Do Genesis and Romans contradict themselves?

[john832]

In Genesis Abraham was declared righteous as he believed God's promise (not by law keeping), Paul expounds on this in Romans 4 so there really is no contradiction between Romans and Genesis.

And here God says the promises were sure because Abraham kept God's Torah...

Gen 26:1 And there was a famine in the land, beside the first famine that was in the days of Abraham. And Isaac went unto Abimelech king of the Philistines unto Gerar.
Gen 26:2 And the LORD appeared unto him, and said, Go not down into Egypt; dwell in the land which I shall tell thee of:
Gen 26:3 Sojourn in this land, and I will be with thee, and will bless thee; for unto thee, and unto thy seed, I will give all these countries, and I will perform the oath which I sware unto Abraham thy father;
Gen 26:4 And I will make thy seed to multiply as the stars of heaven, and will give unto thy seed all these countries; and in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed;
Gen 26:5 Because that Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws.

Word for Laws here is...


H8451
תּרה תּורה
tôrâh tôrâh
to-raw', to-raw'
From H3384; a precept or statute, especially the Decalogue or Pentateuch: - law.

 

[EdwardRansom]

Thanks again for all the replies!

Starcrash, you brought up something that doesn't seem popular among traditional Christians, but I agree with you. As I said when I started the thread, I consider myself a Christian but this was based on the gospels and the acceptance of Jesus as the Messiah and as my example in life. I had never read Romans, and what Paul says there makes me uncomfortable; he reminds me of cult leaders who create a so-called religion and say, "Do this or else you'll be doomed." I think it has been established that there are no references in the Bible to the inheritance of Adam's sin and being therefore born as sinners until Paul's letter to the Romans. You wrote: "The Old Testament indeed says that following the commandments will earn eternal life, and never once suggests that belief is crucial for salvation. That is why Jesus, a torah-observing Jew, also suggested following the law for eternal life. Christians don't get their concepts of salvation from Jesus's actions or words but rather from Paul's translation of them." You cited Mark 10:17-27 to show that Jesus believed in obeying the Mosaic law in order to inherit eternal life. But doesn't Paul sort of trash the Mosaic law? Also, this is from Matthew, chapter 5:

17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19 Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.

So again Jesus says that by observing the law you will enter the kingdom of heaven. That's why what I call Paul's "new religion" in Romans bothers me. But I must finish reading Romans before I can say with certainty that Paul trashes the law, which Jesus clearly believed in for salvation.

TinTin, please, where exactly are Starcrash and I mistaken? All you did was criticize without offering any counterarguments.

Shanashankar, thanks! I have not read Timothy's letters yet, but I look forward to that. However, I will most likely get criticized here and called non-Christian for questioning what Paul said in Romans.

RedTent, thanks again. You said that - according to God - we are "born in sin". But where is that written? Because if Paul was the first person to say that, it seems problematic to me. Is it anywhere in the Old Testament? Or in the gospels, or in Acts? Because Acts is quite straightforward in my opinion: repent, be baptized and accept Jesus as the Messiah in order to be saved (in Acts I don't see any mention of original sin or even of having to believe that Jesus is God). Please let me know where you quoted that from (we are "born in sin"). Thanks in advance.

Just-me, thank you very much for your reply. I don't have a problem with any of those very educational passages and conclusions.

Notuptome, thanks. I agree with most of what you said. For example, you wrote: "Murder was a sin before the law and it is a sin after the law. Idol worship was a sin before the law and it is a sin after the law." But to me it seems as if Paul contradicts you: Romans, chapter 5: "13 To be sure, sin was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not charged against anyone’s account where there is no law" Therefore, it seems to me that Paul is telling us that sins committed before (or without) the law have no consequences, which is absurd, since of course, for example, God punished Cain for killing his brother. Truly, I have a problem with Paul, and I have yet to finish reading the New Testament. I might find more problems. That's why I'm here. I think it's fair to expect the Bible to make sense because it was written for God's children.
john832, I think I have shown in this latest post contradictions in the scriptures. But that doesn't mean I don't believe the word of Christ. My problem is with Paul in Romans at this point. But just to give you a clearer example, according to the gospels, Judas the traitor hanged himself, but in Acts Peter says that Judas acquired a field (which could not have happened while he was an apostle), and then died in a horrific way. The Bible has all sorts of inconsistencies, no matter how hard people try to explain them and deny them. Are you an Evangelical Christian? If so, I respect that, but I'm curious because you sound like one, in my opinion.

