Adam's fall and its consequences

[Pilgrim33]

Can it be that Paul is talking to Christians in Rome?

I.e.: "Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men (in the Church), so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men (in the Church)"

The Greek does not support this claim. It is inclusive. Not indicative of 'all men in the church.' The parentheses provided are NOT included in the manuscripts. Paul was making a comparison which included both 'those who died in Adam' equating them with, 'those made alive in Christ.' The syllogism makes them, one and the same.

 

[preacher4truth]

Nice, thanks for the continuing discussion. Indeed. God has little regard for human life according to every Biblical account from the flood of Noah; to the prescribed sacrifice of Isaac; to the genocides of Canaan; to the advocacy of slavery, to the idea of vicarious human sacrifice in the life/death of Jesus.

And given the popular Christian response: "Anyone who does not believe in Jesus is condemned to hell" - It doesn't speak well of God's regard for the vast majority of humanity. Especially everyone who was born prior to the life/death/resurrection of Jesus, and those who, through no fault of their own, never had an opportunity to "hear the gospel."

So many errors and misunderstandings in you first sentence, not worth the time addressing them, your mind is made up, you consider yourself correct in each scenario and are mocking God.

All this causes me to wonder if you're an apostate or simply a lost man that has never professed faith. Kind of like an angry misinformed atheist who thinks he's highly intelligent perhaps?

Those who have never heard are already on their way to hell. Those who have heard and rejected are in worse spiritual condition and hate God the more.

Those born prior to the Gospel were saved in the same manner, via grace.

But I digress, you remind me of the Romans 9:20 man.

 

[trofimus]

The Greek does not support this claim. It is inclusive. Not indicative of 'all men in the church.' The parentheses provided are NOT included in the manuscripts. Paul was making a comparison which included both 'those who died in Adam' equating them with, 'those made alive in Christ.' The syllogism makes them, one and the same.

Of course that the parentheses are not in Greek. These are my explanation of the verse.

 

[Pilgrim33]

So many errors and misunderstandings in you first sentence, not worth the time addressing them, your mind is made up, you consider yourself correct in each scenario and are mocking God.

Thanks for judging me. I am greatly indebted to you for your haughtiness. As for my, "mocking God" accusation, 'can God be mocked?' The answer is, no.

What can be mocked is the representation of God.

All this causes me to wonder if you're an apostate or simply a lost man that has never professed faith. Kind of like an angry misinformed atheist who thinks he's highly intelligent perhaps?

Apostate according to whom? Everyone is someone's heretic when it comes to theology. Please trust me when I write, I am not angry, nor am I an atheist. As for intelligence, who cares? Doesn't the "foolishness of God confound the wise"?

Those who have never heard are already on their way to hell.

Interesting. Your *God* condemns souls to hell even if they "never heard" the gospel? Why would ANYONE want to believe that idea?

Those who have heard and rejected are in worse spiritual condition and hate God the more.

What sweeping accusations. How can you back up these claims? You may be correct in some cases but HOW do you know?

Those born prior to the Gospel were saved in the same manner, via grace.

Doesn't salvation by grace have to be eisogeted into the OT? For that matter, it has to be read back into the NT on many occasions. "Righteousness" on the part of the individual 'saved' him/her/them. Righteousness meant, doing right. Not scapegoating someone into becoming a vicarious human-child sacrifice for sin.

But I digress, you remind me of the Romans 9:20 man.

You give me too much credit. Jeremiah 18 is metaphor. Any careful reading of the text illustrates this fact.

Why would would you wish to demean me? Someone you do not know by making such a comparison, especially since you cannot even go to the root of where your supposed insult originates?

 

[preacher4truth]

Thanks for judging me. I am greatly indebted to you for your haughtiness. As for my, "mocking God" accusation, 'can God be mocked?' The answer is, no.

What can be mocked is the representation of God.

Yes, you've misrepresented God, and are the Romans 9:20 man. This is derived from your commentary here.

Judge you? Just going by your words and statements, and commenting on them. They tell us who you are, what comes from your heart, that you're in one state or another, said states that I've offered up, one or more representing you. Yes, representing you.

See? You're doing the same thing toward me that I've done toward you - going by what a person says, deriving and commenting on these things. Is this not judging as well, or, is it OK because you do it, but not OK when others implement it?

And as for "judging?" A way over-used and frankly lame accusation meant for derogation. We are to use judgment, and I have. I will continue to do so because it is actually Biblical.

You've called me haughty for calling you what you are by what you say, and by your attitude in what you say. I've concluded you are the Romans 9:20 man, your above response further demonstrates this to be true, which portions I've snipped out.

