What Changed?
- Thread starter BillyBob
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Clearly, the redeemed were walking in sin and conducting themselves in the lust of the flesh, that is, doing sin, when they were called "dead in trespasses and sins." There is no indication in those verses that they were born or conceived "dead in trespasses and sins".
Romans 9 makes it clear that children in the womb have not yet done nothing good or bad.
I was conceived in a hotel room and born in a hospital does not mean I had a hotel room in me at conception and a hospital in me at birth. You are stretching beyond the usual use of language to read original sin and total depravity into the Bible when it simply is not there.
Romans 9 makes it clear that children in the womb have not yet done nothing good or bad.
I was conceived in a hotel room and born in a hospital does not mean I had a hotel room in me at conception and a hospital in me at birth. You are stretching beyond the usual use of language to read original sin and total depravity into the Bible when it simply is not there.
Romans 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon (eis: to) all men, for that all have sinned: (eph'On pantes hEmarton: upon which all [men] sinned.)
13 (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.
Eph'On means "upon which". I take the referent of this "which" to be "death passed to all men". Upon death passing to all men, all sinned.
How does that work? Well, once men became physically mortal without access to the tree of life, they began to feel the need to give their temporary life significance and meaning. Some did this by developing technologies. Some did this by gaining fame or infamy through building cities and waging war. Some did this by accruing to themselves resources and pleasures. Sin offered shortcuts to attaining these marks of significance and meaning. In this way mortality enslaved carnally-minded people into sinful behaviours. Some like Enoch chose to be spiritually minded in the main, and in the main sought significance and meaning in pleasing God. But most chose sinful shortcuts to carnal-minded goals. Hence, upon death passing to all men, all sinned. This may be why Hebrews 2:14-15 says-
"Forasmuch then as the children re partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same, that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil. And deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage."
So death is ubiquitous. but sin as a consequence of the fear of death comes as a result of an awareness of one's mortality, and sin does not necessarily come to those who have not yet become afraid of death.
13 (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.
Eph'On means "upon which". I take the referent of this "which" to be "death passed to all men". Upon death passing to all men, all sinned.
How does that work? Well, once men became physically mortal without access to the tree of life, they began to feel the need to give their temporary life significance and meaning. Some did this by developing technologies. Some did this by gaining fame or infamy through building cities and waging war. Some did this by accruing to themselves resources and pleasures. Sin offered shortcuts to attaining these marks of significance and meaning. In this way mortality enslaved carnally-minded people into sinful behaviours. Some like Enoch chose to be spiritually minded in the main, and in the main sought significance and meaning in pleasing God. But most chose sinful shortcuts to carnal-minded goals. Hence, upon death passing to all men, all sinned. This may be why Hebrews 2:14-15 says-
"Forasmuch then as the children re partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same, that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil. And deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage."
So death is ubiquitous. but sin as a consequence of the fear of death comes as a result of an awareness of one's mortality, and sin does not necessarily come to those who have not yet become afraid of death.
But again, the vast majority of independent teams of language experts don't see Gen 2:17 that way. Plus you have to explain just when do human beings die spiritually? After all, the bible speaks to spiritual life in this age in terms of "resurrection" and "new birth" language, both of which presume antecedent spiritual death.
I see you are not interested in being even-handed, and are unwilling to think through the implications of the Ex. 18:18 passage having exactly the same Hebrew verbal structure as Gen 2:17. You are unwilling to allow Gen 2 to be understood in a similar sense to Ex 18 despite them having exactly the same verbal structure. So, what is your actual agenda? Are you seeking the truth, or defending what you have presupposed is the truth.
If a kind of death is being unresponsive to a certain class of stimuli, spiritual dying would begin when a person chooses to be unresponsive to the influence of the Spirit. This would be a process like when a deadly deisease takes hold and over time gains increasing control over the body until complete death ensues. During the progress of the disease, the person may resort to influences that counteract the disease, and the dying may reverse to revivifying. Spiritual death likely happens when there is absolutely no responsiveness at all left to the influence of the Spirit.
Resurrection seems to refer to revivifying of the physical body.
The new birth would be receiving a new, pure spirit that is sealed by the Holy Spirit and indwelt by the Father, Son and Spirit. It may be more akin to a heart transplant rather than a resurrection.
If a kind of death is being unresponsive to a certain class of stimuli, spiritual dying would begin when a person chooses to be unresponsive to the influence of the Spirit. This would be a process like when a deadly deisease takes hold and over time gains increasing control over the body until complete death ensues. During the progress of the disease, the person may resort to influences that counteract the disease, and the dying may reverse to revivifying. Spiritual death likely happens when there is absolutely no responsiveness at all left to the influence of the Spirit.
