Are you a liar?

[sayak83]

The evangelist John asks a very challenging question in his first epistle (1 John 2:22). He asks, 'Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ?

He goes on to say, 'He is an anti-christ, that denieth the Father and the Son. Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father:'

Strong words from a man who preached a God of love!

But, how does one arrive at the position that a man is a liar if he denies that Jesus is Christ? I guess the opening premise is that God is Truth [Deut. 32:4 etc]. From here one can reasonably deduce that God's Word is true, and that Christ, coming from God, is the Word of God [Rev. 19:13]. If this be the case, then a denial of Christ is a denial of truth [John 14:6]. To deny truth is to make truth a lie. Is this, therefore, the unforgivable sin?

Christ deniers really have no rock to stand on when 'truth' becomes a victim, as happens in war. Where is the hope of justice if there is no God to hear your cry? If your daughter is raped and murdered by soldiers, or your son tortured, tied and shot in the back of the head, how do you respond? Hate and seek revenge? Add your vitriol to the great hell of war? Seek justice from courts that may never provide justice? Give up on life itself, with no hope of glory?

I'm with Paul, who said, 'For me to live is Christ, and to die is gain.' [Phil.1:21]

For me Gita and Upanisads are scripture, not the Bible. Now what?

 

[Redemptionsong]

Sin is a religious idea, not a fact. The idea of sin is not relevant to those who don't assign the word meaning. Do you understand this?

The purpose of the law is to provide a knowledge of sin. Do you not live under law? Are you a lawless individual without any understanding of what is right and wrong?

Romans 3:20. 'Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin'.

 

[Redemptionsong]

For me Gita and Upanisads are scripture, not the Bible. Now what?

Do your scriptures encourage you to be good? For what purpose?

 

[sayak83]

Do your scriptures encourage you to be good? For what purpose?

Because goodness creates a mind and character that is more suitable for awareness of the ultimate reality/God.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Maybe you would like to tell us more about the inner life of a humanist whose knowledge of the world is very clearly defined by his limited understanding!

I already have. I told you specifically. I guess you didn't read it. You haven't acknowledge seeing it, but you have suggested that you haven't. I even just linked you back to it. Did you not look at that, either?

Limited understanding? I assume you mean relative to somebody who believe by faith. If it can't be understood empirically, it can't be understood. If it can't be demonstrated to be actual understanding, then it does not deserve to be called that.

I can't tell you how many times spiritualists and religionists have made this claim about seeing further with their non-empirical methods, deriding the empiricist for being myopic, implying that he is missing out on something of value. But ask any of these people what that is - what they have gleaned by this extended way of knowing - and you get nothing. I know what that kind of thinking leads to, and there is no value there except possibly psychological for those who are uneasy without a god belief, who might take comfort in believing that God is watching over them or that they are immortal.

How about you break that streak and explain what your less limited understanding has revealed to you and how you think that will help the strict empiricist.

The words of the Bible, which I believe to be the words of God, and evidence of God, lead a person into wisdom through the indwelling Holy Spirit. This is not a boast, but a statement of promise, and shared experience.

I've know that promise, and it was not kept in my case - my principal reason for recognizing that the religion was false.

Once again, I invite you to share what you are calling wisdom and why you think it deserves to be called that. As I just indicated, I used to be a Christian, and faith allowed me to do something very unwise. Wisdom includes abandoning unjustified belief.

A humanist does not believe in prophecy because it falls outside his limited understanding.

No. I believe in prophecy, just not biblical prophecy or astrology or Nostradamus type of prophecy. And I believe it because evidence compellingly demonstrated that those prophecies were correct. I am talking about scientific prophecy.

You're track record for predicting and explaining humanists is 0 for however many times you've tried. Would that matter to you if it is correct?

Yet, the Bible provides good evidence of prophecy. In so doing, it provides evidence that there is a spiritual power, God, who is greater than any human, or human society.

Regarding biblical prophecy, when an entity with knowledge of the future wants to make a convincing prediction, it'll need to be as good as the one made in the movie "Frequency, " when Dennis Quaid's character's son, who is communicating to his father by ham radio from his father future, wants to convince his father that it is really his son speaking to him in 1969 from the year 1998. To do this, the son tells his father the outcome of game five of the 1969 World Series while the father is watching it live in a bar : "Well, game five was the big one. It turned in the bottom of the 6th. We were down 3-0. Cleon Jones gets hit on the foot - left a scuffmark on the ball. Clendenon comes up. The count goes to 2 and 2. High fastball. He nailed it. Weis slammed a solo shot in the 7th to tie. Jones and Swoboda scored in the 8th. We won, Pop."

