Was Adam and Eve the only first created?

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by phareztamar

my first question was "just curious where you got this from in the scriptures" although i did omit the question mark. my bad.

Which I answered here ---> http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com...7&postcount=40

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by phareztamar

yeah, would love to answer all ten of your question, but when you open with "THE GUY WHO DOESN'T ANSWER QUESTIONS' well, i think i'll pass. this has always been you esaias. throw an avalanche of scriptures at the idiot, and see if he finally sees things my way. it's sad, cuz i really do enjoy reading some of your posts. but it's your forum, and your bully-pulpit, and nobody is going to dare challenge all of your great knowledge. so yeah, think i'll pass. but thanx for your input.

It's not my forum. I'm not the one tossing out ad hominems and being snarky. You wanted to know the scriptural basis for my position. It's not my fault you felt overwhelmed by the weight of scripture. You asked, I delivered. Now you don't like it?

Shouldn't we all be more concerned about what the Bible says than about silly interpersonal games? I have no personal animosity towards you or anyone else here. You wanted a Biblical justification for what I am saying, and I gave it. What more do you want?

Where is the Biblical justification for your position?

[Amanah]

Originally Posted by Esaias

The belief in a sin nature is like trinitarianism. It is something that must be in existence first, and then Bible verses are sought out which are seen to "prove" the doctrine. Just like the trinity. Yet, mysteriously, there is not one passage where any prophet, apostle, or Christ himself taught that mankind is born with a "sin nature". There is no passage anywhere that defines this so-called "sin nature". There aren't even any passages which describe the doctrine of a "sin nature".

The sin nature doctrine leads necessarily and inevitably to the Immaculate Conception doctrine, in order to explain how Christ somehow missed inheriting a sin nature from His mother. Since all descendants of Adam possess a sin nature from birth, it necessarily follows that humans inherit the sin nature from their parents. It likewise follows that Christ, since He was born of a woman and is a biological descendant of David, and thus of Adam, Christ must necessarily have inherited this same sin nature. But that of course is not possible. Therefore, to avoid the dilemma of confessing either that Christ had a sin nature on the one hand, or that Christ was not genuinely human on the other hand, a doctrine of Mary's "Immaculate Conception" is created whereby Mary was supernaturally conceived in her mother's womb "without the taint of original sin". That way, Jesus could be both fully human and yet without inheriting a sin nature. Hocus Pocus, a la peanut butter sandwiches, voila!

The sin nature doctrine is a Roman Catholic doctrine, pure and simple. It was essentially invented by Augustine, who had not shaken off his Manichaean dualism from his gnostic days. His brand of gnostics believed that there was something inherently evil about flesh itself, something evil about material (physical) things. Yet the Bible does not speak of the human body itself as evil, but rather the "body of sin" or the "flesh" by which is meant the life of sin.

Romans 8:5-9
(5) For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit.
(6) For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace.
(7) Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.
(8) So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God.
(9) But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.

Here it is clear that being "in the flesh" has nothing whatsoever to do with being a physical human with a real physical body. Since receiving the Spirit places a person in the category of "NOT in the flesh" yet people who receive the Spirit do not suddenly become disembodied spirit beings, it necessarily follows that "flesh" is used MORALLY, not biologically.

Paul clearly states the apostolic doctrine of the voluntary nature of sin:

Romans 6:19
(19) I speak after the manner of men because of the infirmity of your flesh: for as ye have yielded your members servants to uncleanness and to iniquity unto iniquity; even so now yield your members servants to righteousness unto holiness.

Previously, we YIELDED ourselves to serve iniquity and uncleanness. This is clearly a voluntary action, meaning it is a choice of the will. Voluntarily surrendering to unrighteousness produces a bondage:

Romans 6:16
(16) Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?

If you YIELD yourself (voluntary choice of the will) to serve something, you become that something's bond-slave, whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness.

The doctrine of an inherited sin nature makes sinning involuntary. And if it is involuntary, it has no more any kind of moral character, no more than eating, drinking, or farting has. And therefore, there can be no guilt attached to sin, since you cannot be GUILTY in a moral sense (that is, you cannot be TO BLAME) for things that you cannot in any way shape or form avoid. If you cannot help yourself, then you are not truly TO BLAME. Blame is nothing else than the moral character of not doing what you OUGHT to do. But you cannot "ought to do" something you literally cannot do.

If God commanded you to flap your arms and fly about the sky, you could not possibly obey. And your failure to obey cannot possibly be a cause of BLAME. To BLAME you for failing to flap arms and fly would be unjust, UNRIGHTEOUS, because you cannot be held to account for that which you literally cannot do. How can it be said you OUGHT to do that which is literally IMPOSSIBLE for you to do?

Jude 1:14-15
(14) And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints,
(15) To execute judgment upon all, and to convince all that are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have ungodly committed, and of all their hard speeches which ungodly sinners have spoken against him.