Resurrection seems to refer to revivifying of the physical body.
The new birth would be receiving a new, pure spirit that is sealed by the Holy Spirit and indwelt by the Father, Son and Spirit. It may be more akin to a heart transplant rather than a resurrection.
[QUOTE="PaulThomson, post: 5345352, member: 327121"]Death is when something no longer can do what it is supposed to do when alive/live. .[/QUOTE]
Now, you're catching on. Death = Inability. Conversely, Life = Ability. This is why a person MUST be born again. It's the only spiritual remedy for death's inabilities.
Now, you're catching on. Death = Inability. Conversely, Life = Ability. This is why a person MUST be born again. It's the only spiritual remedy for death's inabilities.
[QUOTE="PaulThomson, post: 5345809, member: 327121"]I see you are not interested in being even-handed, and are unwilling to think through the implications of the Ex. 18:18 passage having exactly the same Hebrew verbal structure as Gen 2:17. You are unwilling to allow Gen 2 to be understood in a similar sense to Ex 18 despite them having exactly the same verbal structure. So, what is your actual agenda? Are you seeking the truth, or defending what you have presupposed is the truth.
If a kind of death is being unresponsive to a certain class of stimuli, spiritual dying would begin when a person chooses to be unresponsive to the influence of the Spirit. This would be a process like when a deadly deisease takes hold and over time gains increasing control over the body until complete death ensues. During the progress of the disease, the person may resort to influences that counteract the disease, and the dying may reverse to revivifying. Spiritual death likely happens when there is absolutely no responsiveness at all left to the influence of the Spirit.
Resurrection seems to refer to revivifying of the physical body.
The new birth would be receiving a new, pure spirit that is sealed by the Holy Spirit and indwelt by the Father, Son and Spirit. It may be more akin to a heart transplant rather than a resurrection.[/QUOTE]
It might have the same "verbal structure" but the structure applies to two different activities. The fact that Adam died spiritually on the day he disobeyed squares with the rest of scripture. And it most especially harmonizes with the fact that God did not save Adam after he sinned! Adam is definitely not of the "woman's seed" in Gen 3:15! The woman's seed = the children of God; the Serpent's seed = the children of the devil. And no child of the devil is spiritually alive!
If a kind of death is being unresponsive to a certain class of stimuli, spiritual dying would begin when a person chooses to be unresponsive to the influence of the Spirit. This would be a process like when a deadly deisease takes hold and over time gains increasing control over the body until complete death ensues. During the progress of the disease, the person may resort to influences that counteract the disease, and the dying may reverse to revivifying. Spiritual death likely happens when there is absolutely no responsiveness at all left to the influence of the Spirit.
Resurrection seems to refer to revivifying of the physical body.
The new birth would be receiving a new, pure spirit that is sealed by the Holy Spirit and indwelt by the Father, Son and Spirit. It may be more akin to a heart transplant rather than a resurrection.[/QUOTE]
It might have the same "verbal structure" but the structure applies to two different activities. The fact that Adam died spiritually on the day he disobeyed squares with the rest of scripture. And it most especially harmonizes with the fact that God did not save Adam after he sinned! Adam is definitely not of the "woman's seed" in Gen 3:15! The woman's seed = the children of God; the Serpent's seed = the children of the devil. And no child of the devil is spiritually alive!
You prove yourself unable to think critically for yourself. You simply take whatever experts say that confirms your bias, and hand wave away facts that blow a hole in that bias. Read Ex 18. Is it even possible to interpret the Hebrew verb form used regarding Moses and the people becoming worn out as if Moses would instantly be full exhausted if he spent one more second following his present methodology? No it doesn't. So, why insist that the same verb form in Gen 2 must mean that Adam would immediately die the second he ate from the tree. Both texts make perfect sense when "to die you will be dying" and "to wear out you will be wearing out" are interpreted as progressive conditions resulting in a resultant complete death or exhaustion. Why go with experts whose judgment is so contrary to the evidence of the texts and their contexts?
I was saved for as long as I can remember, but I bounced back and forth between a luke warm Christian and hopefully a good Christian. I remember sitting on my mom's dresser at 3 and looking at the stars outside praying as my earliest memory.
I've had hundreds of spiritual dreams and even met an angel in a dream. Sometimes I'm a child in my dreams with God and other times I'm just me as an adult. I have lucid dreams and use to astral project.
I tried to be an atheist at one point in my life. I was very angry with God. He would push me...I kept saying give me a sign then. He would make the TV talk about it "are you looking for a sign? I'm here to tell you Jesus Christ is real!" I said, if you're so powerful get rid of this horrible weather. He made a thunderstorm on the left and a double rainbow on the right. We drove on the sunny road. It was so beautiful people were pulling over and taking pictures. For whatever reason he would not let me be an atheist.
