Tha Fall of Man and the Law of Sin

[larrylyates]

Originally Posted by bbyrd009

Guys, you can truncate, after you hit 'quote,' as I've done here...ty.

Hey, I like all that "truncatin" n stuff. Thanks!

[larrylyates]

Originally Posted by bbyrd009

I am standing on the backs of giants, and my position here is not original; you either see and agree with this

http://www.wikihow.com/Recognize-the...ristian-Models

or you do not. While only one reference is given, this is the result of much study that MFox just happened to put the most succinctly. I'm curious to hear any objections to any points in the article, ty.

Only one observation. Fox says:
“What does God say? "...the LORD said in his heart, “I will never again curse the ground because of man, for the intention of man’s heart is evil from his youth." ''Genesis 8:21''<br>Which may ''sound'' like a condemnation to someone unfamiliar with God's condemnation; but the important part of this verse for us at the moment is the ''from his youth'' part. You are not "born a sinner" in the sense that Western Christianity teaches…”(Matthew Fox).

It is important to understand the etymology and meaning of the Hebrew translated here as “youth.”

H5271 נָעוּר נָעוּר נְעוּרָה na`uwr (naw-oor') (or naur {naw-oor'} and (feminine) nturah {neh- oo-raw'} n-f.
1. (only in plural collectively or emphatic form) youth, the state (juvenility) or the persons (young people)
[(properly) passive participle from H5288 as denominative]
KJV: childhood, youth.

Finds its root in:

H5288 נַעַר na`ar (nah'-ar) n-m.
1. (concretely) a boy (as active), from the age of infancy to adolescence
2. (by implication) a servant
3. (also, by interchange of sex), a girl (of similar range in age)
[from H5287]
KJV: babe, boy, child, damsel (from the margin), lad, servant, young (man).

We find here a word that is inclusive of the entire range of age, from infancy to youth. It is a faulty exegesis which would seize on the phrase "from his youth," and interpret that so as to exclude infancy.

[Livelystone]

Originally Posted by larrylyates

Doug, I accept your rebuke in the spirit in which it is given. I stand by my words. You are teaching false doctrine, plain and simple. Perhaps I could have been a bit more "diplomatic." Like I said, I choose to believe your intentions are good. It does not change the nature of your postings, however. This has nothing whatsoever to do with friendship or opinions. It is a simple matter of guarding the truths of Scripture. In no way do I mean to imply that all you believe is heresy. However, the things you have posted above are simply not biblical and when it was pointed out to you by others, your response was even more off base than your original statement.

All of us, myself included are to be subject to the teachings of scripture. None of us are above correction. I have been corrected on this forum and rightly so in that case and I did repent and apologize. I therefore do repent if I have in anyway misjudged you. Perhaps you were not making yourself clear. But I have gone back over your posts and shared them with some trusted advisors and the teachings you are presenting are simply not biblical and have no basis in scripture.

Let me clarify one thing. I believe that God confirms His Word with signs and wonders. But I do not accept the premise that the mere presence of a sign or a wonder is automatically God's stamp of approval, no! We are warned that in the last days there will be false signs and wonders, that have the potential of deceiving even the elect.

All teachings must be judged by the ruler of the whole of scripture. Perhaps you are right. I should not have judged you so harshly. For that I sincerely ask your forgiveness. Would you be willing to start fresh? Can we look at what you are teaching together in the Word? And let the Word alone be our guide? Would you be open to that? If not, I understand.

Larry,

You are talking from two different sides of your mouth here. From one side I hear you ask if we can we start over and let the word be our guide? But from the other I hear you still saying that I am teaching false doctrine but offer no proof whatsoever from the word that is the only viable source of authority.

Sounds like somebody sprinkling sugar on top of cow patties!

The doctrine of original sin got its start before Adam was ever created, when God's mandate simply put said that every seed must bear the same image as the fruit of where it came from. That by itself should be enough for anyone with a little bit of spiritual insight and a lot of respect for the Commandments of God to realize that once Adam became corrupted, by the commandment of God the seed coming from Adam was also corrupt.

Until the church realizes what was lost from when Adam was 1st created with the righteousness of the Spirit of God in him from when God breathed into Adam's nostril His Spirit that contained the righteousness of God, the church will never understand what is available to them through the restitution of all things that are available through Jesus Christ (and not having to wait until you die)

Acts 3:21
Whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began.


