Adam = all Men's nature becomes sinful; Jesus =/= all Men become sinless?

[Heathen Hammer]

It`s no Jesus` fault if mankind still suffers. It`s the politician`s fault, the scientists fault (builders of NASA & Star Trek ), money lenders & bankers.

No my friend.
It was Jesus' purpose to come and save. There are numerous ephemeral suggestions of what he accomplished; yet they are all prosy metaphors. Because followers don't want to come out and admit he failed.
In your answer, the politicians, money lenders, scientists and bankers are able to do bad things, because Jesus failed. If Jesus had succeeded, these people would not be subjects for your scorn, because they would be as pure of heart and sinless as everyone else.

Everyone keeps turning away from this fact.

 

[James Humphreys]

Then he's failed, hasn't he? 'Some day' isn't good enough for those suffering right now; so much for love.

It sounds like you're trying to make a back door argument that either God doesn't exist, or that he isn't a God of love. In that case you're not just condemning Jesus for not solving all human problems 2000 years ago, but by extension condemning God for allowing Adam and Eve to fall in the first place, bringing sin and suffering into the world. But I don't buy it. How sin began and why God doesn't intervene to fix everything are complex questions. But is the only possible answer then that God has forsaken us, doesn't keep his promises, and doesn't love us? That's a conclusion based in resentment and superficial understanding.

I agree that Jesus did fail in what he wanted to do, but so what? It doesn't reflect on him personally. He wanted to create the Kingdom of Heaven and eliminate all sin 2000 years ago, while most Christians see those ultimate promises are meant for his second coming. When God promises something it will be fulfilled, but when is conditional on the response of people. Jesus initially told us the best case scenario, the accomplishment of which depended on the Jewish people believing in him. IMO, if Jesus had been accepted, then he could have brought full salvation, including the elimination of original sin, 2000 years ago. But when Jesus saw that the rejection of his work was too strong, he accepted the secondary course-that of going to the cross.

Spiritual salvation through belief in Jesus is real, but it falls short of the full salvation that now has to wait for his return. Let me make it clear-I believe in final universal salvation. So there will be no unfortunate casualities of the history of sin and suffering, whose dead bodies fall by the wayside, so that only a select few receive the final perfection and salvation of the kingdom.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Yes, absolutely, that as well as possessing the knowledge of Good and Evil also dooming his descendants in a way which he did not, himself, possess at his creation; therefore his very nature was changed.

Now that we have determined this... your thoughts on the matter at hand?

I don't agree that his nature was changed only his outcome and his knowledge. The general assumption is that Adam gaind a sin nature. That is what I don't agree with since he disobeyed before he ate the fruit.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

It sounds like you're trying to make a back door argument that either God doesn't exist, or that he isn't a God of love. In that case you're not just condemning Jesus for not solving all human problems 2000 years ago, but by extension condemning God for allowing Adam and Eve to fall in the first place, bringing sin and suffering into the world. But I don't buy it. How sin began and why God doesn't intervene to fix everything are complex questions. But is the only possible answer then that God has forsaken us, doesn't keep his promises, and doesn't love us? That's a conclusion based in resentment and superficial understanding.

Just curious: in what way would that be superficial understanding? You realize that there is no higher 'understanding to be had; you're edging toward the Dog Whisperer Fallacy.

I don't offer concrete answers to those questions you posit could be the outcome of this: i merely point out that the road is not going to end in a rainbow; the implications speak for themselves.

I agree that Jesus did fail in what he wanted to do, but so what? It doesn't reflect on him personally.

Really. Why not?

He wanted to create the Kingdom of Heaven and eliminate all sin 2000 years ago, while most Christians see those ultimate promises are meant for his second coming. When God promises something it will be fulfilled, but when is conditional on the response of people.

So you blame the victims, then?

Jesus initially told us the best case scenario, the accomplishment of which depended on the Jewish people believing in him. IMO, if Jesus had been accepted, then he could have brought full salvation, including the elimination of original sin, 2000 years ago. But when Jesus saw that the rejection of his work was too strong, he accepted the secondary course-that of going to the cross.

Again, why is his lack of acceptance then something i should bear the brunt of?

He should have just done his job. Failing to do it yet, means he didn't do it; the terms are synonymous.

Spiritual salvation through belief in Jesus is real, but it falls short of the full salvation that now has to wait for his return. Let me make it clear-I believe in final universal salvation. So there will be no unfortunate casualities of the history of sin and suffering, whose dead bodies fall by the wayside, so that only a select few receive the final perfection and salvation of the kingdom.

[edit] sorry reread that

Essentially it goes back to my initial statement: having to wait condemns a vast number of people who simply should have been born better-created. Only God could have controlled that. Adam was a single individual in direct communion with God, and a single action he commits dooms us all. Jesus was an actual scion OF GOD, and his vastly more humble and goodly action doesn't do enough to redress Adam's action. It's a ripoff. And we pay the price.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

I don't agree that his nature was changed only his outcome and his knowledge. The general assumption is that Adam gaind a sin nature. That is what I don't agree with since he disobeyed before he ate the fruit.

Only his outcome? So, he was not, in fact, sinless from the beginning?

In other words Mankind has never been sinless, even at creation?

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Only his outcome? So, he was not, in fact, sinless from the beginning?

How do you come to that conclusion when all I said was he had a sin nature or else he wouldn't have disobeyed?

 

[Heathen Hammer]

How do you come to that conclusion when all I said was he had a sin nature or else he wouldn't have disobeyed?

Well, because you directly imply, and repeat here in this question, that Adam essentially possessed a sinful nature at the outset; that his ability to sin, was already in place. I'm simply reading your words and coming to the rational endpoint.