I remember being so scared in different situations and screaming at him for help in my head. He always came to my rescue. I was around a child m as a kid and some dangerous people. I did many dangerous things. He always got me out of it. I owe him my life and he has blessed me beyond measure.
Of course there are many bad things that happen in the world. I don't have an answer for that. I just know he's always been with me. I assume he is like that for his people.
I've had hundreds of spiritual dreams and even met an angel in a dream. Sometimes I'm a child in my dreams with God and other times I'm just me as an adult. I have lucid dreams and use to astral project.
I tried to be an atheist at one point in my life. I was very angry with God. He would push me...I kept saying give me a sign then. He would make the TV talk about it "are you looking for a sign? I'm here to tell you Jesus Christ is real!" I said, if you're so powerful get rid of this horrible weather. He made a thunderstorm on the left and a double rainbow on the right. We drove on the sunny road. It was so beautiful people were pulling over and taking pictures. For whatever reason he would not let me be an atheist.
I remember being so scared in different situations and screaming at him for help in my head. He always came to my rescue. I was around a child m as a kid and some dangerous people. I did many dangerous things. He always got me out of it. I owe him my life and he has blessed me beyond measure.
Of course there are many bad things that happen in the world. I don't have an answer for that. I just know he's always been with me. I assume he is like that for his people.
And if we put a microscopic point on it:
Romans 5: 12Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, so also death was passed on to all men, because all sinned. 13For sin was in the world before the law was given; but sin is not taken into account when there is no law. 14Nevertheless, death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who did not sin in the way that Adam transgressed.
I keep running into instances where one must choose between applying "all" to everyone and when it is just speaking of a particular section of everyone, but I won't let that prevent me from trying to sort out the logic...
Sin entered through Adam, and death through sin...Nevertheless, death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who did not sin in the way that Adam transgressed.
If sin was not taken into account until Moses (the time come when there is law), then all that died up to then died solely on the account of death being in the world, yet death passed on to all men because all sinned... This begs the question then, who was or was not doing any accounting?
The fact that, after entering through Adam's sin, death reigned may provide an answer for that. Adam rendered all men subject to death, but would it require a leap over a gap in logic to claim that Adam rendered all men subject to sin? I'm not so sure that it does. Susceptible, surely, I can't find reason to argue that. But as long, as there was one man that did not bow his knee to sin, then I can't confidently claim that "all men are subject to sin." Jesus was 100 percent man, born under the law but, though He was tempted in all ways as we are, He was never subject to sin, nor did He ever make Himself subject to sin.
We can simply say as Jesus did, of course. But Nicodemus needed it to be spelled out for him as he, by default, that of emerging from the womb, and Jesus replied with a proverbial facepalm. "Are you not a master of Israel...?"
Can we be certain that, when Jesus said, "you must be born of water and spirit," he wasn't speaking of passing through any sort of heavenly birth canal as much as He was speaking that you must be born in a sense of being 'carried by' water and spirit, that is be carried into the kingdom in order to see it. And so, as we were carried by our mother before we were born into the kingdom of this world so must we be carried in our Lord to be born into the kingdom to come.
I'm just not as ready to discard that as an impossibility as others think I should be so, consequently, I' can't discard the possibility that infants can't be carried into the kingdom with being 'born again' in the otherwise common sense of its understanding.
Romans 5: 12Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, so also death was passed on to all men, because all sinned. 13For sin was in the world before the law was given; but sin is not taken into account when there is no law. 14Nevertheless, death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who did not sin in the way that Adam transgressed.
I keep running into instances where one must choose between applying "all" to everyone and when it is just speaking of a particular section of everyone, but I won't let that prevent me from trying to sort out the logic...
Sin entered through Adam, and death through sin...Nevertheless, death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who did not sin in the way that Adam transgressed.
If sin was not taken into account until Moses (the time come when there is law), then all that died up to then died solely on the account of death being in the world, yet death passed on to all men because all sinned... This begs the question then, who was or was not doing any accounting?
The fact that, after entering through Adam's sin, death reigned may provide an answer for that. Adam rendered all men subject to death, but would it require a leap over a gap in logic to claim that Adam rendered all men subject to sin? I'm not so sure that it does. Susceptible, surely, I can't find reason to argue that. But as long, as there was one man that did not bow his knee to sin, then I can't confidently claim that "all men are subject to sin." Jesus was 100 percent man, born under the law but, though He was tempted in all ways as we are, He was never subject to sin, nor did He ever make Himself subject to sin.
