Why did God tempt Adam and Eve?

[Faithofchristian]

What church do you attend and believe in their doctrine.

I do not belong to any church.

 

[DavidFirth]

It was neither of the above. It was all the hundreds if not thousands of generations of humanity since that suffered from the 'inherited guilt' of Adam and Eve.

Satan (the Devil?) will get over the bruise on the head.

 

[Kenny]

Not good enough,

I'm just thankful that you aren't the determinant of what is "good enough". Jesus said "It is finished" and that's good enough.

the suffering, death, and pain still exist as described in Genesis,

Never said it didn't exist as we look according to our senses and not by the spirit. The term for "death" is plual in Genesis. It was spiriual death first... physical came hundreds of years later. Like the fig tree that was cursed, the roots died instantly but the fruit of it wasn't manifested to the naked eye until later.

The land is still cursed until the physical manifests itself with a new earth. But it has already been fnished spiriutally and we just are awaiting the manifestation in the phycsical.

Even in the doctrine of the Roman Church the 'Fall' is not totally resolved. I have cited both the Roman Church and Protestant beliefs that NO, Jesus Christ did not resolve the problem, except some consideration for absolving Original Sin in the individual.

Again, Jesus did resolve the problem as scripturally He presents us faultless and with joy before the Father. So I don't agree with you (scripturally). If people present persoal opinions (as has done the Roman Church before) and it is contrary to scripture, it is the interpretation that is wrong and not scripture.

Pretty much all the churches and for this discussion they clearly distinguish between the 'Sins' of Adam and Eve from the sins committed by humans after the 'Fall.' Please stop the obfuscation conflating the two types of sin in this discussion.

Because both create death, you can't "obfuscate" the two. So I disagree with your point.

Again and again. the first and the biggy is the sins of two humans is the cause of the 'inherited guilt,' pain, suffering and death for thousands of years if not longer before the advent of Jesus Christ, and NO Jesus Christ did not totally resolve the suffering, pain and death of the original sin

There is no "Inherited guilt" and since Isaiah 53 very clearly resolved the issue being made a curse for us to redeem us from the curse, I will VEHEMENTLY disagree with your religous interpretation.

 

[Kenny]

Believers like @KenS and @Faithofchristian hedge on the doctrine and belief of the traditional churches and describe their own view. and alternate interpretation..

I prefer to see it as you pesenting a different gospel.

 

[DavidFirth]

This dragon guy is so prideful he thinks he is wiser than God. He knows all about the beginning, he must have been there telling God what to do.

 

[shunyadragon]

I prefer to see it as you pesenting a different gospel.

The references I presented are how the gospel is understood by the Church Fathers, Roman Church Doctrine, and Protestant Reformers believe concerning Adam and Eve, 'inherited guilt,' 'Original Sin' and the Fall. Further references can be given to demonstrate how today's traditional Protestant Churches consider this.

 

[shunyadragon]

This dragon guy is so prideful he thinks he is wiser than God. He knows all about the beginning, he must have been there telling God what to do.

Air Ball, again and again this is not a coherent response with references. It is the fallacy Argumentum ad Hominem, a personal attack without addressing the subject of the thread.
No it is not how I believe nor 'know' anything. It is based on the references I provided for the Church Fathers, the Roman Church Doctrine, and the Protestant Reformers.

 

[shunyadragon]

I'm just thankful that you aren't the determinant of what is "good enough". Jesus said "It is finished" and that's good enough.


Never said it didn't exist as we look according to our senses and not by the spirit. The term for "death" is plual in Genesis. It was spiriual death first... physical came hundreds of years later. Like the fig tree that was cursed, the roots died instantly but the fruit of it wasn't manifested to the naked eye until later.

The land is still cursed until the physical manifests itself with a new earth. But it has already been fnished spiriutally and we just are awaiting the manifestation in the phycsical.


Again, Jesus did resolve the problem as scripturally He presents us faultless and with joy before the Father. So I don't agree with you (scripturally). If people present persoal opinions (as has done the Roman Church before) and it is contrary to scripture, it is the interpretation that is wrong and not scripture.


Because both create death, you can't "obfuscate" the two. So I disagree with your point.


There is no "Inherited guilt" and since Isaiah 53 very clearly resolved the issue being made a curse for us to redeem us from the curse, I will VEHEMENTLY disagree with your religous interpretation.

VEHEMENTLY disagree with the interpretation as much as you wish to no avail, because it is not based on my interpretation, but that of the references I provided.

My interpretation of Genesis, the myth of Adam and Eve is entirely different..

 

[shunyadragon]

My interpretation of Genesis and the story of Adam and Eve are as follows.

(1) Genesis was not written nor compiled by Moses. It was compiled and edited by unknown authors after ~600 BCE from Babylonian, Canaanite/Ugarit sources, Hebrew oral traditions,

(2) The myth was twisted to justify the rational for an imperfect Creation, the violent natural world, and sinful nature of humans with the myth of 'Original Sin' and the 'Fall.'

(3) God did not tempt Adam and Eve, because the story is a myth, and factually did not happen as described in Genesis.

(4) The problems I see in the myth are that two fallible human beings are blamed through inherited guilt, 'Original Sin' and the 'Fall' for all suffering, pain and death of all the generations of humanity since Adam and Eve.

