would drink 2 cups of coffe today and not 3, or whether you had cornflakes or rice krispies for breakfast, these are your decisions and it's the reason why a lot of christians are unhealthy and/or overweight due to their unhealthy choices. If God truly declared all things he would declare that all his people be in good health and prosperous, but no we have to contend for these things by faith and living a godly lifestyle through Christ within us who shapens us over the course of time, while others he does instant miracles for.



Omg  You propose that God "reacts" to the agenda/doings of man... Instead of the reverse!


I think you are overusing that sign post, it's starting to weaken due to the wormwood. You remind me of my sister in some ways with her shocking expression all the time, If I say boo.
The scriptures I read are saying that God does react to us, this is what I read in my bible on a daily basis I don't know why you are shocked. Prayer for example what's that all about? Is it not for God to react to us, to react to our prayers. If God answered your prayers I'm sure you'd be shocked.



Had Adam had such a "choice", and enacted it (picking the tree of Life) ...Then the KNOWLEDGE of Good and Evil (known only to GOD) would NOT have been shared with man, and therefore GOD would NOT and could NOT be ALL in ALL...  For the LIVING experience and REVELATION of that KNOWLEDGE would be "negated"...

That's a very eye opening statement, so your saying that God knows good and evil therefore if he would be in us we would also know good and evil.

That's the beauty of the cross, and the love of God. Even though Adam and Eve desired power knowing good and evil and to be as God, God set up a plan that would bring them back to him.

As the bible says he loved us not that we loved God.

If Adam choose good then I guess that God would not be in all, but rather we would all be like Adam and Eve. It would still be a glorious existence, we would have the garden and peace. The angels of God have already experienced life without evil, so if they did I'm sure that Adam and Eve could have. Adam and Eve knew God, walked and talked but they didn't have the holy spirit within them, which is our gift thanks to Jesus.


There are no "what if's" with God, T-tank... "what if's" are nothing but imaginations... and concerning man, they are VAIN ones -- Rom 1:21 -- 2 Cor 10:5 -- Jer 17:9

That romans verse is not talking about what if's. It's talking about men who rejected God, even though they knew him they changed him from the uncorrupt to that which is corrupt. These men were not interested in God and did not want his rightousness so God, just like how he gave the Israelis their hearts desires in the wilderness in moses time a sandfull of meat that they chocked upon, God also gives up these men to their corrupt minds.



Again the corinthians verse is talking about the same thing, except it is more about an instruction to the church to cast down vain imaginations, there is nothing concerning what if's or the choices of man.

The Jeremiah verse even supports what I'm saying, it says I try the reign and give every man according to his ways, and according to the fruit of his doings.

So here we have nothing about God declaring, but rather God is searching, trying, judging mens hearts and what they sow they reap, according to his ways.


It IS NOT GLORIFYING to God to note Him as needfully "REACTING" to the vanity of men (having to set up a "redemption plan", due to their "choosing")...  This portrays God as "kicking the wall" ...looking toward JESUS saying "dang!  Look what THEY DID!  Now YOU are going to have to go down there and DIE, to bring those dumb bozos home!  Why didn't they choose the RIGHT tree?"


I belive it is glorifying in the sense that God allows us free reign but ends up saving us all anyway. What attribute you think wins most if God gives us free reign but saves us all anyway?

Now what attribute wins or is magnified if God declared every detail in life and declares that we be all saved without us having a say?

So which one of those attributes is God?

I like you story about God kicking the wall, I think that is the jist of it, remember what did Jesus do before he went to the cross?
Didn't he pray to his father that this cup pass away from me?
And didn't the holy ghost answer this request by appearing to Pontius Pilates wife in a dream in an effort to save him?
But the father had to answer Jesus request but also make sure he went to the cross, so this dream took place, which answered Jesus prayer, but father had to make sure he went to the cross, so the woman had her heart hardened.

[WhiteWings]

Your welcome to believe what you want, however why do you believe we didn't fall?
The scriptures say that Adam and Eve transgressed and were driven out by God and also cursed, to me that's a fall, a falling from Gods favour/grace. The idea of Adam/Eve being angels is vanity and has no scriptural proof, I hope that doesn't offend anyone too much.

I agree with you TT that falling from grace is also a fall. The word "fall" may not be the most accurate word to start with.
As for the angels that's mainstream (Catholic) church view. So many paintings with masses of angels falling from the sky. Often with burning wings.
Earlier I asked what "fall" exactly means because there are so many views on it.
I think the same thing can be asked about the word "angel".
If "angel" and "fall" both have, for example, 5 defenitions then there can be a lot of confusion because those 2 words can be used to express 25 views.
Maybe you do agree that Adam and Eve were angels is you knew what the defenition of angel is for the person who holds that view.
It's a like the word devil. Many here believe that the devil exists. But that doesn't automaticly mean they believe the classic view from paintings of a half men half goat with a long pointed tail.