What this and scientific prophecy have but biblical prophecy lacks is specificity and the prediction of something unlikely. That's why I don't accept biblical prophecy as indicative of unexpected knowledge of the future or evidence of a deity.

 

[F1fan]

What are you talking about?! Are you suggesting that the New Testament was a complete fabrication, and that numerous people colluded in creating a imaginary movement following a false Messiah?

The history of the New Testament suggests is has been cobbled together by over 40 different writers over many hundreds of years. The edits to the texts, and the translations, are even more stories. So yes, it is more likely completely fabricated than true at face value.

 

[Redemptionsong]

Not really.
All I require to reject claims, about anything, is the observation that the evidence provided isn't sufficient to warrant belief. I don't require extremely detailed knowledge of the things that are being rejected.

Take for example things like homeopathy and astrology.
I don't need to be aware of every single little detail. A few main central points that don't check out with evidence is more then enough to reject the whole thing.




It doesn't matter to the topic at hand anyway.

I can only repeat myself: a "lie" is when you state something of which you KNOW that it is false.

If your statement is the result of ignorance or misunderstanding or anything like that, then you don't KNOW it is false. Hence it is not a "lie".

A lie is when you state something that you know ain't true; that you don't even believe yourself since you know what the actual truth is.

Suppose I state that I didn't eat a pizza last night, while I did have a pizza.

If I remember that I had pizza and say anyway that I didn't, then I'm telling a lie.
If however I am absolutely convinced that I didn't have pizza and just misremember, for whatever reason, then I'm not telling a lie.



It's really not hard.
It's quite sad to see you jump through these hoops in order to try and deny this obvious simple fact.

The point I'm making is that it's not an 'obvious simple fact'! A lie is not the truth. It's quite possible to believe a lie, and to repeat the lie to others. You may not think you're lying...until someone corrects you. Then you have no excuse. In a flash, you realise that you've been spreading lies!

John, inspired by God, is telling us that we're liars if we deny that Jesus is the Christ. You say that you are ignorant, in which case you should not continue to deny that Jesus is the Christ. It's better to withhold judgment than to deny that Jesus is not the Christ. Most sensible people will remain silent until they've investigated the issue properly.

If you insist on claiming that Jesus is not the Christ, you make yourself a liar in the words of John, who claimed his words were inspired by God.

 

[F1fan]

The purpose of the law is to provide a knowledge of sin. Do you not live under law?

Which version, the Catholic version? The Presbyterian version? the Lutheran version? the Pentacost version? The Baptist version? I remember my Baptist cousins saying that dancing was a sin, while my Catholic cousins danced all they wanted. So whatever "law" you're referring to no doubt only applies too whomever says that law is valid. Your idea of religious laws are not applicable to me since you can't demonstrate any actual authority over me, despite your efforts.

Are you a lawless individual without any understanding of what is right and wrong?

See how difficult it is for you to not attempt to bully people with your religious dogma? Imagine if you had power and was above the law, what would stop you from imprisoning people like me, or torture, or execution? You believe your religious beliefs have authority over me, but they simply don't because I have the freedom in the modern world to choose. And you don't like this.

This tells us more about you and your toxic faith than it doesn't about me.

Romans 3:20. 'Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin'.

Irrelevant.

 

[Redemptionsong]

Because goodness creates a mind and character that is more suitable for awareness of the ultimate reality/God.

And do you believe that you are good?

 

[Redemptionsong]

The history of the New Testament suggests is has been cobbled together by over 40 different writers over many hundreds of years. The edits to the texts, and the translations, are even more stories. So yes, it is more likely completely fabricated than true at face value.

The test, as to whether it is possible to 'cobble together' a convincing text is to set the task to just one writer...you. Imagine that you want to fabricate the existence of a Messiah. Where would you begin? What material would you use? How would you encourage others to write accounts that harmonised with yours?

Just the first chapter of the Gospel according to F1fan would be nice to see!

 

[Redemptionsong]

Which version, the Catholic version? The Presbyterian version? the Lutheran version? the Pentacost version? The Baptist version? I remember my Baptist cousins saying that dancing was a sin, while my Catholic cousins danced all they wanted. So whatever "law" you're referring to no doubt only applies too whomever says that law is valid. Your idea of religious laws are not applicable to me since you can't demonstrate any actual authority over me, despite your efforts.


