Nature of man --- a different biblical perspective worth considering ( part 1)

[infinitekhanol]

"ForestGreenCook, posted


Doesn't the scriptures say that Jesus was the only man without sin?[/QUOTE]

Yes, the scriptures say so and I believe it.

The first man Adam sinned and "planted" the seed of sin in human race. Ever since all have sinned and come short of the glory of God as it is written. For this reason, the bible tells us God manifested Himself in the flesh and died for our salvation. But we continue to sin irrespective of this unsearchable love he has shown towards us.

 

[lenna]

Nature of man --- a different biblical perspective worth considering I would like to present

 

[infinitekhanol]

[QUOTE="posthuman, posted

more questions:

is a view that the body is irrelevant compatible with these things God does regarding the body?
is the view that the flesh is inherently evil & should not be considered as part of man, compatible with the resurrection? [/QUOTE]


I saw where you quoted Gnosticism in one of my posts. You seem to be applying your understanding of their belief system to my op. if what they believe is what you have noted here, then, my belief is different and theirs is not compatible with what I have written in my op.

 

[infinitekhanol]

[QUOTE="posthuman, posted

more questions:

is a view that the body is irrelevant compatible with these things God does regarding the body?
is the view that the flesh is inherently evil & should not be considered as part of man, compatible with the resurrection?

I saw where you quoted Gnosticism in one of my posts. You seem to be applying your understanding of their belief system to my op. if what they believe is what you have noted here, then, my belief is different and theirs is not compatible with what I have written in my op.[/QUOTE]


I forgot to mention that I did not discuss about the makeup of the soul in my op otherwise, the aspect of the body would have been mentioned. How can we live on earth without earthly body? Man was not made that way as the scripture makes us understand.

 

[posthuman]

Well I can see, you are implying things I did not say in my op.

it's not an inquisition, neighbor; i'm just thinking out loud

 

[infinitekhanol]

[QUOTE="posthuman, posted

]you said this: Even after the fall, with the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, his death, and resurrection, He restored us back to that pre -fall position if we really understand his teachings /the cross. We still perish today for lack of understanding.

that is not correct. our bodies are not without sin. they decay; that's death in them: that's evidence that we are not yet completely redeemed. Adam and his wife did not decay until death entered the world. [/QUOTE]


The first man Adam sinned and in turn planted the sinful seed in the human race who continued to nurture and grow this seed that yields the fruits of ungodliness and death. Jesus came, uprooted the sinful seed and planted the seed of righteousness in mankind. In the same way we have nurtured the seed of Adam in the past, we are required to nurture and grow this seed of righteousness that yields the fruits of godliness unto holiness and eternal life. The bible tells us everything we have to do in this regard. But what happens, we continue to sin in the way of Adam even after more than 2000 years our Lord Jesus was crucified for our sin. The wages of sin is death, so, we continue to die.

What I know is that if there is no sin, there will not be death.

 

[infinitekhanol]

[QUOTE="posthuman, posted

it's not an inquisition, neighbor; i'm just thinking out loud [/QUOTE]

Ok. No offence. thanks

 

[posthuman]

But what happens, we continue to sin in the way of Adam even after more than 2000 years our Lord Jesus was crucified for our sin. The wages of sin is death, so, we continue to die.

i'm reminded of this --

Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those who had not sinned according to the likeness of the transgression of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come.
(Romans 5:14) ​

​

so there's an obvious question; what does it mean, to sin 'in the way of Adam' ?

which reminds me that Adam was not deceived ((1 Timothy 2:14)). so in the garden there was the transgression of Woman, being deceived, and Adam, not being deceived. two different 'likenesses' -- and it was through Adam sin entered the world ((Romans 5:12)) not through Woman. what's going on in Romans 5:14? there are those who sin in the way of Adam's transgression, not deceived, and those who do not sin in the way of Adam -- as Woman, deceived?

