Can a person not believe in the God of Abraham and be a Christian?

[InChrist]

No. At the time each of Adam and Eve at the fruit, as the story makes clear, God had denied them knowledge of good and evil. Therefore each at that time was unable to form an intention to do wrong, hence incapable of sin.
No [he] wouldn't ─ the text says nothing of the kind. As I said, Genesis 3:22-23 is where God unambiguously states [his] only reasons for expelling them.

I wish Christians would stop inventing additions to the story to make it comply with Paul's take on it. Nothing in the Tanakh supports Paul, nothing else in the NT supports Paul, and according to my reading, the notion of the Fall was invented in Alexandria around 120 CE by Jewish practitioners of midrash.

And the Garden of Eden is only a folktale anyway.

I think as with anything subject while reading the scriptures, they must be read in context, rather than coming to a conclusion based on one verse. The context is that God gave one command to A&E and stated the consequences if they disobeyed. The serpent lied and twisted the words of God. I don’t see how you can deny the Fall or say it was invented later when it is clearly shown to have occurred in the garden of Eden.
If you think it’s a myth, then why bother discussing it the way you are doing?

 

[blü 2]

I think as with anything subject while reading the scriptures, they must be read in context, rather than coming to a conclusion based on one verse. The context is that God gave one command to A&E and stated the consequences if they disobeyed. The serpent lied and twisted the words of God. I don’t see how you can deny the Fall or say it was invented later when it is clearly shown to have occurred in the garden of Eden.
If you think it’s a myth, then why bother discussing it the way you are doing?

I've already quoted you the lie that God told.

Quote me the lie you say the snake told.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

I think as with anything subject while reading the scriptures, they must be read in context,

I think he completely understands the context. He is correct: without the ability to form intention to do wrong, they cannot be said to have sinned. If a three year old doesn't understand that grabbing a toy from another child is wrong, then they have not sinned.

If you think it’s a myth, then why bother discussing it the way you are doing?

It is not uncommon for people to discuss things from within the point of view of a work of fiction, including the ethics of its characters.

 

[InChrist]

I've already quoted you the lie that God told.

Quote me the lie you say the snake told.

God did not lie.
When A&E disobeyed they did die:
-first, spiritually when their relationship with their Creator God was broken.
-secondly, when they later died physically themselves, as well as bringing death upon all life on this planet.

The serpent did lie…

Then the serpent said to the woman, “You will not surely die. For God knows that in the day you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”
Genesis 3:4-5

Adam and Eve could never and did not become “like God” in their understanding of good and evil or like God in any way. Instead, they became sinners, falling short of God’s glory, goodness, and perfection.

 

[InChrist]

I think he completely understands the context. He is correct: without the ability to form intention to do wrong, they cannot be said to have sinned. If a three year old doesn't understand that grabbing a toy from another child is wrong, then they have not sinned.

I don’t think the analogy of a three year old is applicable for Adam and Eve. I believe God created intelligent beings. Plus, God was in relationship with them; interacting and communicating. So from what I see in the account is the choice was made to disbelieve disobey God with full understanding, choosing to believe the serpent instead…


“It is vital to know the context of God’s statement. God had already told Adam not to eat from this tree. Adam was already aware that doing so was wrong, and he knew the consequences, yet he chose to join Eve in eating the fruit. When they ate, they were not simply aware of evil; they experienced evil, to the extent that they became evil—sinners by nature.

Man knew what was good: he was created in goodness and was surrounded by it (Genesis 1:31). He had been given everything God wanted him to have, including authority over all the rest of God’s creation. Adam had everything he needed for a fulfilling life. He did not need to “know” evil, especially when the only way for him to “know” it was to experienceit. It should have been enough that God had warned Adam against disobedience. God did not want Adam and Eve to “know” evil in the sense of participating in it. The sin of Adam and Eve was not in attaining knowledge but in rejecting God’s will in favor of their own.”

Why was it wrong for Adam and Eve to know good and evil (Genesis 3:22)? | GotQuestions.org

Why was it wrong for Adam and Eve to know good and evil (Genesis 3:22)? Why did God not want Adam and Eve to understand the difference between good and evil?

www.gotquestions.org

 

[IndigoChild5559]

I don’t think the analogy of a three year old is applicable for Adam and Eve.

Because the story of A&E begins with them NOT having the knowledge of good and evil, they very much ARE on the level of a small child or animal.

 

[InChrist]

Because the story of A&E begins with them NOT having the knowledge of good and evil, they very much ARE on the level of a small child or animal.

I don’t necessarily think they didn’t know anything about the concept of evil, rather they didn’t have experiential knowledge of evil.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

I don’t necessarily think they didn’t know anything about the concept of evil, rather they didn’t have experiential knowledge of evil.

Then you are not reading the story carefully. It very clearly says that it was when they ate of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil that they became aware of right and wrong.

Genesis 3:22 And the LORD God said, “The man has NOW become like one of us, knowing good and evil.

"Now "meaning they didn't know it before.

 

[paarsurrey]

Can a person not believe in the God of Abraham and be a Christian?

Aren't all the Pauline-Hellenist-Christians of 45000+ denominations (including JWs and LDS aka Mormons) already praying and worshipping other than the G-d of Abraham, Jacob-Israel and Moses, please, right?