See how difficult it is for you to not attempt to bully people with your religious dogma? Imagine if you had power and was above the law, what would stop you from imprisoning people like me, or torture, or execution? You believe your religious beliefs have authority over me, but they simply don't because I have the freedom in the modern world to choose. And you don't like this.

This tells us more about you and your toxic faith than it doesn't about me.


Irrelevant.

I don't wish to have authority over you in any way! I'm arguing the case for Christ because I believe that people benefit from knowing the Lord. If you wish to pursue a path that rejects Jesus as Christ that is your prerogative. What I find is that many people do not actually understand the Gospel because they have been badly taught, or have not taken the trouble to study the scriptures carefully.

From what you have written in the previous post, it strikes me that you do not understand the Gospel at all!

How would you summarise the Gospel message?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The point I'm making is that it's not an 'obvious simple fact'!

It is. It really is that simple.

A lie is not the truth

Neither is a mistake, a misunderstanding or ignorance.
None of which are the same as lies.

It's quite possible to believe a lie

To believe a lie that someone else told you.
If you say something and really believe it, then you aren't lying. Then you are being truthful. Your statement might be incorrect or wrong. But a "lie" it is not.

You may not think you're lying

That makes no sense.
Again, a LIE is when you say something that you know ain't true.

So if you don't think you're lying, then you're not lying.

Being wrong is not the same as lying.

In a flash, you realise that you've been spreading lies!

No. That you've been spreading falsehoods or mistakes.
Lies... no.

Now, if someone corrects your mistake and you realize it and continue to double down on the stuff you now know ain't true: then you're lying (from that moment on!)

John, inspired by God, is telling us that we're liars if we deny that Jesus is the Christ

And he's obviously wrong about that, if among those "deniers" you are also include people that genuinely don't believe in Christian claims.

You say that you are ignorant, in which case you should not continue to deny that Jesus is the Christ.

1. I did not say that I am ignorant.

2. being ignorant about X, is not a good reason to believe X is true. That would be irrational. Being ignorant of X, is rather a good reason to withhold judgement until that ignorance turns into knowledge and then you can properly and rationally evaluate the claim. Before that, you have no reason to believe.

For example: do you believe that the creature gooblydockboobie exists?
After all, you are ignorant about that creature, so according to your logic, you should continue to deny this creature...............................

It's better to withhold judgment than to deny that Jesus is not the Christ

What's the practical difference?
There is none.
In both cases, you answer "no" to the question "do you believe".

It's what my atheism is all about. And I'm confident in saying that that is the case for the vast majority of atheists.

Most sensible people will remain silent until they've investigated the issue properly.

So how much investigation did you do into bigfoot, alien abduction, tarrot readings, crystal healings, homeopathy, scientology, hinduism, viking gods, roman gods,.............................

There an innumerable amount of things you don't believe, and for which you did not spend a second of energy to "properly investigate the issue". Because you saw no reason to do so. To "investigate" all claims you don't believe in like that, you will require multiple lifetimes.

Your religion, to me, is no different.

I have absolutely no reason to spend years of my life studying this religion.
I have no reason to investigate bare claims without evidence.
There's nothing there that makes me think "maybe there's something to this...."

And that works both ways... for example, I haven't spend a second of my life studying and investigating Einstein's field equations for his theories. But I have no doubt that time is relative. GPS wouldn't work if it weren't the case. I don't need to study and understand all the details. The results are there for all to see.

And the world is full of such examples.
Take nuclear energy hidden in atoms. Or atoms themselves for that matter.
I know atomic theory is pretty accurate, even though I didn't study that at all.
Why? Nukes explode.

If you insist on claiming that Jesus is not the Christ, you make yourself a liar in the words of John, who claimed his words were inspired by God.

I claim my words are inspired by gooblydockboobie.

Would you say that you are a liar if you deny this?


Now, having said all that......................
The main point remains unaddressed, as none of this matters to that.

A lie: when you say something you KNOW ain't true.
When I deny "jesus as christ", I'm not lying if I really believe that.



Here, read a dictionary:

noun
a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth.

verb (used without object), lied, ly·ing.
to speak falsely or utter untruth knowingly, as with intent to deceive.