So basicly people agree and disagree without knowing what the other person actually wrote. (because they don't know the word defenitions the other poster used)
:2c:

[micah7:9]

Your welcome to believe what you want, however why do you believe we didn't fall?
The scriptures say that Adam and Eve transgressed and were driven out by God and also cursed, to me that's a fall, a falling from Gods favour/grace. The idea of Adam/Eve being angels is vanity and has no scriptural proof, I hope that doesn't offend anyone too much.

I agree with you TT that falling from grace is also a fall. The word "fall" may not be the most accurate word to start with.
As for the angels that's mainstream (Catholic) church view. So many paintings with masses of angels falling from the sky. Often with burning wings.
Earlier I asked what "fall" exactly means because there are so many views on it.
I think the same thing can be asked about the word "angel".
If "angel" and "fall" both have, for example, 5 defenitions then there can be a lot of confusion because those 2 words can be used to express 25 views.
Maybe you do agree that Adam and Eve were angels is you knew what the defenition of angel is for the person who holds that view.
It's a like the word devil. Many here believe that the devil exists. But that doesn't automaticly mean they believe the classic view from paintings of a half men half goat with a long pointed tail.

So basicly people agree and disagree without knowing what the other person actually wrote. (because they don't know the word defenitions the other poster used)
:2c:

How did man fall from grace, when we do not read of grace until Gen 6:8  And Noah found grace in the eyes of Jehovah.

[thinktank]

Your welcome to believe what you want, however why do you believe we didn't fall?
The scriptures say that Adam and Eve transgressed and were driven out by God and also cursed, to me that's a fall, a falling from Gods favour/grace. The idea of Adam/Eve being angels is vanity and has no scriptural proof, I hope that doesn't offend anyone too much.

I agree with you TT that falling from grace is also a fall. The word "fall" may not be the most accurate word to start with.
As for the angels that's mainstream (Catholic) church view. So many paintings with masses of angels falling from the sky. Often with burning wings.
Earlier I asked what "fall" exactly means because there are so many views on it.
I think the same thing can be asked about the word "angel".
If "angel" and "fall" both have, for example, 5 defenitions then there can be a lot of confusion because those 2 words can be used to express 25 views.
Maybe you do agree that Adam and Eve were angels is you knew what the defenition of angel is for the person who holds that view.
It's a like the word devil. Many here believe that the devil exists. But that doesn't automaticly mean they believe the classic view from paintings of a half men half goat with a long pointed tail.

So basicly people agree and disagree without knowing what the other person actually wrote. (because they don't know the word defenitions the other poster used)
:2c:

I assumed that those catholic paintings, were a depiction of the fall of lucifer and his recruits, rev12.
But I have not researched what they meant, so maybe you are right, but I have not heard of catholics say that Adam and Eve were originally angels, maybe you assumed also  :dontknow:

You are right about the definitions, those were wise words. One can call us angels in a sense because we sit in heaveanly places and are as the angels of heaven, maybe that's what people here mean, but to me that is confusing people and so I rather say as scriptures point out that we will in future become children of the resurection and will one day be as the angels and put on immortality, but currently we reside upon the earth in moral bodies.

[thinktank]

How did man fall from grace, when we do not read of grace until Gen 6:8  And Noah found grace in the eyes of Jehovah.
Micah

I placed favour and grace together for it is similar, or to make it plainer Gods smile upon Adam and Eve, do you think God was happy when Adam and Even trangressed. To me God was pleased to create Adam and his grace was given in the sense that he had paradise to live in. Sometimes I wonder how long were they actually in the garden for, maybe they lived there in paradise for months, wouldn't that be grace?
That God provided a place for them to live?
The same way in which we are grateful for our parents, when they housed us?

[Cardinal]

 :cloud9: @ TT in reply to your previous post......I'm not offended, hope you can say the same. In reply to this last post; YES, TT, that IS what I'm trying to say, but I'm digging into what our "state" was BEFORE we came into flesh, whether you call that a fall or whatever you want to call it. You can't fall from a place you've never been before, nor can you return (Hos. 6) to a place you've never been before.

I have reasons for digging, one of which is a record of one of the kings that destroyed one of the temples, who mocked them because he mistakenly thought the ark of the covenant was the "god" the Israelites were worshiping, instead of THE invisible God.

He mocked them, because the cherubim were depicted as naked children with wings, one male, one female. Though I don't listen to pagan kings, this lines up with some other revelational truth He has given me, as to the understanding of the cherubim on the ark, so I'm pursuing it, ie. angels. Blessings....

[WhiteWings]

I assumed that those catholic paintings, were a depiction of the fall of lucifer and his recruits, rev12.

It was 3:30 am when I typed that :winkgrin:
You are right that it means the fall of lucifer and his army (for most). But just as on the fall of man there are different opinion on the fall of angels.
It has a reason there are so many demoninations. And TM members come from those many denominations. So I think we all brought our defenition with us. No matter if we still do or don't believe them.