Elin, many thanks! I enjoyed your comments very much. After you quoted me the first time, you wrote: "That is correct. But OT revelation was not complete. We don't have God's full revelation until the NT." I agree, but when I used to ask Mormons questions, they often told me that the Bible was not complete, and that the Book of Mormon had the answers, or other books of theirs. I deeply regret that apparently every prophet, and Jesus, omitted the original sin concept while they were on Earth, and that Paul therefore is supposed to be correct, when in reality Paul does seem to contradict Jesus Himself, as I pointed above, since Jesus believed in salvation through obeying the law faithfully. Doesn't Paul trash the law instead?

You also wrote: "The "appearance" of Samuel was a deception of Satan." That's a very plausible theory since mediums were (and are) an abomination in the sight of the Lord; however, it's no more than a plausible theory. The inspired author states in 1 Samuel 28 "15 Then Samuel said to Saul, “Why have you disturbed me by bringing me up?” The inspired author never states that the appearance was a deception of Satan, or a demon, or anything of the sort. Could the inspired author have been fooled? Maybe so. However, even if it was a deception of Satan, the "real" Samuel could have been alive in the afterlife anyway. After all, if Elijah was taken straight to heaven, what wrong things did Samuel (another prophet) do to deserve "death" instead? Jesus preached that those who obeyed the law would be saved, and truly the prophets were men of God who obeyed the law, or else God would not have spoken through them. In fact, we see that many prophets obeyed the law even when very few other people did, during the decadence of the northern and southern kingdoms, for example, yet they remained righteous. I must suppose they received their reward, and if Paul says otherwise, the words of Paul must be questioned. According to Jesus, they were surely saved.

Another interesting statement is this one: "Satan would have no ground with us without our fallen sinful natures. He had no ground with Jesus." Very well, but what about those who claim today that they have been "born again" and saved through their Lord and Savior Jesus? And they are no longer "sinners" (in the sense that Paul used)? They are not immune to Satan at all. They continue to sin, even outrageously in some cases, yet from what I understand, they are nevertheless saved through mere faith in Jesus. Again, if this is what Paul wrote, it should be questioned. God has said that He despises iniquity, and punishes it, yet are we to believe that very sinful "Christians" are automatically saved through mere faith in Jesus? That they will go straight to heaven? Because I know some "Christians" who go to church every Sunday but who live in a state of iniquity. If they will be saved, there is a contradiction in the scriptures, in my opinion. Anyway, as I said, I enjoyed and appreciate your replies very much. Thanks again.

 

[Elin]

In Genesis Abraham was declared righteous as he believed God's promise (not by law keeping), Paul expounds on this in Romans 4 so there really is no contradiction between Romans and Genesis.

And here God says the promises were sure because Abraham kept God's Torah...

Gen 26:1 And there was a famine in the land, beside the first famine that was in the days of Abraham. And Isaac went unto Abimelech king of the Philistines unto Gerar.
Gen 26:2 And the LORD appeared unto him, and said, Go not down into Egypt; dwell in the land which I shall tell thee of:
Gen 26:3 Sojourn in this land, and I will be with thee, and will bless thee; for unto thee, and unto thy seed, I will give all these countries, and I will perform the oath which I sware unto Abraham thy father;
Gen 26:4 And I will make thy seed to multiply as the stars of heaven, and will give unto thy seed all these countries; and in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed;
Gen 26:5 Because that Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws.

Two entirely different things.

God credited righteousness (right standing with God, sin forgiven) to Abraham because of his faith
in God's promise of the Messiah (Ge 15:6).

In Ge 26:5, God reaffirmed his covenant with Abraham's descendants because Abraham obeyed
the conditions of the covenant (Ge 17:4, 9: "As for you;" "As for me;").

To be credited with righteousness--forgiveness of sin giving right standing before God,
and to receive the benefits of the covenant promises because of obedience
aren't even in the same ball park.

 

[Elin]

Thanks again for all the replies!
Starcrash, you brought up something that doesn't seem popular among traditional Christians, but I agree with you. As I said when I started the thread, I consider myself a Christian but this was based on the gospels and the acceptance of Jesus as the Messiah and as my example in life.
I had never read Romans, and what Paul says there makes me uncomfortable;

Well for starters, Ed, do you really think you are in a position to discuss Paul's teachings if you haven't even read his major NT document?

The Old Testament indeed says that following the commandments will earn eternal life, and
never once suggests that belief is crucial for salvation.

