Original Sin?

[§outh§tar]

So says you. But I do wonder why you don't point out, in relation to the bit about raping Lot, what the daughters' incestuous plot brings.

Oh, tiassa, why do you tempt me so?

If you have anything specific you want to discuss I am game.

The reason I ask why God misled Abraham comes from applying your logic:

• If Lot was seen righteous by God . . . we wouldn't need Jesus to die for sins because man really CAN become "righteous".

Accepting that logic, we can say that the Lord knew when He told Abraham that He would spare Sodom for ten righteous people that He would not find them. If we look, then, to verse 17, when God wonders whether He should tell Abraham what is about to happen. It seems rather extraneous in the first place, and furthermore is confusing. Why comfort Abraham with the idea of something that God knows won't happen? True, true, God needed to go down to Sodom Himself in order to see whether the rumors He was hearing were true (v.21), but doesn't that ignorance on God's part seem to beg questions? The righteousness we are dealing with in the case of Sodom and Gomorrah is a matter of Lot doing the right thing.

I am afraid you are once again misinterpreting my statements.
Had you read Romans 4, as I had asked you, you would see by what measure a man is justified, which is NOT by works. I also made the mistake of thinking you would know what I was talking about after reading the verse. My statement, for purposes of clarification, might read:

If Lot really was seen righteous by God (according to your argument), then we wouldn't need Jesus to die for sins because man really CAN become "righteous" of his own working.

I won't dive into anything until after you have read Romans 4, but from this chapter, you can see that there really were righteous people in the land. See Romans 3:28, further evinced by the proceeding verses.

It seems, then, that I agree with Mr. Jackson about that aspect of Lot's righteousness.

And within that righteousness is included the act of offering his daughters to be raped by a mob.

No it is not, as again as I must insist that the Bible NEVER supports your theory of justification by works. In fact, it explicitly rejects it. Again, see Romans 3:28

And yet His servant found favor.

Very simply:

• Homosexual sex (consensual or otherwise) = bad
• Offering your daughters for gang rape = not bad

It's in the Bible.

No it's not. Again the Bible rejects the notion of righteousness on account of deeds of the law. As Paul says, "by the law is the knowledge of sin". Also, Lot did not find any favor (see Romans 2:11.).

Lot was given passage from the destruction of Sodom. Should we say, then, that the nepotistic favor moved the Lord to allow an unrighteous man to escape destruction?

No. See Romans 3:10-12.

It seems to me that in the context you present, mere faith is enough.

I would disagree. Works will not get you God's blessing unless those works are the product of faith (Matt. 25); likewise, works indicative of a lack or rejection of faith, or of a corrupted faith, can get you disqualified (ibid).

Eh.. if only you had simply read Romans 4. The deeds of the law condemn man, as I quoted before, "by the law is the knowledge of sin". Therefore works are NO "indicator" of justification. From Romans 3:27, we see that "a man is justified by faith APART from the deeds of the law." As Romans 3:31 says, this actually establishes the law. See Romans 3:31, 4:4-6.

Lot's action, in offering his daughters, is indicative of what, a righteous or unrighteous faith?

There is no such thing as an "unrighteous faith".

Lot's is a righteous faith. Were it unrighteous to offer his daughters for gang rape, the Lord would not have spared him.

There is actually little logic in that statement. That is like saying were it unrighteous the last time you told a lie, God would not have allowed you to live. Obviously you have transgressed many times and are still alive and therefore why should this not apply to Lot? Adam and Eve sinned, in that case by your very own logic, God would not have "spared" them either.

Where else in life, §outh§tar, do we make such distinctions? Is not moral relativism a scourge of faith?

Assuredly, in the presence of the deeds of the law, grace abounds. Therefore faith (grace) is not compromised by the law (Romans 5:20). But this itself is an entirely new topic..

How does Lot's decision stand up to Deuteronomy 22? Lot was at the gate to the city, not out in the country. So tell me--if the crowd had accepted Lot's daughters for rape, should the girls have been put to death afterward in compliance with Deuteronomy 22? Or do we take a morally relative viewpoint and say that, given the sins of Sodom, and that crying out would not have helped them, this occasion was worth an exception?

Judgement is never made by God according to moral relativism. See Romans 2:2. Since his standard of judgement is Truth (Himself), it cannot possibly differ from matter to matter. Again see Romans 3:10-12. The girls would not be any less guilty by God's standard, truth. Moreover, they are not held to the laws of Moses since Moses wasn't even alive yet. See Romans 5:13, which is especially important at this point. I recommend reading the next verse before saying that in that case there was no sin commited. See Romans 4:9-10, 2:12.