John tells us that if we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves -- so the one who says he has no sin, that's not 'after the transgression of Adam' because that's deceived, unlike Adam: and death reigned over them as well

 

[infinitekhanol]

[QUOTE="posthuman, posted
sure

but that leaves questions:

why did God give you a body of dust before breathing life into it?
why did God come in the flesh Himself?
why did Christ resurrect in the flesh?
why will God finally redeem your body at the resurrection? [/QUOTE]

What you call giving a body of dust, I call the separation of the male and female qualities (as explained in my op) which created a void in man.

The first man Adam became a living soul (my op says so too) whose life depends on the life giving spirit, the word of God and subject to freedom of choice. God said to Adam, you can eat the fruit of all the trees of the garden including the tree of life but the fruit of the tree of good and evil you shall not eat for the day you eat of it you shall die (Genesis 2:16, 17). This follows then that the life of the living soul Adam, is dependent on obedience to the word of God as confirmed in Deuteronomy 8 : 3 and Matthew 4 : 4, that by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God shall man live. Without the life giving spirit in the Word, the living soul tends to vanity, with lustful desires driven by passions of pride, arrogance, greed, self-conceit or the will of the flesh. The soul sins and becomes mortal and flesh. We know that the first man Adam disobeyed God and sin entered the world as a result. The wages of sin is death but it is not the will of the Father that we perish as it is written.

I think i have answered the rest questions in my previous comments to your posts since you seem to believe i said in my op that God did not make man body and soul. Not what I said.

 

[Infinite_Ark]

Never mind us Vegans.

 

[infinitekhanol]

[QUOTE="lenna, posted

Nature of man --- a different biblical perspective worth considering I would like to present[/QUOTE]


I LAUGH

 

[Infinite_Ark]

Why would God create man to fall?

 

[infinitekhanol]

i'm reminded of this --

Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those who had not sinned according to the likeness of the transgression of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come. ​

(Romans 5:14) ​

​

so there's an obvious question; what does it mean, to sin 'in the way of Adam' ?

which reminds me that Adam was not deceived ((1 Timothy 2:14)). so in the garden there was the transgression of Woman, being deceived, and Adam, not being deceived. two different 'likenesses' -- and it was through Adam sin entered the world ((Romans 5:12)) not through Woman. what's going on in Romans 5:14? there are those who sin in the way of Adam's transgression, not deceived, and those who do not sin in the way of Adam -- as Woman, deceived?

John tells us that if we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves -- so the one who says he has no sin, that's not 'after the transgression of Adam' because that's deceived, unlike Adam: and death reigned over them as well

I am signing off. ' will comment on this post and the rest when next I sign in. Thanks for chatting.

 

[posthuman]

What you call giving a body of dust, I call the separation of the male and female qualities (as explained in my op) which created a void in man.

but man was made of dust before Woman was formed from him . . ?

i'm calling Genesis 2:7 'giving a body of dust' and drawing attention to the fact that God formed his nostrils before He breathed the breath of life into them.

it's not till verse 21 that He puts Adam in a deep sleep ((c.f. Genesis 15:12)) and, taking a rib, forms woman.
there was clearly an interim period of time -- of unknown length -- between Adam being formed, becoming a living soul, being placed in the garden, naming every other living soul, and then being put into a deep sleep and Woman being formed.

all of this is still in the context of "very good" -- which God declares in 2:31 after both Man and Woman had been created - to whom He refers as separate and distinct persons not qualities of one individual ((?)) and death not entering the world until undeceived Adam "listened to his wife" -- whatever it was she said to him.

what did she say to him? he wasn't deceived, but he listened to her.

 

[posthuman]

[QUOTE="lenna, posted

Nature of man --- a different biblical perspective worth considering I would like to present QUOTE]


I LAUGH

why do you delete part of the quotation code

 

[lenna]

Never mind us Vegans.

it's all Oysters fault. he started it on page 1

 

[lenna]

a vegan interlude

not all cuts of broccoli are created equal

 

[Infinite_Ark]

a vegan interlude

not all cuts of broccoli are created equal

We got jokes!
This is corny but still.
Vegan: Do you know what veganism is?
Carnivore: Huh?!?
Vegan: It means no milk and no eggs.
Carnivore: Then how do you bread your steak?

 

[Mii]

Though I did not understand much of your meaning in your post, I like it. I must confess I do not know much about the ascended masters or the Ubermensch" concept, for I am not into philosophical books.