(5) God is ultimately responsible in the myth, because God Created Adam and Eve with all the attributes of Creation and the fallible nature of humanity with the full knowledge of the possible outcomes if not the final outcome itself.

 

[DavidFirth]

Air Ball, again and again this is not a coherent response with references. It is the fallacy Argumentum ad Hominem, a personal attack without addressing the subject of the thread.
No it is not how I believe nor 'know' anything. It is based on the references I provided for the Church Fathers, the Roman Church Doctrine, and the Protestant Reformers.

Regardless, I think it says what you're doing rather well.

 

[shunyadragon]

Regardless, I think it says what you're doing rather well.

Again, not a coherent meaningful response.

Your shooting blanks!

 

[Kenny]

The references I presented are how the gospel is understood by the Church Fathers, Roman Church Doctrine, and Protestant Reformers believe concerning Adam and Eve, 'inherited guilt,' 'Original Sin' and the Fall. Further references can be given to demonstrate how today's traditional Protestant Churches consider this.

I prefer the grandfathers... you know, Paul, Peter, John et al

 

[shunyadragon]

I prefer the grandfathers... you know, Paul, Peter, John et al

No problem, I believe the Church Fathers, Roman Church Doctrine, and Protestant Reformers are in line with Paul's belief.

Romans 5:12-21English Standard Version (ESV)
Death in Adam, Life in Christ

12 Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men[a] because all sinned—13 for sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law. 14 Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come.

15 But the free gift is not like the trespass. For if many died through one man's trespass, much more have the grace of God and the free gift by the grace of that one man Jesus Christ abounded for many. 16 And the free gift is not like the result of that one man's sin. For the judgment following one trespass brought condemnation, but the free gift following many trespasses brought justification. 17 For if, because of one man's trespass, death reigned through that one man, much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man Jesus Christ.

18 Therefore, as one trespass[b] led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness[c] leads to justification and life for all men. 19 For as by the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man's obedience the many will be made righteous. 20 Now the law came in to increase the trespass, but where sin increased, grace abounded all the more, 21 so that, as sin reigned in death, grace also might reign through righteousness leading to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Why??!?, because of the problem of blaming the fault of two fallible human beings (inherited guilt) with suffering, wars, sin, violence and death for all humanity in all of history,

All we need do is switch the word imperfect for fallible. Then we understand. Imperfect people cannot be in a utopia, necessitating Christ to die to keep Adam and Eve in a/the Garden, let alone a Heavenly Kingdom that is far superior to some garden!

Where you are mistaken in how you get that we are to blame Adam and Eve for wars and etc. now. The Bible disagrees with you (Romans 5, for example) and so does logic. You and I are responsible for suffering now. Adam and Eve are no more responsible for your sin that my great-grandfather is!

 

[Thief]

is it not written somewhere?........God does not tempt Man

 

[BilliardsBall]

Depends on which creation 'model' you choose, that God demanded vindication, with Jesus, an after thought created to be the scapegoat to pay the ransom to buy back our salvation or that God desired solidarity with man and 'pitched his tent'. I think we need to keep the creation stories within the context of time, place and purpose.

The Bible states Christ was to be crucified before the foundations of the world.

 

[metis]

Your description of these beliefs being interpreted as "allegory" or interpreted symbolically are common among individuals, but unfortunately the doctrines of the traditional churches are written in stone and will not change.

Sometimes the church does change, albeit v-e-r-y s-l-o-w-l-y, but also some items sorta get de-emphasized. An example would be the church's views on the evolution of life.

As an example, yesterday I was at mass at my wife's church that we've been going to for over 40 years, and the homily dealt with suffering. At no point did the priest say anything about "original sin", instead saying that bad things happen because of natural events, people doing bad things, or people making poor decisions. He said it is wrong to blame God when bad things happen, and he did not make any reference whatsoever to Adam & Eve and "the Fall".

Now, grant that this is just one homily, but over all the years attending my wife's church, I'm having a hard time recollecting whether I ever heard the issue of "original sin" being stated directly or implied. And I taught the RCIA program for 14 years but never made a single reference to it.

 

[metis]

If people present persoal opinions (as has done the Roman Church before) and it is contrary to scripture, it is the interpretation that is wrong and not scripture.

Could you elaborate on that?

My interpretation of Genesis, the myth of Adam and Eve is entirely different..

And we should respect differences of opinions, imo. There's a saying that goes "If two people completely agree, then only one of them is doing the thinking".

I believe the Church Fathers, Roman Church Doctrine, and Protestant Reformers are in line with Paul's belief.

Which is why I don't expect the teaching to be changed but more de-emphasized.

Also, how we may view someone like Paul comes into play, especially as it relates to how we may view scripture in general, and those that are more literalistic will undoubtedly feel that Paul was spot-on, whereas others with less of a literalistic approach, will possibly take the position that this was Paul's view but not go 100% with him. Since Paul used so much symbolism and dualism in his writings, it may be a mistake to take everything he wrote literally.

 

[DavidFirth]

Again, not a coherent meaningful response.

Your shooting blanks!

Oh, it's meaningful all right. Just not to you since you have dulled your ears of criticism from mere non-doctorate level Christians.

 

[Kenny]

I know... you might

VEHEMENTLY disagree with the interpretation as much as you wish to no avail, because it is not based on my interpretation, but that of the references I provided.

My interpretation of Genesis, the myth of Adam and Eve is entirely different..

But it IS an interpretation... and that is why I disagree.