But that is exactly what we see in Ge 15:6.

"Righteousness" is forgiveness of sin, making right with God, which gives salvation from
God's wrath (Ro 5:9) on one's sin.

Christians don't get their concepts of salvation from Jesus's actions or words but rather from Paul's translation of them.

Okay, Ed,

We've got two serious problems here that will necessarily block discussion with you,
and they are:

1) You have not read Paul's most important letter which expounds the basic gospel, and

2) belief vs. unbelief.

NT Christianity is simply a matter of belief or unbelief in the revelation spoken by the Son in these last
days (Heb 1:1-2), and given through the writers of the NT, in which light all Scripture is to be understood.

That is evangelical belief. . .and why evangelicals tell you that you are not one.

And in the absence of that belief, there is no basis for discussion in a NT Christian forum,
because since the beginning of the Church, the whole NT is the basis of belief for the NT Christian.

So for that reason, rather than repeating it all again for you here, I refer you to this thread, "What Laws are still valid for Christians?", and to this thread, "Support your Local Jew," which thoroughly answer all your questions from the whole NT, plus more.

 

[reject-tech]

Adam ate from the tree, but although he disobeyed God, how can this be called a sin when Adam did not know good and evil?

Adam did know the difference between good and evil, as much as possible by observation only. He had just never experienced it personally until Eve and he sinned. He saw animals bartering and fighting for sex, he saw them take food from each other, and so on. He was allowed to look at the tree of knowledge of good and evil, to contemplate what evil is. The law that he was given to obey was not to partake in evil.

Adam was not to behave like an animal, because mankind is the only life form on earth that has a sentience of peace at all costs.

We have a messed up idea of what the word "evil" means. We conjure ideas of demonic creatures and a list of specific sins, when the word for evil really means "hurt feelings"

Look up at the branches of a tree. A tree is a decision making process. Eating the fruit is to act upon those decisions.

 

[TheAristocat]

Therefore, Jesus states that as long as you obey Moses and the Prophets (the law), you will not go to a place of torment, and instead you will live in a place of eternal comfort. There was no need in these examples for Jesus' death and resurrection in order to attain eternal life.

The passage you quoted from Romans cites the examples of Moses and Adam to show one person living before the law and one living after it, and it actually answers most of your questions about the differences and how one can still be guilty before the law is written. I don't see any contradictions there.

However, I think you hit upon an important point in the bit that I quoted above. The Old Testament indeed says that following the commandments will earn eternal life, and never once suggests that belief is crucial for salvation. That is why Jesus, a torah-observing Jew, also suggested following the law for eternal life. Christians don't get their concepts of salvation from Jesus's actions or words but rather from Paul's translation of them. Paul doesn't cite Jesus' words or actions, and literally says nothing about the life of Jesus except that "he died for atonement of sins" and "rose on the third day". It's as if Paul has no idea what Jesus taught, and instead came up with his own suggestions in lieu of Jesus' teachings...

There are books mentioned in the Bible where the same events written in the Bible are recorded in these books. However we have lost some of these books. I think it's possible that we have lost previous revelations of God (for they are hinted at in the texts we do have).

Mark 10:21 Looking at him, Jesus felt a love for him and said to him, “One thing you lack: go and sell all you possess and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me.”

Jesus is known amongst believing Jews as Torah incarnate. And this is what he had to say of the whole Torah/Christ controversy:

John 5:39 You study the Scriptures diligently because you think that in them you have eternal life. These are the very Scriptures that testify about me,

I think that one can discover eternal life through the Torah, but that is because it points to Christ. Notice in Mark 10:21 one of the requirements for eternal life that Jesus laid upon the man was to follow him. Why? Because without the NT revelation one can find Christ by meditating on and following Torah. We find hints of the Messiah and God's forgiving grace all throughout the Old Testament - the fact that David was forgiven without a sacrifice, that sin sacrifices were only for unintentional sins and would largely not make sense if meant to spiritually cleanse us (see the sin sacrifice necessary after the birth of a child)... There's the argument that God would be using a double standard if he did not pay the same penalty (i.e. death) for sin (in order to buy us back) that he required us to pay. Therefore the sacrifice for our sins had to be made by God. Then there's Yahweh coming in the form of a man to Abraham. Then there's the fact that our very mediators (high priests) needed to offer sacrifices for themselves before they could for us. So how could they have really mediated for us? There had to be a greater mediator all along.