Any of the Pauline-Christians to kindly mention the denomination he belongs to and to prove that they exactly pray to G-d and worship Him as did Abraham, please, right?
anybody, please

Regards

 

[Muffled]

Sorry, but if you think the Old Testament isn't part of Christian canon, you need to go back to Religion 101.

Trinitarianism wasn't even a Christian dogma until the 4th century. It is mainstream dogma NOW. But go back to the 2nd century, and the vast majority of Christians were Modalists.

I believe modalism is trinitarianism.

 

[Muffled]

That's my point: Trinitarianism the most mainstream Christian belief despute it being incompatible with a big chunk of the Christian canon.

Trinitarian Christians don't care about whether their beliefs are consistent with their scripture; why should non-theist Christians care?

I believe trinitarianism is consistent with the whole Bible and the Qu'ran.

 

[Muffled]

It’s true that Christian theology was connected to Old Testament Judaism but Jesus expressly warned against it.

“1“No one sews a patch of unshrunk cloth on an old garment. Otherwise, the new piece will pull away from the old, making the tear worse. 22And no one pours new wine into old wineskins. Otherwise, the wine will burst the skins, and both the wine and the wineskins will be ruined. No, they pour new wine into new wineskins.

With the Gospel of Jesus we were to start over fresh, but his Jewish followers attempted to create a seamless transition.

I believe it fits in cases like don't eat this or that and Jesus says you can eat anything. You can't have it both ways.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I believe modalism is trinitarianism.

Modalism: God is one person expressing themselves in 3 different ways.

Trinitarianism: God is 3 distinct people.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

I believe modalism is trinitarianism.

You would be wrong. They are quite different. The only thing they really have in common is the belief that Jesus is God.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

You can type a text saying so. But it has no legitimacy. It is just bashing Trinitarians.

Not Trinitarians specifically. My point is more that because the Bible is so internally contradictory, it would be impossible for anyone to be fully consistent with it.

Meanwhile, pretty much any belief can be consistent with parts of the Bible, so a Christian who thinks that, say, God is a metaphor and not literally real is as consistent with the Bible as a Christian can be.

Look, remember that I'm opposed to Trinitarianism. In my view, God is NEVER that man, or that rock, or that tree. But I would never say something as ridiculous as Trinitarians don't' care what the Bible says.

But they don't. They can't. For a Christian to adopt any theological position, they'll have to cherry-pick the verses that support their position and ignore the ones that contradict it.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Not Trinitarians specifically. My point is more that because the Bible is so internally contradictory, it would be impossible for anyone to be fully consistent with it.

I completely agree with this. But your remark said that Trinitarians didn't make the effort to conform their beliefs to the Bible, and that is not accurate. They are ALL ABOUT trying to conform their beliefs to the Bible. Do I think they succeed? No. But that doesn't mean they don't try, or that they don't perceive their beliefs as conforming to the Bible. Do you see the difference?

Meanwhile, pretty much any belief can be consistent with parts of the Bible, so a Christian who thinks that, say, God is a metaphor and not literally real is as consistent with the Bible as a Christian can be.

Erm, no, that would be a clear misunderstanding of what the Bible teaches. There really isn't a PART of the Bible that teaches God is a metaphor. A person can believe that, but they cannot say its a teaching from the Bible.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I completely agree with this. But your remark said that Trinitarians didn't make the effort to conform their beliefs to the Bible, and that is not accurate. They are ALL ABOUT trying to conform their beliefs to the Bible.

... to a point but no further, though, which is the equivalent of not conforming at all.

Do I think they succeed? No. But that doesn't mean they don't try, or that they don't perceive their beliefs as conforming to the Bible. Do you see the difference?

Weren't you the one who started a thread about all the times the Bible says "God is not a man"? How hard do you think Trinitarians are trying to conform with that?

Erm, no, that would be a clear misunderstanding of what the Bible teaches. There really isn't a PART of the Bible that teaches God is a metaphor. A person can believe that, but they cannot say its a teaching from the Bible.

Not familiar with 1 John 4:7-8? It's a pretty famous passage.

Bible Gateway passage: 1 John 4:7-8 - New English Translation

God is Love - Dear friends, let us love one another, because love is from God, and everyone who loves has been fathered by God and knows God. The person who does not love does not know God, because God is love.

www.biblegateway.com

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Weren't you the one who started a thread about all the times the Bible says "God is not a man"? How hard do you think Trinitarians are trying to conform with that?

Yeap I sure did. As we have both agreed, if you take the Tanakh and New Testament together, there is conflict over the nature of God. The point of my thread was to draw the attention of Christians to this conflict.

But I never assumed that Christians weren't TRYING to base their beliefs on the Bible.

 

[icant]

I believe it fits in cases like don't eat this or that and Jesus says you can eat anything. You can't have it both ways.

Why can't you have it both ways?

One is under the law. Do not eat is a command of the Law.

Jesus statement is under grace He fulfilled the Law nailing it to the tree in His sacrifice. So, the law was taken out of the way.
The old Testament is all about the Law of God.
The New Testament is all about the Grace of God.

Enjoy,

 

[icant]

Any of the Pauline-Christians to kindly mention the denomination he belongs to and to prove that they exactly pray to G-d and worship Him as did Abraham, please, right?

The word Christian means a follower of Christ. If a person is not following the teachings of Jesus he/she/it is not a christian regardless of what religion or so-called christian group they fellowship with.

Judas that betrayed Jesus is a prime example.,


Enjoy,