 

[Redemptionsong]

I already have. I told you specifically. I guess you didn't read it. You haven't acknowledge seeing it, but you have suggested that you haven't. I even just linked you back to it. Did you not look at that, either?

Limited understanding? I assume you mean relative to somebody who believe by faith. If it can't be understood empirically, it can't be understood. If it can't be demonstrated to be actual understanding, then it does not deserve to be called that.

I can't tell you how many times spiritualists and religionists have made this claim about seeing further with their non-empirical methods, deriding the empiricist for being myopic, implying that he is missing out on something of value. But ask any of these people what that is - what they have gleaned by this extended way of knowing - and you get nothing. I know what that kind of thinking leads to, and there is no value there except possibly psychological for those who are uneasy without a god belief, who might take comfort in believing that God is watching over them or that they are immortal.

How about you break that streak and explain what your less limited understanding has revealed to you and how you think that will help the strict empiricist.



I've know that promise, and it was not kept in my case - my principal reason for recognizing that the religion was false.

Once again, I invite you to share what you are calling wisdom and why you think it deserves to be called that. As I just indicated, I used to be a Christian, and faith allowed me to do something very unwise. Wisdom includes abandoning unjustified belief.



No. I believe in prophecy, just not biblical prophecy or astrology or Nostradamus type of prophecy. And I believe it because evidence compellingly demonstrated that those prophecies were correct. I am talking about scientific prophecy.

You're track record for predicting and explaining humanists is 0 for however many times you've tried. Would that matter to you if it is correct?



Regarding biblical prophecy, when an entity with knowledge of the future wants to make a convincing prediction, it'll need to be as good as the one made in the movie "Frequency, " when Dennis Quaid's character's son, who is communicating to his father by ham radio from his father future, wants to convince his father that it is really his son speaking to him in 1969 from the year 1998. To do this, the son tells his father the outcome of game five of the 1969 World Series while the father is watching it live in a bar : "Well, game five was the big one. It turned in the bottom of the 6th. We were down 3-0. Cleon Jones gets hit on the foot - left a scuffmark on the ball. Clendenon comes up. The count goes to 2 and 2. High fastball. He nailed it. Weis slammed a solo shot in the 7th to tie. Jones and Swoboda scored in the 8th. We won, Pop."

What this and scientific prophecy have but biblical prophecy lacks is specificity and the prediction of something unlikely. That's why I don't accept biblical prophecy as indicative of unexpected knowledge of the future or evidence of a deity.

I disagree with your comments about biblical prophecy. Unlike scientific predictions, which are based on observations and trends, biblical prophecy, particularly regarding the coming Messiah, is very detailed and impossible to predict.

The prophecies I've listed below refer only to the 'first' coming. Some of these prophecies are so detailed that they involve the actual words used by the Messiah, and by his detractors.