 

[EdwardRansom]

Just briefly for now since it's late. Elin, thanks, but twice you quoted Starcrash, not me, so you accidentally addressed me as if I had made those statements. Also, you wrote, "And in the absence of that belief, there is no basis for discussion in a NT Christian forum, because since the beginning of the Church, the whole NT is the basis of belief for the NT Christian."

Have you not read about the First Council of Nicaea? Since the beginning of the Church, some Christians believed that Jesus is God, and others believed that Jesus was only the Son of God, not God. The Christian bishops were summoned by the Roman Emperor to settle the matter, and both positions were passionately discussed. In the end, the belief that Jesus is God was accepted as the rule, but any bishop who refused to accept this concept was threatened by the emperor with exile, so it was hardly an inspired decision. Therefore, you must understand that from the very beginning of the Church, there were differences of opinion when it came to interpreting the holy scriptures (not just the Jesus is God versus Jesus is Son of God issue). The Bible is simply not crystal clear. I am asking questions honestly. I will finish reading Romans before I comment again, but will I be banned for simply pointing out what I see as contradictions? I know that Jesus is "the Way", but exactly what that means varies from church to church, and from person to person. That's what I'm trying to figure out. There are "Christians" who ignore Jesus' words about judging others, and they claim that Catholics are not Christians. I'm not judgmental and I do not exalt myself, for Jesus forbade such behavior. Not that you are doing this, but I think you are being too harsh, and you have made the mistake of stating things as if they were facts (for example, you stated that the appearance of Samuel to Saul through a medium was a satanic deception, when in reality there is no consensus on the matter). Anyway, I will check the other links you provided and finish reading Romans before coming back to this thread. Thanks.

 

[EdwardRansom]

I must add something that I found while looking just now through some threads here. I have said that I have a problem with Romans, and at this point it's the concept of Adam's inherited sin which is not mentioned anywhere in the Bible before Paul writes about it in Romans. Now, Elin said, "Well for starters, Ed, do you really think you are in a position to discuss Paul's teachings if you haven't even read his major NT document?", and my answer is yes. Why? Not only because the concept of Adam's inherited sin is mentioned nowhere before Paul preaches it, but also because the Old Testament seems to say it is false. I think the belief that we are all born sinners because of Adam's inherited sin makes no sense, together with the notion that the wrath of God is upon me (and eternal "death") unless I accept Jesus as my Lord and Savior and as God. I have always accepted Jesus as my Lord and Savior, and I have always believed in a God of infinite LOVE, but the inherited sin and this wrath and this penalty of "death" coming from an infinitely loving God is something I resent. God is angry at me because of what Adam did, and many will "die" because of it? Just because Paul says so? God does not change, so how does Elin or anyone, please, explain these passages from the Old Testament that seem to contradict the concept of the inherited sin of Adam? Thanks in advance...

[h=3]Deuteronomy 24:16[/h]King James Version (KJV)

16 The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin.


[h=3]Ezekiel 18:19-20[/h]King James Version (KJV)

19 Yet say ye, Why? doth not the son bear the iniquity of the father? When the son hath done that which is lawful and right, and hath kept all my statutes, and hath done them, he shall surely live.
20 The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.

 

[SpiritofFire]

I must add something that I found while looking just now through some threads here. I have said that I have a problem with Romans, and at this point it's the concept of Adam's inherited sin which is not mentioned anywhere in the Bible before Paul writes about it in Romans. Now, Elin said, "Well for starters, Ed, do you really think you are in a position to discuss Paul's teachings if you haven't even read his major NT document?", and my answer is yes. Why? Not only because the concept of Adam's inherited sin is mentioned nowhere before Paul preaches it, but also because the Old Testament seems to say it is false. I think the belief that we are all born sinners because of Adam's inherited sin makes no sense, together with the notion that the wrath of God is upon me (and eternal "death") unless I accept Jesus as my Lord and Savior and as God. I have always accepted Jesus as my Lord and Savior, and I have always believed in a God of infinite LOVE, but the inherited sin and this wrath and this penalty of "death" coming from an infinitely loving God is something I resent. God is angry at me because of what Adam did, and many will "die" because of it? Just because Paul says so? God does not change, so how does Elin or anyone, please, explain these passages from the Old Testament that seem to contradict the concept of the inherited sin of Adam? Thanks in advance...