To properly convict a person of their sin, they must actually be to blame for their sin. There is a reason the old KJV uses the term "convince" instead of "convict". The reason is that a proper conviction requires proof "beyond any reasonable doubt". And the Final Judgment will include sinners themselves being without excuse. They will themselves be convinced, or convicted, of the truth of God's Judgment.

But if the sin nature doctrine is true, every sinner has the most plausible excuse for their sin, and will never be convinced of their actual guilt. The conscience, which recognises guilt and innocence, right and wrong, praise and blame, can never be convinced that the unable are to blame.

No more than you would assign moral guilt to a clock for its actions.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by phareztamar

My brother you opened with my very point, and the crux of the issue. you said "Because as each person is destined to die..." That is the only baseline we know. Why are we destined to die? Sin? But infants and young children don't know right and wrong yet. Still the death sentence stands at some point in their lives. That gives way to the age of accountability. But it also brings this question for those who haven't reached that age: why is their blood not sufficient to atone for the sins of humanity? it is, after all, sinless blood.

you said "the doctrine which the catholics used to defend their teaching was immaculate conception. if Jesus was the direct seed of Adam then Jesus was born with original sin. Therefore Mary was born of a virgin herself, and therefore her offspring would be sinless in nature. This and the tradgedy of the UPC divorcing the Ethiopian brethren are both the products of a lack of knowledge. About the science of pro-creation and the production of each persons 11 pints of blood.

I'm afraid I don't understand your statement: If children were a representation of natural sin, why would being born a new be a pre-requisite for new life in Christ Jesus?

Matthew 18:2-4 is the same as John 3:3 infants are innocent. They aren’t born evil. They aren’t sinners from birth. It is accounted for men once to die. That is because as Isaiah 51:6 everything was created to grow old and die. Yet the Lord Jesus’ salvation lasts eternal. Everlasting life is spiritual, eternal with the Jesus our Lord. Sinners don’t just die physically, but die eternally, vanish like smoke.
We who are alive and remain only die once, never to take part in the SECOND death.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by phareztamar

please forgive me my brother. i meant no disrespect. of course you are a brother in Christ. one who is highly regarded. my passion often gives way to rash stupidity. i sincerely apologize.

Thank you. Everything is good.

I would like to further this discussion.

[phareztamar]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Thank you. Everything is good.

I would like to further this discussion.

I don't think that would be productive my brother. Normally I just sit back and watch and learn on this forum. I made the mistake of putting a thumbs-up on esaias post because it's so rare to see anyone understanding the two separate accounts of the creation of mankind in Genesis.

I've laid out in my next post (One Blood) what I believe about sin. This is from my 8th book. In my first two books I proposed how it is we are all born in sin, and why my Lord's blood alone was sinless, and thus sufficient to atone for the sins of the whole world.

The law of sin that Paul found at work in his members is the same law that resides in every human being no matter their age. It doesn't suddenly enter a man at his first accountable sin. My Lord did not have this law of sin in His members. It's all biological.

I've devoted my life to sharing with this world the truth about what really happened in Eden. So it's all in those eight books (currently on book 9). If you'd care to read them, they're all available online. If you go to Google search engine, click on images, and type in the search window: randallglennjonesboroar, you can see them or order them.

But I find it impossible to engage in spiritual conversation on this forum. Sooner or later it degenerates into the opposite of brotherly love. So I think we should just agree to disagree here. Thank you for receiving my apology.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by phareztamar

I don't think that would be productive my brother. Normally I just sit back and watch and learn on this forum. I made the mistake of putting a thumbs-up on esaias post because it's so rare to see anyone understanding the two separate accounts of the creation of mankind in Genesis.

I've laid out in my next post (One Blood) what I believe about sin. This is from my 8th book. In my first two books I proposed how it is we are all born in sin, and why my Lord's blood alone was sinless, and thus sufficient to atone for the sins of the whole world.

The law of sin that Paul found at work in his members is the same law that resides in every human being no matter their age. It doesn't suddenly enter a man at his first accountable sin. My Lord did not have this law of sin in His members. It's all biological.

I've devoted my life to sharing with this world the truth about what really happened in Eden. So it's all in those eight books (currently on book 9). If you'd care to read them, they're all available online. If you go to Google search engine, click on images, and type in the search window: randallglennjonesboroar, you can see them or order them.

But I find it impossible to engage in spiritual conversation on this forum. Sooner or later it degenerates into the opposite of brotherly love. So I think we should just agree to disagree here. Thank you for receiving my apology.

Good grief.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by phareztamar

I don't think that would be productive my brother. Normally I just sit back and watch and learn on this forum. I made the mistake of putting a thumbs-up on esaias post because it's so rare to see anyone understanding the two separate accounts of the creation of mankind in Genesis.

I've laid out in my next post (One Blood) what I believe about sin. This is from my 8th book. In my first two books I proposed how it is we are all born in sin, and why my Lord's blood alone was sinless, and thus sufficient to atone for the sins of the whole world.

The law of sin that Paul found at work in his members is the same law that resides in every human being no matter their age. It doesn't suddenly enter a man at his first accountable sin. My Lord did not have this law of sin in His members. It's all biological.