Basically the tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil only bestowed upon him [them] the feeling of guilt for wrongdoing?

Adam was created as a flawed creature.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Well, because you directly imply, and repeat here in this question, that Adam essentially possessed a sinful nature at the outset; that his ability to sin, was already in place. I'm simply reading your words and coming to the rational endpoint.

Basically the tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil only bestowed upon him [them] the feeling of guilt for wrongdoing?

Adam was created as a flawed creature.

Sin did not enter the world until Adam ate the fruit. The Bible is clear on that. The Bible is also clear that it is the knowledge of evil that makes it sin. My point is that Adam had the ability to be disobedient or he would not have disobeyed. Is that not clear?

Where in the Bible does it say that Adam was not flawed when he was made?

 

[Me Myself]

Sin did not enter the world until Adam ate the fruit. The Bible is clear on that. The Bible is also clear that it is the knowledge of evil that makes it sin. My point is that Adam had the ability to be disobedient or he would not have disobeyed. Is that not clear?

Wherre in the Bible does it say that Adam was not flawed when he was made?

Where it says that Adam was made in the image of God.

Unless God is flawed, that is.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Where it says that Adam was made in the image of God.

Unless God is flawed, that is.

You misinterpret the meaning of what image means. Nowhere in the account does it say that Adam was perfect as God is perfect or that Adam was exactly as God was.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

Sin did not enter the world until Adam ate the fruit. The Bible is clear on that. The Bible is also clear that it is the knowledge of evil that makes it sin. My point is that Adam had the ability to be disobedient or he would not have disobeyed. Is that not clear?

If it didn't enter the wold until the action then, sin was absent. Therefore, Adam did NOT possess it, by your words. Is that not correct? Since the knowledge was not possessed until after?

Where in the Bible does it say that Adam was not flawed when he was made?

Where does it say he was not, since god created him personally?

the implications are obvious. Don't pester me that the bible doesn't say precisely word for word what I state based on simple analysis of what it does say. Conclusions can be drawn. You words state that Adam was thus created as a flawed creature. Agree or disagree?

 

[Heathen Hammer]

You misinterpret the meaning of what image means. Nowhere in the account does it say that Adam was perfect as God is perfect or that Adam was exactly as God was.

So God purposefully and with full knowledge created a flawed being.

Those implications are staggering as to the injustice of what came after, you realize...

 

[sandy whitelinger]

So God purposefully and with full knowledge created a flawed being.

Those implications are staggering as to the injustice of what came after, you realize...

You mean staggering in the concept that God, ahead of time, knew man would bring death upon himself and need to be cleansed of his sin and be regenerated in order to live in eternity with God. Armed with that forknowledge He allowed His Son to be made in the image of sinful man and die on a cross as a perfect sacrifice for all of mankind to allow any who would believe in Him to gain life eternal in a sinless state. I agree, it is quite staggering.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

. Don't pester me that the bible doesn't say precisely word for word what I state based on simple analysis of what it does say.

I'm pestering your flawed analysis.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

If it didn't enter the wold until the action then, sin was absent. Therefore, Adam did NOT possess it...

I've stated this very clearly. Pay more attention. Adam was made with the ability to disobey by the obvious fact he disobeted. He was not made with sin. He brought it when he disobeyed.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

You mean staggering in the concept that God, ahead of time, knew man would bring death upon himself and need to be cleansed of his sin and be regenerated in order to live in eternity with God. Armed with that forknowledge He allowed His Son to be made in the image of sinful man and die on a cross as a perfect sacrifice for all of mankind to allow any who would believe in Him to gain life eternal in a sinless state. I agree, it is quite staggering.

No, I mean staggering in the idea that he intended to create generation upon generation of creature who were doomed to suffer by his deliberate malicious intent. Then, he sent a simulacra of himself, to pretend to die, and then, after this demonstration [not actually a sacrifice, by the definition] allowed said suffering to go on.
Eternal life may or may not be gained; the suffering occurs regardless.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

I'm pestering your flawed analysis.

Don't get ahead of yourself now; show the flaw.

I've stated this very clearly. Pay more attention. Adam was made with the ability to disobey by the obvious fact he disobeyed. He was not made with sin. He brought it when he disobeyed.

So, you agree then that Adam was created to be doomed. That he would disobey was not a 'maybe' to God. it was a given.

That's where the injustice begins. And it hasn't ended. Yet, according to you. But 'yet' is too late.

Saying 'he brought it' is transferring the responsibility downstream one step. Who created him to bring it?

 

[waitasec]

Sin did not enter the world until Adam ate the fruit.

i never understood what that meant...
can your spell it out for me?

 

[Heathen Hammer]

i never understood what that meant...
can your spell it out for me?

Would be glad to.

According to the tale, Adam and Eve did not know the difference between Good and Evil; the Tree's presence, as a magical object which God made uniquely to possess fruit which embodied knowledge, shows that such knowledge was literally absent from the universe in mind-form. It was there as potential, contained within the fruit, which had not yet been eaten transferring the knowledge to mind. [or 'Mind']

In her own words, awareness of the wrongness of an act, is what really equates to sin. Thus, she and the tale both agree, does she not, that the awareness must be present, for it to be sin.

Thus, my statement is evident in the story and in her opinion: no sin yet existed, because the ability to possess the awareness, could not yet be had, physically or mentally, by the only two people capable of possessing it.

 

[Pegg]

i never understood what that meant...
can your spell it out for me?

it just means that before Adam disobeyed, there was no disobedience to Gods stated laws

disobedience is sin.