Regarding the words coming from the mouths of the Holy prophets, did you not say in another thread here that nothing of the old covenant is needed for the workings of the new covenant to happen? (My paraphrase but close enough however if you object speak up and I will go make a quote to be exact)

Unfortunately that belief could not be further from the truth. For an example consider what Isaiah told us but in condensed form in chapter 28: 1-13 concerning who would be weaned from the breast to learn the knowledge of God, would be those who follow the laws that were first given to Moses for determining the truth. However, these are the exact same laws that are taught by Jesus and the apostles in the New Testament albeit in their own words.

When Jesus and the apostles kept on harping about 2 or 3 witnesses needed to establish the truth is the foundation of OT law for determining the truth that was first given to Moses. So are the words that "no Scripture is for any private interpretation" also a furthering of Old Testament law that no single witness is suffucent that needs to be applied to God's word along with the rest of the law if we are ever going to hope to be able to determine clean spiritual food from all of unclean spiritual food being taught for the last 2000 years.

Nobody is excused from following the laws of God for determining the truth, and in light of everything you have accused me of here it is very apparent that you still need to learn them.

When you do you can actually back your words up instead of just going around shooting from the hip accusing others for what you have yet to find out for yourself.

BTW, I have no problem forgiving anybody for anything. However, your problem steming from accusing me of being a false prophet and spreading false doctrines is not with me but with God! If you think otherwise go look back in Deuteronomy 19:16-21 and see what God says is to happens when somebody makes an accusation that they cannot substantiate. The only difference between then and now is that God is the one that sees to it that judgement is administered and not us.

Fair enough?

Doug

[bbyrd009]

Originally Posted by larrylyates

Only one observation. Fox says:...

Ah; well, you have seized upon a part of the article that I must claim, lol. I'll openly admit that this strikes me, on the face of it, as parsing the word to death (while ignoring the central Scripture upon which this article relies?)--and also tell you that because I feel this way, I also now feel compelled to take your side, and try to prove this wrong. I do recollect other--several other--Scriptures that reflect this idea quite similarly; I'll bring them back here, with my opinion on your comment. You might very well be completely correct.

But I would ask you to verify the inception of the doctrine of Original Sin, as opposed to the Law of sin and death; one is a construct, rejected even by its author, and the other is foundational Scripture. Gimme a couple of days, if you would--Sabbath is starting! Peace to you.

[bbyrd009]

Originally Posted by larrylyates

Hey, I like all that "truncatin" n stuff. Thanks!

I must be doing too much editing.

[larrylyates]

"Regarding the words coming from the mouths of the Holy prophets, did you not say in another thread here that nothing of the old covenant is needed for the workings of the new covenant to happen? (My paraphrase but close enough however if you object speak up and I will go make a quote to be exact)"

You would have to remind me of what I said, because that is not my belief. I believe the Word of God to be a progressive unfolding of truth. I believe we are under a New Covenant. I believe Hebrews 8:13--In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.

Christians are no longer under the Law of Moses. We are subject to a higher law, the Law of Love. As a result we are held to an even higher standard.

I pointed out on another thread, the first Church Council in Acts 15.

In Acts chapter 15, there were some new Christians in the town of Antioch. There is an amazing account of how certain Jews were instructing the new Gentile Christians in Antioch to observe and keep the laws of Moses. The apostles caught wind of this and sent the new Christians in Antioch quite a different message. Here is what they said: “It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay upon you no greater burden than these essentials: you abstain from things sacrificed to idols and from blood and from things strangled and from fornication; if you keep yourselves free from such things, you will do well. Farewell.”(Acts 15:28-29).

Why did the apostles give the new believers at Antioch these particular instructions, and not emphasize the importance of keeping the Sabbath and the other commandments?

I ask the same question of you.

My main concern however, is not your view of the Law. It is your view of the nature of man and the nature of God as regards both the creation and fall of man. You seem to make sweeping assertions as to the nature of the fall that simply are not in the text.

Your description of Adam being "altered" so that he could sin, has no basis. It does not reflect the teaching of scripture. The implication of such a belief makes God Himself directly the cause of the fall. Do you see my point?

The comments about Eve (I too, would have to go find the quote, so I'll be circumspect here) seems more akin to the "serpent seed" doctrine and has been held at various times throughout recent Church History by certain fringe groups. It also is based upon speculation, rather than exegesis of scripture.

These are just a few areas for discussion. I don't have your post in front of me so I will not try to go any further for risk of misrepresenting your views.

I do believe that several of your views are incorrect. I am willing to discuss those views with you and demonstrate my objections in an open dialogue. That would include having other men of God addressing you here as well.