Deuteronomy 24:16

King James Version (KJV)

16 The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin.


Ezekiel 18:19-20

King James Version (KJV)

19 Yet say ye, Why? doth not the son bear the iniquity of the father? When the son hath done that which is lawful and right, and hath kept all my statutes, and hath done them, he shall surely live.
20 The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.

Paul is not wrong, just misunderstood. What we define as 'inherited sin' is simply those born under traditions of men. The architecture of the world was here LONG before we got here. If you were born in Arabia, you probably would not be Christian to say the least. In this way, we are born into sin.

 

[Elin]

Paul is not wrong, just misunderstood. What we define as
'inherited sin' is simply those born under traditions of men. The architecture of the world was here LONG before we got here. If you were born in Arabia, you probably would not be Christian to say the least. In this way, we are born into sin.

Not according to the NT.

We are not born into sin, we are born in sin, Gentile sinners by birth (Gal 2:15),

and by our (sinful) nature (we are born with our nature) objects of God's wrath (Eph 2:3).

 

[HeRoseFromTheDead]

I must add something that I found while looking just now through some threads here. I have said that I have a problem with Romans, and at this point it's the concept of Adam's inherited sin which is not mentioned anywhere in the Bible before Paul writes about it in Romans.

Not everything is spelled out explicitly. Some things have to be discerned via spiritual common sense. But if someone doesn't have the spirit, it is understandable that that person would stumble.

It is impossible for any creature of GOD to produce offspring contrary to its nature. When Adam sinned, he became one spirit with sin. His son Isaac inherited Adam'a nature and also had a spirit one with sin. It would have been impossible for Isaac to have been one spirit with GOD. That only is available through Christ.

He that is joined unto the Lord is one spirit. 1 Corinthians 6:17​

Therefore, all descendants of Adam have a sinful nature through inheritance. Christ did not receive a defiled spirit because he received his inheritance from GOD, not Adam.

Another way to look at this is understanding the nature of sin. Sin is defined as not doing GOD's will. Adam was one spirit with sin, and therefore separated from GOD. This condition was now his nature, that no act of his will could overcome. As a natural man, without being one with GOD he could not know GOD's will perfectly; and therefore wasn't able to do the will of GOD perfectly. He was, therefore, by his very nature a sinner. The progression of heirs only compounded this problem until the new birth in Christ.

This is why men's life spans progressively grew shorter as time moved them away from the revelation of the garden (perfect knowledge of GOD); and dramatically so after the flood that became a great wall of separation between man and the knowledge of GOD. This decrease in longevity shows that mankind's knowledge of GOD decreased; and with that loss, the ability to do GOD's will also decreased. Man's inherent condition, or nature, as imposed by GOD caused this. Mankind had become the prisoner of its own sinful nature.

 

[4enlightment]

Hi,

I consider myself a Christian even though Evangelical Christians claim that I'm not one, and apparently any form of critical thinking when it comes to the Bible is frowned upon by them. That's why I'm here, to see if people can please help me with questions instead of condemn me for asking them. I am reading the entire Bible for the first time from beginning to end, and currently I'm reading Romans. I am troubled by the following statements in Romans, chapter 5:

12 Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned—
13 To be sure, sin was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not charged against anyone’s account where there is no law. 14 Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who is a pattern of the one to come.

In my opinion, this is in contradiction with Genesis. After all, even Paul is saying that a sin cannot be charged against anyone if there is no law, so how could Adam have sinned if he had no law? Besides, in Genesis 2, we find:

Luke 23:34Jesus said, “Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing.” And they divided up his clothes by casting lots.

John 9:39Jesus said, “For judgment I have come into this world, so that the blind will see and those who see will become blind.”

John 9:41Jesus said, “If you were blind, you would not be guilty of sin; but now that you claim you can see, your guilt remains.

That is why God has granted us mercy, because something has kept us from seeing the truth.

Matthew 15:14Leave them; they are blind guides. If the blind lead the blind, both will fall into a pit.”

 

[Elin]

A longie, but goodie. . .

Just briefly for now since it's late. Elin, thanks, but twice you quoted Starcrash, not me, so
you accidentally addressed me as if I had made those statements.

You are absolutely right.

In my response to your post to Starcrash, I twice attributed Starcrash's comments to you.
Thanks for pointing it out.

I apologize for the mistake and any confusion it caused.

. Also, you wrote, "And in the absence of that belief, there is no basis for discussion in a NT Christian forum, because since the beginning of the Church,
the whole NT is the basis of belief for the NT Christian."

Yes, I was referring to Starcrash's rejection of Paul's writings.