I've devoted my life to sharing with this world the truth about what really happened in Eden. So it's all in those eight books (currently on book 9). If you'd care to read them, they're all available online. If you go to Google search engine, click on images, and type in the search window: randallglennjonesboroar, you can see them or order them.

But I find it impossible to engage in spiritual conversation on this forum. Sooner or later it degenerates into the opposite of brotherly love. So I think we should just agree to disagree here. Thank you for receiving my apology.

I see.

If I go over your article in the thread you titled “One Blood” are you willing to discuss what you posted there?

We all meet with opposition when we present information based on what we believe the scripture to be saying. While I Bible study out in the street I meet with all types. Sometimes with people which come from denominations which are vehemently opposed to One God Jesus name baptism and speaking in tongues. Bible studies aren’t what they use to be, now people go right to their smart phones to challenge what you are saying or what you are teaching.

Some individuals try to “Stump the Preacher” and you have to hold your ground.
I’ve been on the forums since Brother Jim Yohe invited me on Faith Child Forum. It’s been a long strange trip, I’ve met some beautiful Apostolic people who are awesome souls. I’ve met some people who struggled, some who were total jerks, and some who were the incarnation of Satan. But, that’s life. If you give your life to feed the lambs, you are going to have to deal with the wolves. Everything is based on perception. It’s how we live, and sometimes we get each other totally wrong.

Look you are a writer, you write books. The books are available to everyone. You are posting your material on an open forum. This would indicate you want and are willing to discuss the subject you post? If I’m having open Bible studies in the City of Miami or Fort Lauderdale, I’m obviously looking for debate. So, if I go over to your One Blood thread, will you answer my questions?

[phareztamar]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

I see.

If I go over your article in the thread you titled “One Blood” are you willing to discuss what you posted there?

We all meet with opposition when we present information based on what we believe the scripture to be saying. While I Bible study out in the street I meet with all types. Sometimes with people which come from denominations which are vehemently opposed to One God Jesus name baptism and speaking in tongues. Bible studies aren’t what they use to be, now people go right to their smart phones to challenge what you are saying or what you are teaching.

Some individuals try to “Stump the Preacher” and you have to hold your ground.
I’ve been on the forums since Brother Jim Yohe invited me on Faith Child Forum. It’s been a long strange trip, I’ve met some beautiful Apostolic people who are awesome souls. I’ve met some people who struggled, some who were total jerks, and some who were the incarnation of Satan. But, that’s life. If you give your life to feed the lambs, you are going to have to deal with the wolves. Everything is based on perception. It’s how we live, and sometimes we get each other totally wrong.

Look you are a writer, you write books. The books are available to everyone. You are posting your material on an open forum. This would indicate you want and are willing to discuss the subject you post? If I’m having open Bible studies in the City of Miami or Fort Lauderdale, I’m obviously looking for debate. So, if I go over to your One Blood thread, will you answer my questions?

Well I suppose I am obligated to answer questions on anything I've posted. But I am not "obviously looking for debate" as you stated. I am not a minister, but a retired master electrician and industrial mechanic. I do enjoy feedback on what I've posted, and listening to other ideas. But when it degrades to hurling insults and sarcasm and one-upmanship, then I think we've missed the mark on "THE PLACE TO COME FOR FELLOWSHIP AND FUN". Even yourself my brother, have jumped in that mud puddle betimes.

I think I'm done posting anything new here. There are too many other avenues to share and receive feedback about the things of God. Like buddy-roy said, just take my ball and go. Not as he projected (guess I showed them), but with tears and sadness. So yes, I will answer whatever questions you have about what I've posted.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by phareztamar

Well I suppose I am obligated to answer questions on anything I've posted. But I am not "obviously looking for debate" as you stated. I am not a minister, but a retired master electrician and industrial mechanic. I do enjoy feedback on what I've posted, and listening to other ideas. But when it degrades to hurling insults and sarcasm and one-upmanship, then I think we've missed the mark on "THE PLACE TO COME FOR FELLOWSHIP AND FUN". Even yourself my brother, have jumped in that mud puddle betimes.

I think I'm done posting anything new here. There are too many other avenues to share and receive feedback about the things of God. Like buddy-roy said, just take my ball and go. Not as he projected (guess I showed them), but with tears and sadness. So yes, I will answer whatever questions you have about what I've posted.

Arguments are a part of apologetics. The Greek ἀπολογία means speaking to defend. Otherwise fighting verbally to defend. Does it get hard at time? Sure. Do people get their feelings hurt? Ok, but that is why women aren't preachers. Yet, I've had debates and discussions with women here who took more punches and stayed standing then a lot of "men"

Listen we are men regardless of being a minister, a butcher, a baker, or a candlestick maker. Whether you are retired electrician or currently working a Large Hadron Collider. You can discuss book, chapter, and verse. William Miller was a Farmer, and his teachings are still wreaking havoc far and wide.

I would hope you would continue to join us in discussion.