Abrahamic Religions: Why not just start with Noah?

[Hawkins]

Excellent.

Humanity rebooted with Noah, since the rest have been wiped out. So, why do we still carry the sin of Adam and not the righteousness of Noah? Why focus on one and not the other? Or was Noah hopelessely tainted as well?

Ciao

- viole

You still don't get it? No one is righteous in terms of God's Law which Adam offended in Eden. We are righteous or not only relative to our covenant. That's why we can't be righteous in terms of the old covenant we are born with, yet we can be righteous in terms of the New Covenant which demands us to believe Christ with Faith.

To put it another way, when measured by God's Law, no one is qualified no matter what except for Jesus. When measured by the covenant we are born with (the old covenant granted to us), again most likely we won't pass (that's why a New Covenant is needed for humans). However, when measured by the New Covenant, we can be qualified when we put our faith in Jesus Christ and God.

Noah, possibly with some humans after him are the qualified when measured with the covenant God granted to him. So Noah and those humans are thus deemed righteous.

 

[viole]

One word: wine.

Lol.

I suspect he reserved some room in the ark for some Chianti grapes, which do not react very nicely when submerged, at the expense of some poor species that are now extinct.

Ciao

- viole

 

[dust1n]

As a result, post-Noah humans are all covered by a covenant which makes them capable of being saved. Humans pre-Noah were uncovered by any covenant. It's thus impossible for them to be saved.

So what was the point to create an entire people that were known not able to be saved at all, to simply start all over with Noah. Why didn't God make Noah first, and give him the Garden of Eden, since he is apparently more qualified to do God's work over any other descendant than Adam.

 

[dust1n]

Excellent.

Humanity rebooted with Noah, since the rest have been wiped out. So, why do we still carry the sin of Adam and not the righteousness of Noah? Why focus on one and not the other? Or was Noah hopelessely tainted as well?

Ciao

- viole

I just don't get it because presumably Noah was living in a sinful place like all other humans, and was marked with original sin as well. So, really, skipping the entirety of pre-Noah history and then just making Noah the way he was originally, would not have resulted in any different type of world, as far as I can tell.

I am still reading some of the commentary I got though.

 

[psychoslice]

One would sincerely hope so.

Now that's bias lol.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

No one knows how capable God actually is. It's not an offense if we overestimated Him. However, it is a blasphemy if He's underestimated. It's a kind of common sense.

You make a lot of sophomoric claims - all characterized by being baseless.

 

[viole]

You still don't get it? No one is righteous in terms of God's Law which Adam offended in Eden. We are righteous or not only relative to our covenant. That's why we can't be righteous in terms of the old covenant we are born with, yet we can be righteous in terms of the New Covenant which demands us to believe Christ with Faith.

To put it another way, when measured by God's Law, no one is qualified no matter what except for Jesus. When measured by the covenant we are born with (the old covenant granted to us), again most likely we won't pass (that's why a New Covenant is needed for humans). However, when measured by the New Covenant, we can be qualified when we put our faith in Jesus Christ and God.

Noah, possibly with some humans after him are the qualified when measured with the covenant God granted to him. So Noah and those humans are thus deemed righteous.

So, Noah was subject to the new covenant? How many covenants are there?

Ciao

- viole

 

[viole]

I just don't get it because presumably Noah was living in a sinful place like all other humans, and was marked with original sin as well. So, really, skipping the entirety of pre-Noah history and then just making Noah the way he was originally, would not have resulted in any different type of world, as far as I can tell.

I am still reading some of the commentary I got though.

Well, I think God operates under a test and trial framework.

- Adam did not work.
- Virtually Wiping out all living beings did not work either.
- Stopping people to go to orbit or build high bulidlings did not work either
- Sending Jesus did not seem to have improved things either (if it did, why not sending Him in place of wiping out the whole world, pets included?)

Ciao

- viole

 

[Hawkins]

You make a lot of sophomoric claims - all characterized by being baseless.

Nothing can be more baseless than a single word like "nonsense". That's the only word you can come up with, without any argument made. Putting assertion without any argument is your specialty.

 

[Hawkins]

So, Noah was subject to the new covenant? How many covenants are there?

Ciao

- viole

You comprehended wrong again. Would you point out which statement I made which makes you think that I ever said that "Noah was subject to the New covenant"?


Noah is subject to the covenant God made with him.

 

[viole]

You comprehended wrong again. Would you point out which statement I made which makes you think that I ever said that "Noah was subject to the New covenant"?

Ok. Let's assume he was not subject to the new covenant, whatever that is, was he righteous according to the old? Or he could not possibly be righteous?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Hawkins]

Ok. Let's assume he was not subject to the new covenant, whatever that is, was he righteous according to the old? Or he could not possibly be righteous?

Ciao

- viole

There isn't an old before him. What he has is the first covenant signed. No one is righteous in front of God's Law, he's not an exception. God will make a covenant for those worth to be saved. This is the case of Noah. When God said that "Noah is righteous". It is from the perspective that Noah is worth being saved, but the Law won't save him. However, God made him under a covenant which he can be saved.

In effect, a covenant is to identify and to separate the saved from the unsaved (i.e., the righteous from the wicked in a sense).

 

[viole]

There isn't an old before him. What he has is the first covenant signed. No one is righteous in front of God's Law, he's not an exception. God will make a covenant for those worth to be saved. This is the case of Noah. When God said that "Noah is righteous". It is from the perspective that Noah is worth being saved, but the Law won't save him. However, God made him under a covenant which he can be saved.

So, there are at least three covenants. Correct?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Hawkins]

So, there are at least three covenants. Correct?

Ciao

- viole

You are right. At lease 3. One for the gentiles, the other for the Jews, and the third is the New Covenant for both.

 

[viole]

You are right. At lease 3. One for the gentiles, the other for the Jews, and the third is the New Covenant for both.

And Which one applies to Noah?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Hawkins]

And Which one applies to Noah?

Ciao

- viole

The one for the gentiles, in the case that only 3 exist.

That is to say, it is possible that the gentiles' covenant is the one from Noah. The Jew's covenant now in effect is the one from Moses. The New Covenant is from Jesus Christ.

 

[viole]

The one for the gentiles, in the case that only 3 exist.

So, Noah was a gentile?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Hawkins]

So, Noah was a gentile?

Ciao

- viole

In terms of covenant, he is.

 

[viole]

In terms of covenant, he is.

In terms of covenants? So, from that time on only the gentile covenant applies?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Hawkins]

In terms of covenants? So, from that time on only the gentile covenant applies?

Ciao

- viole

Gentile is not a term used at Noah's time. He's a human. The term gentile can apply only when it is relative to the Jews. Today's humans can be called gentiles, in comparison to the Jews. It's possible that it's Noah's covenant which is in effect to today's gentiles.

It is a matter of perspective. We may not call Christians as gentiles today, in terms of covenant. As Christians are in another covenant, it's the New Covenant.