I retract the two comments to you which I mistakenly made in response to Starcrash.

So with those off the table, let's continue:

Have you not read about the First Council of Nicaea? Since the beginning of the Church,
some Christians believed that Jesus is God, and others believed that
Jesus was only the Son of God, not God.

That is probably due to the lack of a printing press and all Christians not having access
to the Scriptures to know what they actually stated.

The Bible is simply not crystal clear.

It is on this issue, which explains the consensus at which the bishops arrived in Nicaea.

Jesus is God:

1) Jesus is the YHWH of Isa 40:3 per Mt 3:3; Mk1:7-8; Lk 3:16; Jn 1:29-34.

2) Jesus is the YHWH of Joel 2:32 per Ro 10:9, 13-16.

3) Jesus is the YHWH of Dt 32:43 per Heb 1:6.

4) Jesus is the LORD (YHWH) of Zechariah per Lk 1:67-68, 76.

5) Jesus is the LORD (YHWH) of Elizabeth per Lk 1:41-43.

6) Jesus is the LORD GOD (YHWH) of Ps 68:18 per Eph 4:8-9.

7) Jesus is the LORD (YHWH) of Zec 12:8-10 per Jn 19:37.

8) Jesus is the LORD (YHWH) of Isa 61:8 per Lk 4:18-21.

9) Jesus is the LORD (YHWH), the First and Last of Isa 44:6, 48:12 per Rev 1:12-18.

10) Jesus is the Lord God, the Alpha and the Omega of Rev 21:6-7 per Rev 22:13-16.

11) Jesus is God on the throne of Rev 21:5, 7 per Jn 5:22, 27, 9:39; Rev 20:11-13.

12) Jesus is the Elohim Creator YHWH of Gen 1:1; Isa 44:24; and Jer 10:16 per Jn 1:3, 10;
Col 1:16-17; Heb 1:2, 10.


The Holy Spirit is both a person and God:

1) Jesus, whom the NT shows to be God (above), said the Holy Spirit proceeded from
(came forth from, out of) God just as he did per Jn 15:26.

2) Jesus, who is God, said the Holy Spirit was another Comforter like himself (God) per Jn 14:16-17,
25-26, 15:26, 16:7.

3) The NT refers to the Holy Spirit with
personal pronouns (he),
personal titles (Comforter) and
personal functions (intelligence, will, speaking, deciding, forbidding, testifying, searching into secrets,
showing the future, sending out missionaries, interceding),
because he is a person.

But you would have needed your own set of Scriptures to see that.
However, the NT has always and everywhere presented Jesus and the Holy Spirit as God,
and always and everywhere presented only one God.

I am asking questions honestly. I will finish reading Romans before I comment again,
but will I be banned for simply pointing out what I see as contradictions? . . .I think you are
being too harsh, and you have made the mistake of stating things as if they were facts
(for example, you stated that the appearance of Samuel to Saul through a medium was a
satanic deception, when in reality there is no consensus on the matter).

I understand what you are saying, but as with the clear Scriptures above on the Trinity,
present non-consensus on a matter does not mean it is unclear.

The account of Saul must be understood in the light of the whole counsel of God,
where some understandings can be seen to be unbiblical.

Saul probably sensed a disaster coming in the approaching battle, and inquired of the LORD,
who did not answer him (1Chr 28:9; 2Chr 15:2; Pr 8:17) because he sought the LORD
too late (Isa 55:6). And when the LORD did not answer him, he turned from the LORD
to a witch. And to turn from the LORD, is necessarily to turn to Satan.

From the whole counsel of God, we know that

1) witches do not have the power to summon the redeemed from their resting place with God
and bring them back to this world;

2) the real Samuel would not have agreed that she could, and responded by doing so;

3) the only spirits that can be summoned by witches are evil spirits;

4) had it been truly Samuel, he would have told Saul to repent and make peace with
God, to bring David out of punishment and then he would have peace with God; and

5) to turn from the LORD is necessarily to turn to Satan.

Therefore, the spirit she had summoned up was an evil spirit impersonating Samuel,
"Why have you disturbed me by bringing me up?"

Saul believed the delusion, and it convinced him of the power of divination,
ensnaring him in the web of Satan's scheme, which was to drive Saul to depair and
suicide (1Sa 31:4).

