As in the days of Noah... ALL flesh had CORRUPTED itself

[cv5]

Another devastating proof:

Adam had dominion over......EVERYTHING. The entire earth and ever creature upon it.

Adam was the federal head....of the ENTIRE WORLD, including all humankind, but not limited to this only.

And THAT is why:
Rom 5:12
Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world

Which, of course, is why we need a New Federal Head.
The last one (and all others subsequently) are helpless in remedying the hopeless situation.

Then comes Genesis 15.......the solution. With the attendant sign of.....circumcision.

 

[Thunderrr-mental]

Matthew 24: 37 But as the days of Noah were, so also will the coming of the Son of Man be.

Why did God utterly destroy, and wipe clean the entire world He created, and everything in it, save Noah, his family, and the selected animals aboard the Ark?

To answer this question we have to closely examine Genesis 6, the fallen angels that mated with human women, their progeny the Nephilim, and the proclamation 4 There were giants (Nephilim) on the earth in those days, AND ALSO AFTERWARD,..

So why do I believe this issue is so important? Because Jesus said in the end days things would be like in the days of Noah. I contend that we are living in the end days, and are doing the same things that that led God to destroy the world.

Matthew 24: 22 And unless those days were shortened, no flesh would be saved;

So first I'll lay out SOME of the vast Biblical proof that fallen angels DID mate with human women producing the Nephillim, hybrid race, the ALSO AFTERWARD, and the CORRUPTED flesh.
Then talk about how we are committing the same sin that they did.

But I will NOT be doing much, if any, debating with those that either can't, or won't accept the plain Biblical truth about fallen angels. That is not speculative. I will be doing some speculation, but that fact is not. If there are honest, skeptical questions fine. But otherwise I'd recommend just scrolling on by.

this article is just plain sickness of the mind.

 

[PaulThomson]

Not much of an upgrade to be totally evil, non-human and beyond redemption.

Some have opined that Satan's game plan was to create a race of utterly unredeemable souls, thereby ruining God's plan of salvation.

It's the same kind of manipulation advertised as an upgrade that transhumanism is offering using nanobots to splice and dice our genetic code.

 

[cv5]

It's the same kind of manipulation advertised as an upgrade that transhumanism is offering using nanobots to splice and dice our genetic code.

Certainly a possible scenario.

 

[GaryA]

Possibly, but Scripture says several times the sins of the FATHER, not the mother are passed down.

Did you misread my post?

We are not in disagreement.

 

[GaryA]

No - all sons and daughters receive the same from their father and mother.

Jesus is the only person ever to be conceived not-from-a-human-male-father.

All women have been conceived from a human father.

Of course, Adam and Eve are the special-case exception - not being conceived from human parents.

However, they sinned in the garden and started the whole thing, so...

 

[GaryA]

OK, so then "12 Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned"

Does this "one man" refer to Adam? Why wouldn't it refer to Adam and Eve? After all "death spread to all men, because all sinned" refers to both men and women.

No Bible verse is of its own interpretation. We need 3 different Bible verses that go together and say that sin is transferred from one generation to another via the man, otherwise this is a bunch of hokum. Remember, the source of this weird doctrine is the Catholic church trying to say that Mary is sinless or something to that effect. The root is corrupt, you can't make the tree good if the root is corrupt.

In the Bible, 'one man' can never mean "more than one but less than everyone" - because, the word 'man' is either of two things - an individual adult male or all of humanity ('mankind') - there is no third option.

Catholicism is wrong - Mary was a sinner.

 

[GaryA]

No it doesn’t. Women receive that sin nature from their fathers. They do not pass it to their children. Their husbands do.

In the most general sense, this has to be the case. Otherwise, it somehow rests in a combination of [human] DNA from father and mother - whereby, Jesus is the only one not having that combination.

Possibly, but Scripture says several times the sins of the FATHER, not the mother are passed down.

The key thing is - the father is at the focus of what makes the difference - because, Jesus did not have any DNA from a human male. That is the only difference (in the context of this discussion) - so, that is where we will find our answer.

I agree that it is somehow intrinsically linked to human male DNA.

 

[cv5]

I agree that it is somehow intrinsically linked to human male DNA.