Prophecies of the Suffering Servant
1. Genesis 3:15 > Galatians 4:4; 1 John 3:8. The seed of the woman.
2. Genesis 12:3 > Matthew 1:1; Acts 3:25; 18:18; 22:18; Galatians 3:16. The seed of Abraham.
3. Genesis 17:19; 21:12 > Matthew 1:2; Luke 3:34; Hebrews 11:17-19. The seed of Isaac.
4. Genesis 28:14; Numbers 24:17,19 > Matthew 1:2; Luke 3:34; Revelation 22:16. The star out of Jacob who will have dominion.
5. Genesis 49:10 > Matthew 1:2-3; Luke 3:33; Hebrews 7:14. A descendant of Judah.
6. 2 Samuel 7:12-13; Isaiah 9:6 (7); Jeremiah 23:5 > Matthew 1:1,6; Acts 11:23; Romans 1:4. A descendant of David and heir to his throne.
7. Micah 5:1 (2) > John 11, 14; 8:58; Ephesians 1:3-14; Colossians1:15-19; Revelation 5:11. The Messiah’s eternal existence.
8. Psalm 2:7; Proverbs 30:4 > Matthew 3:17; Luke 1:32. The Messiah is the Son of God.
9. Isaiah 9:5-6 (6-7); Jeremiah 23:5-6 > Romans 10:9; Philippians 2:9-11. The Messiah bears God’s own name.
10. Daniel 9:24-26 > Matthew 2:1, 16,19; Luke 3:1,23. Coming 483 years after the rebuilding of the wall in Jerusalem.
11. Micah 5:1(2) > Matthew 2:1; Luke 2:4-7. Messiah will be born in Bethlehem, Judea.
13. Psalm 72:10-11 > Matthew 2:1-11. Adored by great persons.
14. Isaiah 40: 3-5; Malachi 3:1 > Matthew 3:1-3; Luke 1:17; 3:2-6. Announced by prophet.
15. Isaiah 11:2; 61:1; Psalm 45:8 (7) > Matthew 3:16; John 3:34; Acts 10:38. Anointed with the Spirit of God.
16. Deuteronomy 18:15,18 > Acts 3:20-22. A prophet like Moses.
17. Isaiah 61:1-2 > Luke 4:18-19. Proclaims liberty and the acceptable year of the Lord.
18. Isaiah 35:5-6; 42:18 > Matthew 11:5 and throughout the Gospels. Ministry of healing.
19. Isaiah 8:23 – 9:1 (9:1-2) > Matthew 4:12-16. A ministry in Galilee.
20. Isaiah 40:11; 42:3 > Matthew 12:15,20; Hebrews 4:15. Be tender and compassionate.
21. Isaiah 42:2 > Matthew 12:15-16,19. Be meek and unostentatious.
22. Isaiah 53:9 > 1 Peter 2:22. Be sinless and without guile.
23. Isaiah 53:12; Psalm 69:10 > Romans 15:13. Bear the reproaches due to others.
24. Psalm 110:4 > Hebrews 5:5-6. Be a priest.
25. Zechariah 9:9 > Matthew 21:1-11; Mark 11:1-11. Enter Jerusalem on the foal of an ***.
26. Haggai 2:7-9; Malachi 3:1 > Matthew 21:12-24; Luke 2:27-38, 45-50: John 2:13-22. Enter the Temple with authority.
27. Isaiah 49:7; Psalm 69:5 (4) > John 7:48; 15:24-25. Be hated without cause.
28. Isaiah 53:2; 63:3; Psalm 69:9 (8) > Mark 6:3: Luke 9:58; John1:11, 7:3-5. Rejected by his own people.
29. Psalm 118:22 > Matthew 21:42; John 7:48. Rejected by the Jewish leadership.
30. Psalm 2:1-2 > Acts 4:27. Plotted against by both Jews and Gentiles.
31. Psalm 41:9; 55:13-15 (12-14) >Matthew 26:21-25, 47-50; John 13:18-21; Acts 1:16-18. Betrayed by a friend.
32. Zechariah 11:12 > Matthew 26:15. Sold for 30 pieces of silver.
33. Zechariah 11:13 > Matthew 27:7. Have his price given for a potter’s field.
34. Zechariah 13:7 > Matthew 26:31,56. Forsaken by his disciples.
35. Micah 4:14 (5:1) > Matthew 27:30. Struck on the cheek.
36. Isaiah 50:6 > Matthew 26:67; 27:30. Spat on.
37. Psalm 22:8-9 (7-8) > Matthew 27:31, 39-44, 67-68. Mocked.
38. Isaiah 50:6 > Matthew 26:67; 27:26,30. Beaten.
39. Psalm 22:17; Zechariah 12:10 (16) > Matthew 27:35; Luke 24:39; John 19:18, 34-37; 20:35; Revelation 1:7. Crucifixion.
40. Psalm 22:16 (15) > John 19:28. Thirsty during crucifixion.
41. Psalm 69:22 (21) > Matthew 27:34. Given vinegar to quench thirst.
42. Exodus 12:46; Psalm 34:21 (20) >John 19:33-36. Executed without a bone broken.
43. Isaiah 53:12 > Matthew 27:38. Considered a transgressor.
44. Daniel 9:24-26 > Matthew 2:1; Luke 3:1,23. ‘Cut off, but not for himself’.
45. Isaiah 53:5-7, 12 > Mark 10:45; John 1:29; 3:16; Acts 8:30-35. Atone for the sins of mankind.
46. Isaiah 53:9 > Matthew 27:57-60. Buried with the rich when dead.
47. Isaiah 53:9-10; Psalm 2:7; 16:10 > Matthew 28:1-20; Acts 2:23-36; 13:33-37; 1 Corinthians 11:4-6. Raised from the dead.
48. Psalm 16:11; 68:19 (18); 110:1 > Luke 24:51; Acts 1:9-11; 7:55; Hebrews 1:3. Ascend to the right hand of God.
49. Zechariah 6:13 > Romans 8:34; Hebrews 7:25-8:2. Exercise his priestly office in heaven.
50. Isaiah 28:16; Psalm 118:22-23 > Matthew 21:42; Ephesians 2:20; 1 Peter 2:5-7. The cornerstone of God’s spiritual temple.
51. Isaiah 11:10; 42:1 > Acts 10:45. Sought after by Gentiles as well as Jews.
52. Isaiah 11:10; 42:1-4; 49:1-2 > Matthew 12:21; Romans 15:10. Accepted by the Gentiles.