"Saul died because he was unfaithful to the LORD; he did not keep the word of the LORD
and even consulted a medium for guidance, and did not inquire of the LORD (i.e., inquired
of a medium). So the LORD put him to death. . ." (1Chr 10:13-14; see 2Sa 7:15)

And as with the Christ-rejecting High Priest Caiphas,
words of prophecy are spoken by the impersonating spirit who foretold Saul's death
because God had given Saul over for destruction (1Kgs 22:20-22; Ro 1:24, 26, 28; 1Co 5:5).

The account is recorded simply as it occurred.
But in the context of the whole counsel of God, its spiritual facts are clear.

 

[Elin]

Elin said, "Well for starters, Ed, do you really think you are in a position to discuss
Paul's teachings if you haven't even read his major NT document?", and my answer is yes.
Why? Not only because the concept of Adam's inherited sin is mentioned nowhere before
Paul preaches it, but also because the Old Testament seems to say it is false. I think the belief
that we are all born sinners because of Adam's inherited sin makes no sense,

And what I just took off the table, you have quickly put back on again; i.e., rejection of
Paul's writings, in agreement with Starcrash. That was a fast turn around:

Christians don't get their concepts of salvation from Jesus's actions
or words but rather from Paul's translation of them.

"Righteousness" is forgiveness of sin, making right with God, which gives
salvation from God's wrath (Ro 5:9) on one's sin.

inherited sin makes no sense together with the notion that the wrath of God is upon me (and eternal "death") unless I accept Jesus as my Lord and Savior and as God.

So my response which I just took off the table, I now put back on again, and we're right back
to where we were, before our short detour into Biblical truth on the Trinity and on Saul.

Okay, Ed,

We've got two serious problems here that will necessarily block discussion with you,
and they are:

1) You have not read Paul's most important letter which expounds the basic gospel, and

2) belief vs. unbelief.

NT Christianity is simply a matter of belief or unbelief in the revelation spoken by the Son
in these last days (Heb 1:1-2), and given through the writers of the NT, in which light all Scripture
is to be understood.

That is evangelical belief. . .and why evangelicals tell you that you are not one.

And in the absence of that belief, there is no basis for discussion in a NT Christian forum,
because since the beginning of the Church, the whole NT is the basis of belief for the NT Christian.

So for that reason, rather than repeating it all again for you here, I refer you to this thread, "What Laws are still valid for Christians?", and to this thread, "Support your Local Jew," which thoroughly answer all your questions from the whole NT, plus more.

 

[weakness]

Hi,

I consider myself a Christian even though Evangelical Christians claim that I'm not one, and apparently any form of critical thinking when it comes to the Bible is frowned upon by them. That's why I'm here, to see if people can please help me with questions instead of condemn me for asking them. I am reading the entire Bible for the first time from beginning to end, and currently I'm reading Romans. I am troubled by the following statements in Romans, chapter 5:

12 Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned—
13 To be sure, sin was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not charged against anyone’s account where there is no law. 14 Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who is a pattern of the one to come.

In my opinion, this is in contradiction with Genesis. After all, even Paul is saying that a sin cannot be charged against anyone if there is no law, so how could Adam have sinned if he had no law? Besides, in Genesis 2, we find:

16 And the Lord God commanded the man, “You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; 17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die.”

Adam ate from the tree, but although he disobeyed God, how can this be called a sin when Adam did not know good and evil?

Back to Romans, chapter 5:

18 Consequently, just as one trespass resulted in condemnation for all people, so also one righteous act resulted in justification and life for all people. 19 For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.

This is similar to what I already quoted, but it's just to show that I'm not taking anything out of context. I cannot find this concept of Adam's so-called "sin" being inherited by all generations in any previous books of the Bible. In the Old Testament, God constantly said that all you had to do was obey the Mosaic law and His people would be fine. In the Old Testament there were righteous people who were NOT condemned and did NOT die. For example, 2 Kings 2:11

So, Elijah was taken straight to heaven; how, then, can he be called a condemned sinner who died? And why wasn't the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross necessary for his salvation? Didn't God love David very much? How then would he be condemned and "die"? And what about Jesus' parable of the rich man and Lazarus in Luke 16:19-31? Jesus indicates there that Abraham is happy in the afterlife, together with a man who is with him simply because he died in extreme poverty. This part from the parable is very telling as well:


27 “He answered, ‘Then I beg you, father, send Lazarus to my family, 28 for I have five brothers. Let him warn them, so that they will not also come to this place of torment.’
29 “Abraham replied, ‘They have Moses and the Prophets; let them listen to them.’