You want to play hard ball on God, and on others, but want others to play softball back at you or you go off the handle as above still blind to your own state.

 

[Pilgrim33]

Yes, you've misrepresented God, and are the Romans 9:20 man. This is derived from your commentary here.

If I've misrepresented God, I trust there shall be a comeuppance. Until then, your ad hominems are nothing but cute diversions.

Judge you?

Yes. But who cares?

Just going by your words and statements, and commenting on them. They tell us who you are, what comes from your heart, that you're in one state or another, said states that I've offered up, one or more representing you. Yes, representing you.

Whew. This exchange is fun. Could you please be anymore vague? Thanks.

See? You're doing the same thing toward me that I've done toward you - going by what a person says, deriving and commenting on these things. Is this not judging as well, or, is it OK because you do it, but not OK when others implement it?

And as for "judging?" A way over-used and frankly lame accusation meant for derogation. We are to use judgment, and I have. I will continue to do so because it is actually Biblical.

You've called me haughty for calling you what you are by what you say, and by your attitude in what you say. I've concluded you are the Romans 9:20 man, your above response further demonstrates this to be true, which portions I've snipped out.

You want to play hard ball on God, and on others, but want others to play softball back at you or you go off the handle as above still blind to your own state.[/QUOTE]

 

[preacher4truth]

If I've misrepresented God, I trust there shall be a comeuppance.

Yes, but not on your terms as you assert.

Until then, your ad hominems are nothing but cute diversions.

My judgments upon you, again, reside in going by your own verbiage and Romans 9:20 stance.

Yes. But who cares?

You do, which is why you whined about it.

Whew. This exchange is fun. Could you please be anymore vague? Thanks.

Why be vague when dealing with such foolishness? See, you're proving what I said and making my point, you want to play hard ball but cannot handle it coming back at you.

You apparently do not like being called on what you say, your attitude in it, your mocking of God, and your Romans 9:20 attitude toward him &c.

 

[Pilgrim33]

Yes, but not on your terms as you assert.

Upon what terms, then shall I be judged?

My judgments upon you, again, reside in going by your own verbiage and Romans 9:20 stance.

Right. I am the Potter, you are the clay, yadayadayada. I am the "bad guy" because I dare question this metaphorical potter.

You do, which is why you whined about it.

Whined? Nice. Is this how things are done here? If so, fine, but at least have the spine to know Romans 9:20 and its precedent Jeremiah 18 are didactic poetry.

Why be vague when dealing with such foolishness? See, you're proving what I said and making my point, you want to play hard ball but cannot handle it coming back at you.

If you don't recognize the vagaries, why should I point them out? It would be more helpful if you provided specifics for us to discuss.

You apparently do not like being called on what you say, your attitude in it, your mocking of God, and your Romans 9:20 attitude toward him &c.

If I can be proven in error, I will wholeheartedly endorse anyone who proves my error(s). Until then, prove your affirmative statements. That is the what debate requires.

 

[preacher4truth]

Upon what terms, then shall I be judged?

Right here:

Right. I am the Potter, you are the clay, yadayadayada. I am the "bad guy" because I dare question this metaphorical potter.

Whined? Nice.

Yes, you whine.

Is this how things are done here? If so, fine, but at least have the spine to know Romans 9:20 and its precedent Jeremiah 18 are didactic poetry.

You're the man described in Romans 9:20, "poetically."

If you don't recognize the vagaries, why should I point them out?

So much pretense, and so disingenuous of you. No where was I vague, now, start being honest and end your twisting here?

It would be more helpful if you provided specifics for us to discuss.

Sure. Let's discuss your statements decrying God's judgment upon nations and slaying them, particularly the genocide of Canaan as you call it.

You don't like that, and stand in defiance of God for so doing. Let's discuss this as you are in reality presenting yourself as possessing a higher morality (if you will) than God.

If I can be proven in error, I will wholeheartedly endorse anyone who proves my error(s). Until then, prove your affirmative statements. That is the what debate requires.

You won't concede to being proven in error. The above is mere pretense, and as stated, you are either apostate, or an angry atheist who has an ax to grind against God. Romans 9:20 in full garb.

One thing is for certain, God can convert you.

But as per your request, we can discuss the point of genocide if you so desire. And again, try being honest, will you, the thing about being vague and attempting to rewrite the narrative there is frankly asinine behavior on your part.

 

[Pilgrim33]

Right here: "I am the Potter, you are the clay.

Yadayadayada. I am the "bad guy" because I dare question this metaphorical potter."