Or we can simply say as Jesus did, "You must be born again."
Can we be certain that, when Jesus said, "you must be born of water and spirit," he wasn't speaking of passing through any sort of heavenly birth canal as much as He was speaking that you must be born in a sense of being 'carried by' water and spirit, that is be carried into the kingdom in order to see it. And so, as we were carried by our mother before we were born into the kingdom of this world so must we be carried in our Lord to be born into the kingdom to come.
I'm just not as ready to discard that as an impossibility as others think I should be so, consequently, I' can't discard the possibility that infants can't be carried into the kingdom with being 'born again' in the otherwise common sense of its understanding.
And if we put a microscopic point on it:
Romans 5: 12Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, so also death was passed on to all men, because all sinned. 13For sin was in the world before the law was given; but sin is not taken into account when there is no law. 14Nevertheless, death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who did not sin in the way that Adam transgressed.
I keep running into instances where one must choose between applying "all" to everyone and when it is just speaking of a particular section of everyone, but I won't let that prevent me from trying to sort out the logic...
Sin entered through Adam, and death through sin...Nevertheless, death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who did not sin in the way that Adam transgressed.
If sin was not taken into account until Moses (the time come when there is law), then all that died up to then died solely on the account of death being in the world, yet death passed on to all men because all sinned... This begs the question then, who was or was not doing any accounting? The fact that, after entering through Adam's sin, death reigned may provide an answer for that. Adam rendered all men subject to death, but would it require a leap over a gap in logic to claim that Adam rendered all men subject to sin? I'm not so sure that it does. Susceptible, surely, I can't find reason to argue that. But as long, as there was one man that did not bow his knee to sin, then I can't confidently claim that "all men are subject to sin." Jesus was 100 percent man, born under the law but, though He was tempted in all ways as we are, He was never subject to sin, nor did He ever make Himself subject to sin.
We can simply say as Jesus did, of course. But Nicodemus needed it to be spelled out for him as he, by default, that of emerging from the womb, and Jesus replied with a proverbial facepalm. "Are you not a master of Israel...?"
Can we be certain that, when Jesus said, "you must be born of water and spirit," he wasn't speaking of passing through any sort of heavenly birth canal as much as He was speaking that you must be born in a sense of being 'carried by' water and spirit, that is be carried into the kingdom in order to see it. And so, as we were carried by our mother before we were born into the kingdom of this world so must we be carried in our Lord to be born into the kingdom to come.
I'm just not as ready to discard that as an impossibility as others think I should be so, consequently, I' can't discard the possibility that infants can't be carried into the kingdom with being 'born again' in the otherwise common sense of its understanding.
Romans 5: 12Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, so also death was passed on to all men, because all sinned. 13For sin was in the world before the law was given; but sin is not taken into account when there is no law. 14Nevertheless, death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who did not sin in the way that Adam transgressed.
I keep running into instances where one must choose between applying "all" to everyone and when it is just speaking of a particular section of everyone, but I won't let that prevent me from trying to sort out the logic...
Sin entered through Adam, and death through sin...Nevertheless, death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who did not sin in the way that Adam transgressed.
If sin was not taken into account until Moses (the time come when there is law), then all that died up to then died solely on the account of death being in the world, yet death passed on to all men because all sinned... This begs the question then, who was or was not doing any accounting?
The fact that, after entering through Adam's sin, death reigned may provide an answer for that. Adam rendered all men subject to death, but would it require a leap over a gap in logic to claim that Adam rendered all men subject to sin? I'm not so sure that it does. Susceptible, surely, I can't find reason to argue that. But as long, as there was one man that did not bow his knee to sin, then I can't confidently claim that "all men are subject to sin." Jesus was 100 percent man, born under the law but, though He was tempted in all ways as we are, He was never subject to sin, nor did He ever make Himself subject to sin.We can simply say as Jesus did, of course. But Nicodemus needed it to be spelled out for him as he, by default, that of emerging from the womb, and Jesus replied with a proverbial facepalm. "Are you not a master of Israel...?"
Can we be certain that, when Jesus said, "you must be born of water and spirit," he wasn't speaking of passing through any sort of heavenly birth canal as much as He was speaking that you must be born in a sense of being 'carried by' water and spirit, that is be carried into the kingdom in order to see it. And so, as we were carried by our mother before we were born into the kingdom of this world so must we be carried in our Lord to be born into the kingdom to come.
I'm just not as ready to discard that as an impossibility as others think I should be so, consequently, I' can't discard the possibility that infants can't be carried into the kingdom with being 'born again' in the otherwise common sense of its understanding.
I could not follow the argument in your last paragraph though. What were you trying to communicate.