Firstly sin is a spiritual condition. Saved Christians are already born again. Spiritually.

The body of sin gets reclaimed and repaired later.
Whether it is a DNA problem per se or not is not much more than speculation.

 

[cv5]

Catholicism is wrong - Mary was a sinner.

Yes she was. But she is "inherently" a sinner because she inherited it from the father.

Nowhere in all the Bible, no passage, verse, type, metaphor or parable declares or insinuates in any way
that sin is inherited from the woman.

Only men are commanded to be circumcised. A sign. Of something that only applies to the man.

 

[cv5]

Which, of course, is why we need a New Federal Head.
The last one (and all others subsequently) are helpless in remedying the hopeless situation.

Then comes Genesis 15.......the solution. With the attendant sign of.....circumcision.

Sorry....Genesis 17.

Gen 17:11
And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and you.

 

[Moses_Young]

Yes she was. But she is "inherently" a sinner because she inherited it from the father.

Nowhere in all the Bible, no passage, verse, type, metaphor or parable declares or insinuates in any way
that sin is inherited from the woman.

Only men are commanded to be circumcised. A sign. Of something that only applies to the man.

This is what I understand also. The foreskin representing the foreskin of the heart - the sinful nature - which is passed down from the male, not the female. This explains why Jesus could be without sin, yet born of a woman.

 

[ZNP]

Sorry....Genesis 17.

Gen 17:11
And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and you.

The rainbow is also a token of the covenant that we have with God.

Gal 5:6 For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision; but faith which worketh by love.

circumcision did not in any way deal with sin or the flesh, it was a token that Abraham had dealt with it by faith.

 

[Thunderrr-mental]

The rainbow is also a token of the covenant that we have with God.

Gal 5:6 For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision; but faith which worketh by love.

circumcision did not in any way deal with sin or the flesh, it was a token that Abraham had dealt with it by faith.

but what if gen 17 was a prophecy for the Hebrew people 😊

 

[Moses_Young]

The rainbow is also a token of the covenant that we have with God.

Gal 5:6 For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision; but faith which worketh by love.

circumcision did not in any way deal with sin or the flesh, it was a token that Abraham had dealt with it by faith.

But yet only for males.

 

[ZNP]

But yet only for males.

That is right, it is a token, a sign that Jesus would be crucified.

Faith in Jesus working through love is what saves us from sin.

Or are you teaching that only men experience the cross of Christ?

 

[Moses_Young]

That is right, it is a token, a sign that Jesus would be crucified.

Faith in Jesus working through love is what saves us from sin.

And yet Jesus was the prophesied seed of the woman? I think there's more to it also, and it wouldn't surprise me if the sinful nature being passed down by the male was part of it.

Baptism likewise has several meanings - immersed in Christ, but also buried with Him in death, raised with Him in life.

 

[cv5]

The rainbow is also a token of the covenant that we have with God.

Gal 5:6 For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision; but faith which worketh by love.

circumcision did not in any way deal with sin or the flesh, it was a token that Abraham had dealt with it by faith.

And Abraham obeying the command is proof that he understood what it meant:
Salvation by grace thru faith. And of course he understood that ultimately it was the fulfillment of Gen 3:15.
And the Davidic covenant of course (the incarnation the hypostatic union of the God-man), which was to come.

People lose sight of the fact that Abraham actually "got it". He understood what God was doing in forging these covenants (including the attendant "signs") and why.

 

[cv5]

The rainbow is also a token of the covenant that we have with God.

Gal 5:6 For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision; but faith which worketh by love.

circumcision did not in any way deal with sin or the flesh, it was a token that Abraham had dealt with it by faith.

BTW....the "bow" sign and its covenant are meted out for......animals as well.

 

[Kroogz]

This lecture will certainly answer your immediate questions. And more than that, answer questions that you have not (nor will likely ever) begun to so much as ask.

https://www.sermonaudio.com/solo/cliffside/sermons/21611322382/

I am auditioning this lecture as of today. And believe me.....it is EPIC in scope and devastating in terms of impact.

Listened to this last night. Good stuff. He is very much like our pastor teacher.