IT is poetry. What do you not understand about this form of literature?

Yes, you whine.

I whine and you provide the cheese.

You're the man described in Romans 9:20, "poetically."

At least you accept the didactic literary structure. I call that a, "win."

So much pretense, and so disingenuous of you. No where was I vague, now, start being honest and end your twisting here?

End my 'twisting' where? Please let me know where you wish to resume the discussion.

Sure. Let's discuss your statements decrying God's judgment upon nations and slaying them, particularly the genocide of Canaan as you call it.

Oooh, this is a good place to start. You have read Exodus - Judges, right?

You don't like that, and stand in defiance of God for so doing. Let's discuss this as you are in reality presenting yourself as possessing a higher morality (if you will) than God.

Of course, my morality is better than Jehovah. I don't advocate slavery or genocide. Do you?

You won't concede to being proven in error.

I welcome being proven wrong. But you haven't done it.

The above is mere pretense, and as stated, you are either apostate, or an angry atheist who has an ax to grind against God. Romans 9:20 in full garb.

What kind of cognitive dissonance do you need to possess in order to make such blatant unfounded accusations?

One thing is for certain, God can convert you.

Were this possible, I would welcome it. If, however, the conversion is anything like Paul experienced in Acts, I want nothing to do with it. Three different accounts and none of them agree. How is that possible?

But as per your request, we can discuss the point of genocide if you so desire. And again, try being honest, will you, the thing about being vague and attempting to rewrite the narrative there is frankly asinine behavior on your part.

Absolutely, lets discuss theocratic deicide, genocide, filicide, and how any of it comports with Judaism.

 

[Pilgrim33]

Of course that the parentheses are not in Greek. These are my explanation of the verse.

Well, at least you recognize your insertions are not Biblical. Why did you try to pass them off as part of the text? Or did you think because you placed the words in parentheses no one would notice?

 

[trofimus]

Well, at least you recognize your insertions are not Biblical. Do you want Brownie Points?

There is a difference between something to be present in Greek and something to be biblical or not. Trinity is biblical but not present in Greek.

 

[Pilgrim33]

There is a difference between something to be present in Greek and something to be biblical or not. Trinity is biblical but not present in Greek.

No, the Trinity has been disputed longer than the Council of Nicea. Don't be ignorant.

 

[trofimus]

No, the Trinity has been disputed longer than the Council of Nicea. Don't be ignorant.

You can dispute whatever you want, Trinity is a basic Christian doctrine and rightly so.

 

[Pilgrim33]

O dear, please don't be ignorant. The doctrine of the Trinity was the oldest disputed doctrine amoung Christians. It wasn't a settled deal until some 451 years after the life of Jesus. Even today there are Christians who do not believe it.

Google: Arians. Christadelphians. Jehovah's Witness.

 

[trofimus]

O dear, please don't be ignorant. The doctrine of the Trinity was the oldest disputed doctrine amoung Christians. It wasn't a settled deal until some 451 years after the life of Jesus. Even today there are Christians who do not believe it.

Google: Arians. Christadelphians. Jehovah's Witness.

I do not think JW are Christians.

If somebody does not believe that Jesus is God, he will have so many theological problems that I very doubt he can live or believe in a Christian way.

 

[Pilgrim33]

There is a difference between something to be present in Greek and something to be biblical or not. Trinity is biblical but not present in Greek.

Show us where the Christian doctrine of the Trinity is present in the Bible but not present in the Greek. By which we should presume it is NOT present in the Greek New Testament.

 

[Pilgrim33]

I do not think JW are Christians.

Yeah, that's keen. They don't think anyone other than them are Christians.

If somebody does not believe that Jesus is God, he will have so many theological problems that I very doubt he can live or believe in a Christian way.

Your concerns are historical and valid. But since there were Christians before the doctrine of Hypostatic Union, it really doesn't matter what you think. That is not a condemnation. It is a statement of fact.

 

[trofimus]

Yeah, that's keen. They don't think anyone other than them are Christians.



Your concerns are historical and valid. But since there were Christians before the doctrine of Hypostatic Union, it really doesn't matter what you think. That is not a condemnation. It is a statement of fact.

Scripture were before any doctrine of hypostatic union and therefore the official doctrine date is irrelevant.

That is not a condemnation. It is a statement of fact.

---

The word Trinity is not in Greek, but its meaning is.

 

[Pilgrim33]

Scripture were before any doctrine of hypostatic union and therefore the official doctrine date is irrelevant.

That is not a condemnation. It is a statement of fact.

O, please, you never knew of the doctrine of Hypostatic Union before these posts did you?