Therefore, Jesus states that as long as you obey Moses and the Prophets (the law), you will not go to a place of torment, and instead you will live in a place of eternal comfort. There was no need in these examples for Jesus' death and resurrection in order to attain eternal life.

Finally, Paul keeps on calling the people "sinners" whose only hope of salvation is through Jesus Christ, even though my examples seem to indicate otherwise. And do Christian Evangelicals not think of themselves as sinners? Even embracing Jesus as our Lord and Savior and as God, they sin all the time. We all continue to sin and to commit crimes that were committed before the coming of Jesus Christ. All of this is very confusing to me. Thanks in advance for any help.

​when God told Adam not to eat of the tree, that was a command or a law. Sin means lawlessness. Obviously Satan had become lawless prior to the creation, trying to bring death, but all work to Gods and our good, bringing glory to God in the end when the man of sin is revealed and also the revelation of our glorious Savior who brings many sons with him. praise God

 

[SpiritofFire]

Not according to the NT.

We are not born into sin, we are born in sin, Gentile sinners by birth (Gal 2:15),

and by our (sinful) nature (we are born with our nature) objects of God's wrath (Eph 2:3).

Regardless, it means that we are born into corrupt traditions and idols of men. We are all born into this economical tradition that we uphold even though we know that it kills thousands a day.

 

[HeRoseFromTheDead]

Regardless, it means that we are born into corrupt traditions and idols of men. We are all born into this economical tradition that we uphold even though we know that it kills thousands a day.

Oh no... here we go again. Money is the root of all evil.

btw, did you know that the original text says that the love of money is A root of all evils, not THE root? Which means that money isn't THE root of all evils.

Unbelief is the root of all evils.

 

[SpiritofFire]

Oh no... here we go again. Money is the root of all evil.

btw, did you know that the original text says that the love of money is A root of all evils, not THE root? Which means that money isn't THE root of all evils.

Unbelief is the root of all evils.

Unbelief stems from a religion based in traditions and systems of men. Again if Jesus is God, why does his people pay rent, light and gas bills? God isn't keeping the church lights on, the collection plate is!

 

[Widdekind]

12 Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned—
13 To be sure, sin was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not charged [en-logos] against anyone’s account where there is no law. 14 Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who is a pattern of the one to come.

In Genesis 2, God gave "Commandments". In Romans 5, Paul wrote about the "giving of the Law", i.e. to Moses atop Sinai, thousands of years after Adam, circa 1200 BC.

The word "imputed" or "charged" is en-logos, in the ancient Greek, and seems significant, since "logos" = word = Jesus (John 1).

Plainly, Paul is referring back to Romans 4:13-16, wherein was written, that "w/o the Law, their is no transgression" [para-basis](which is different from the word for "falling aside", translated "trespass", in Rom 5:18).

Perhaps simplistically, Paul is seemingly stating, that from Adam to Moses, sin abounded (and the "wages of sin = death", Rom 6); but, death-dealing sin still was not "formally charged" against anybody, in any legalistic way. Death & Sin, from Adam, affected following generations of humans, to the time of Moses, even w/o the Law officially functioning (and informing people of their sins).

The "Law is Wrath"; evidently, Sin / Wrath / Death abounded, from Adam to Moses, even without any "formal Legalistic published explanation"... in ancient Rome, their Law of 12 Tables existed for centuries, before being written down and published for the Plebes to read; for centuries, Plebes were punished, without knowing why. Such might be similar, to what was written, in the Epistle to the Romans. I.e. Paul may have been making an allusion, to the history of ancient Romans, which would be well-known to his audience.

Therefore, Jesus states that as long as you obey Moses and the Prophets (the law), you will not go to a place of torment, and instead you will live in a place of eternal comfort. There was no need in these examples for Jesus' death and resurrection in order to attain eternal life.

First, the Lazarus parable was fictional, although illustrative, and so seemingly must have been hypothetically possible.

Second, their were righteous people in the OT who lived before "Jesus the man", i.e. 1st century AD. But, no humans have lived, before God had already Prophesied a "species horoscope" upon the whole of humanity -- "Jesus the Messiah" Existed, as the crux of Divine Plan, from far "before Abraham" (John 8). So, all righteous persons "died in Christ", since Christ and all "true Christians" have been "known from before the foundation of the world" (Eph 1, 1 Pet 1).

 

[Widdekind]

The publishing of the 12 Tables was a point of pride for the Plebes, which would have worked well, for Paul to appeal and allude to.