If you are open to that I commit to discuss things in as an objective manner as possible with our Bibles in front of us. If you would prefer a more private venue, my personal email is available on my profile. I thank you for responding to my post and look forward to hearing from you.

[bbyrd009]

Originally Posted by navygoat1998

Mark I just figured your up in smoke with some Colorado farm fresh

It's legal here now, and so of course I can't recommend it! But really, smokin pot is bad, mmmkay? Don't do it. Now, eating pot, well, that is a whole 'nother animule. I know of...10, at least; maybe 15, prescriptions--all with significant side effects, some severe--that pot does a better job relieving the indicated symptoms of.

But to the real point here; I loved the Navy, and many of its operational mandates are a reflection of God, imo--protect the seas, fight piracy, aid the distressed, etc., and I applaud, loudly, that the US does this par excellance, with virtually no contenders...but you (that 2nd 'you,' down there) as a Christian, are either an ambassador of a kingdom, or a citizen of a nation, and you cannot be both. You must decide which you are. Today; right now.

[larrylyates]

Originally Posted by bbyrd009

Ah; well, you have seized upon a part of the article that I must claim, lol. I'll openly admit that this strikes me, on the face of it, as parsing the word to death (while ignoring the central Scripture upon which this article relies?)--and also tell you that because I feel this way, I also now feel compelled to take your side, and try to prove this wrong. I do recollect other--several other--Scriptures that reflect this idea quite similarly; I'll bring them back here, with my opinion on your comment. You might very well be completely correct.

But I would ask you to verify the inception of the doctrine of Original Sin, as opposed to the Law of sin and death; one is a construct, rejected even by its author, and the other is foundational Scripture. Gimme a couple of days, if you would--Sabbath is starting! Peace to you.

it will make for an interesting discussion. Peace.

[Livelystone]

Originally Posted by larrylyates

[B]"
Your description of Adam being "altered" so that he could sin, has no basis. .

Did God not take a rib from Adam before Adam sinned?

While the most basic carnal sense allows us to see that Adam was altered before he committed his sin, just a little bit of spiritual insight allows us to see that when Eve was created from the flesh of Adam, the flesh of Adam was given a mind and a voice of its own. Amen ? I think so!

Consequently the spirit of breath of God that was originally ruling over Adam was no longer the only "mind" influencing Adam because the flesh does not reflect the desires of the Spirit of God that originally ruled Adam. This in turn set Adam up for his fall (sin)

Is this to hard for you to understand?

Now if you do not want to accept my word for what I said the phrase "made subject to vanity" means go look for yourself and you will see that I have it right as well as the rest of the verse (along with everything else)

Paul understood all of the lessons being taught here very well and from them is why Paul said that the flesh wars against the spirit.

Me having to explain things to you like this is teaching at its most carnal level that I do not like to resort to. However, it is the same as I had to use to explain to you how God's mandate from the very beginning meant that the seed coming from Adam had to reflect Adams "fallen nature" that is made apparent because Adam got get kicked out of the garden after he committed his sin.

I already explained to Luke how the phrase “Garden all of Eden” translated means fence of God, and how within it is the righteousness of God that Adam could not remain in after his sin. This is because Adam's sin caused him to fall from the position of righteousness he was in before he committed his sin. Therefore, at that point in time Adam no longer qualified to remain within the garden of eden that was the presence of the righteousness of God on earth. Thus we have the term “fallen nature”.

As far as your remark that you think that you and some other men of God are going to be able to correct is only because you do not know enough to be able to tell the vast difference between your knowledge and mine. As it is I have to explain each word I say in the most simplest terms to get you to see the light.

In the short time I have been here I have noted that I am not the 1st person to call you out on your condescending tone only because you think you know more than others do, when the truth is you do not. A good question for you Larry is did God say that he would take the wise persons of the world to teach others the things of God, or did he said that he would take the base things of the world to confound the wisdom of the wise?

Doug

[bbyrd009]

Originally Posted by larrylyates

it will make for an interesting discussion. Peace.

"Throughout Christian history the conviction that man's birthright is sin has encouraged an unrealistic acceptance of remediable social evils, or even a callousness about human suffering. It helps to explain the easy acceptance of slavery and serfdom, and a record of religious atrocity unmatched by any other religion."
Professor Herbert J. Muller

still working on this; but my reply is going to center on the Scriptures that illuminate that while the sins of a father are passed on to the son, the son does not py for the father's sins! Another somewhat weird concept to grasp...and really, beside the point; OS is a construct invented by Some Guy.