 

[Redemptionsong]

Again, a LIE is when you say something that you know ain't true.

John is talking about people who deny that Jesus is Christ. There's not a lot of room for ignorance here. If you don't know whether Jesus is the Christ, you keep silent until you know better. If you deny that Jesus is the Christ, you have clearly made up your mind. This, in the eyes of God, is siding against the truth. Everyone that sides against the truth becomes a liar.

Romans 3: 3,4. 'For what if some did not believe? shall their unbelief make the faith of God without effect?
God forbid: yea, let God be true, and every man a liar;'

 

[sayak83]

And do you believe that you are good?

yes.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

John is talking about people who deny that Jesus is Christ.

And if those people truly believe that "jesus is not christ", then they aren't lying.

What part of this do you find so difficult to understand?

If you don't know whether Jesus is the Christ, you keep silent until you know better.

We're not talking about me. We're talking about anyone who makes a claim while believing said claim for whatever reason.

If they truly believe it, they aren't lying. By definition.
Regardless of being wrong or accurate.

Everyone that sides against the truth becomes a liar.

Again, that is demonstrably false.

Again, pick up a dictionary.

 

[Redemptionsong]

yes.

Well, this is in direct contradiction to what Jesus teaches his disciples. Jesus said, 'there is none good but one, that is, God'. If only God is good, it means that all men are sinners!

Galatians 3:22. 'But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe'.

 

[Redemptionsong]

And if those people truly believe that "jesus is not christ", then they aren't lying.

What part of this do you find so difficult to understand?

As it says in Romans, even if the whole world were to deny God and not believe in Christ, the truth would still reside in God. What you do not seem to understand is that a sinner is a liar!

Are you a sinner?

 

[blü 2]

The anointing of David, which pictures the anointing of Jesus, was carried out by the prophet Samuel, as recorded in 1 Samuel 16:13: 'Then Samuel took the horn of oil, and anointed him in the midst of his brethren: and the Spirit of the LORD came upon David from that day forward.'

It's worth noting that the anointing of David preceded his accession to the thrones of both Judah and Israel. Likewise, Jesus was anointed before being granted a kingdom [see Daniel 7:13,14].

That was David.

But to be a Jewish messiah, there must be an anointing by the Jewish priesthood.

Because the messiah is a civil, military or religious leader of the Jewish people.

Who will (in the 1st century CE) restore their political autonomy.

Jesus is none of those things. Instead he's the instigator of a sect that will pursue rapacious and often murderous antisemitism against God's chosen people across two thousand years and counting.

What kind of Jewish messiah is that? None.

 

[blü 2]

Well, this is in direct contradiction to what Jesus teaches his disciples. Jesus said, 'there is none good but one, that is, God'. If only God is good, it means that all men are sinners!

Galatians 3:22. 'But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe'.

The bible is ambiguous as to whether sin is inheritable or not. Some of God's curses work through to the third generation, but on the other hand Ezekiel 18 (the whole chapter) states plainly that sin is NOT inheritable eg

Ezekiel 18:20 The soul that sins shall die. The son shall not suffer for the iniquity of the father, nor the father suffer for the iniquity of the son; the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself.
​

That's to say, righteous people exist in the world.

The idea of the Fall of Man, which Paul occasionally echoes, is first found among the Jews of Alexandria late in the second century BCE, as part of the midrash idea. If you've read the first three chapters of Genesis then you'll know that the Garden story in fact never mentions sin, original sin, the Fall of Man, death entering the world, spiritual death, the need for a redeemer or any of that baggage. God clearly states [his] reasons for throwing Adam and Eve out of the Garden, at Genesis 3:22-23, and they're his ONLY reasons.

Unfortunately for Christianity, Augustine of Hippo around 500 CE picked up Paul's mention of the Fall notion and ran with it. No doubt it was good for sales to proceed with the message, YOU are DOOMED and only I can save you! ─ which is how you sell snakeoil, as you know.