I believe that the bible is complete in itself. The problem for me is not the content but the interpretation. There is a conflict of interpretations which stems from our much emphasis on the physical sense of things. The word of God, as our Lord Jesus tells us, is spirit and life. We must allow the spirit in the word to speak to us when studying or meditating on the word and must not be afraid to air our convictions even when they are not in line with conventional thinking or interpretation.

I believe that the content of my op is much in line with the scripture. What I will want to see from people who disagree are the areas of the scripture my post did not agree with, so, we can take it up from there.

I have taken note of your comment (and other's) on the length of my op.

Thanks for responding.

Yeah np, I haven't read part 2 yet and I may have even overspoke. Every believer that is a bit "mystical" needs to be mindful of lying spirits. There are so called deep things of Satan and since what you are scratching at is mirrored in a lot of religions without Christ as a cornerstone it's just something to be careful about. Wondering why no one is where you are in your walk or having the understanding that you do.

It doesn't mean that the Lord isn't showing you and you are a forerunner. I do not know. It is unclear I'm just putting this forward for consideration

I don't recall if I said I was going to read part 2 or no, but I may yet.

 

[Mii]

CONTINUED FROM THE NATURE OF MAN (PART 1)

Whenever we cling on the flesh, we are not expressing our true self.

OH KAY. I have finally read "most" of part 2 (I scanned a little bit).

See here's the thing. I resonate with 90% of what you are saying in this post. It's the 10% that has drawn my attention that "perhaps" it may not be best to speak publicly on the 10% I am uncertain about.

Of course, at the same time, I have this sort of "rule" that I won't talk about the things that I am not sure about until someone brings it up (if ever). Still this rule is "my rule" and I don't know if it's the Lord's directive or not.

That being the case, I will couch what I say similarly to my last post. On the male and female attributes being within the Lord and both within us but separate in a unique equation that brings Glory to himself by our union (holy matrimony)...I used an eastern religious symbol to explain what you related in a private conversation. I am uncertain if it is true or not, but it seemed to make sense. Then again, we aren't told. Each of us probably has to draw our own conclusions on that. What we do know from scripture is that it is a mysterious thing (from Paul I think) and while we are allowed to search out deep mysteries, the nature of a mystery means that even if I feel like I have "solved" it...I may have merely pierced it.

Caught a glimpse of the fullness of the mystery if you will. Besides, if someone else sees the same thing, their journey to solving it will be by default, somewhat different from my own, in that we are all unique.

While I do think there is standardization within the body (agreement) the standard may sometimes have to be confirmed by the Lord since there is so much diversity in Christ. Ex: a native islander vs an English Lord who both know the Lord but are in different worlds. Still we should be able to resonate with each other and if we can't resonate in the Lord (excepting ourselves)...then perhaps we are not from the same kingdom and further considerations on continued involvement should be seriously considered.

In any case, not sure why I'm saying all this. I'd like to teach what you are suggesting because that type of knowledge does flow and seems pretty neat but because I see eastern religions teaching a similar thing without Christ, it is confusing to entertain further when I guess the Lord shows me that this goes on. It brings up more questions but I just table it. Like it is a strong message against sexism and even subjugation of women by some Christian males. Not sure, all I know is that I believe that because Eve was taken out of man. A piece of man necessarily is within her and even a rib being a compatible tool suggests that man likewise is an open conduit to his counterpart. It's a cool thing to discuss in what to me is poetry/allegory but unless I am reading your posts too liberally (into licentiousness) then it seems reasonable what you posted...just worded in a different way.

Like the last post, I just caution you to be cautious. There once was a time where I looked in strange places for truth due to a saying I heard in university ("all truth is God's truth") that may be true, but willing looking at lies to discern the truth within a lie not by necessity but almost as a pursuit is unwise to me at this stage of maturity. Used to not be because I think what I need to understand will find me. I don't need to go looking. I'm not saying you do, but it's just a warning.


It's cool to see someone perceive it in a similar way that I "wish" was true. It may be. I don't know right now. Could be that some of it will make more sense after I wed but Idk.