If we must be perfect as the Father is perfect (Matt. 5), what does that mean for our daughters? I'm inclined to protect my daughter against sexual assault, but that seems to be in contradiction of God's way of doing things.

Like I have said many times before, the Bible does NOT condone Lot's actions.

Why was Lot not destroyed? Because his offering the daughters was not wrong.

Why was Satan not destroyed for sinning in the first place? Because there is a time for everything (Ecclesiastes). What more, the scriptural descriptions of Lot as "righteous" confirm that he indeed did repent of his deeds. If you are going to jump on God because he didn't condemn Lot to death the moment he sinned, then you should really look in the mirror and think of how fortunate you are..

Well, that was a quick look around in Romans. Read the first few chapters thoroughly to get a better gist of it. My head is still scrambling over some of the stuff, I have to read the NKJV...

 

[§outh§tar]

*Why was Lot not destroyed? Because his offering the daughters was not wrong.*

Therefore condoned by god, to be ritious, this makes this god of the bible, amoral and just as evil as satan is protrayed to be.

Godless.

Man is justified by faith, not by deeds of the law. Haven't we been through this?

 

[Tiassa]

And I still haven't brought the whole thing 'round

Had you read Romans 4, as I had asked you, you would see by what measure a man is justified, which is NOT by works

Actually, I did. I found it licentious. I had thought to come back to that after going 'round the circle, since it involves two levels of discussion--the general, and from that the particular. However, we will come back to Romans 2.11 and 3.28.

The Problem As I See It

Assertion: The Bible's standard for righteousness is NOT works.

Counterpoint: I would disagree. Works will not get you God's blessing unless those works are the product of faith (Matt. 25); likewise, works indicative of a lack or rejection of faith, or of a corrupted faith, can get you disqualified (ibid).

Rebuttal: Had you read Romans 4, as I had asked you, you would see by what measure a man is justified, which is NOT by works.

Now, I'm aware that's not a replication of our quote/response pattern, but these are the relevant arguments to the progression.

However--

• When God saw what they did, how they turned from their evil way, God repented of the evil which he had said he would do to them; and he did not do it. (Jonah 3.10)

• Then Jesus told his disciples, "If any man would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me. For whoever would save his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it. For what will it profit a man, if he gains the whole world and forfeits his life? Or what shall a man give in return for his life? For the Son of man is to come with his angels in the glory of his Father, and then he will repay every man for what he has done. Truly, I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death before they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom. (Matthew 16.24-ff)

• They answered him, "Abraham is our father." Jesus said to them, "If you were Abraham's children, you would do what Abraham did, but now you seek to kill me, a man who has told you the truth which I heard from God; this is not what Abraham did. You do what your father did." (John 8.39-40)

• "When the Son of man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit on his glorious throne. Before him will be gathered all the nations, and he will separate them one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats, and he will place the sheep at his right hand, but the goats at the left. Then the King will say to those at his right hand, 'Come, O blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world; for I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.' Then the righteous will answer him, 'Lord, when did we see thee hungry and feed thee, or thirsty and give thee drink? And when did we see thee a stranger and welcome thee, or naked and clothe thee? And when did we see thee sick or in prison and visit thee?' And the King will answer them, 'Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brethren, you did it to me.' Then he will say to those at his left hand, 'Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels; for I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink, I was a stranger and you did not welcome me, naked and you did not clothe me, sick and in prison and you did not visit me.' Then they also will answer, 'Lord, when did we see thee hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to thee?' Then he will answer them, 'Truly, I say to you, as you did it not to one of the least of these, you did it not to me.' And they will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life." (Matthew 5.31-ff)

• Do you want to be shown, you shallow man, that faith apart from works is barren? Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he offered his son Isaac upon the altar? You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by works, and the scripture was fulfilled which says, "Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness"; and he was called the friend of God. You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone. (James 2.20-24)

So in the end, I'll see your epistle, and raise you a prophet and a Messiah.

Right about here is a good place to reiterate:

• Works will not get you God's blessing unless those works are the product of faith; likewise, works indicative of a lack or rejection of faith, or of a corrupted faith, can get you disqualified.

I feel very confident in my interpretation. So much so that I'll throw in an interesting, albeit political commentary:

In any event, if one wishes to use the language the Bible uses, one would say that one is justified by faith apart from "works of the Law" (Rom. 3:28), but not by "faith alone," apart from works (Jas. 2:24). (Akin)

(Yes, I picked up James 2 from that article.)

What's ironic is that a website called Let Us Reason goes on to explain that it is faith alone. But strangely, Christ is silent on the matter in their discussion. In fact, the article goes on to proclaim, "It is by the work of Christ that we are accepted, not by anything we can do." And while the author notes that, "The holy Spirit becomes our instructor in the word and in our personal walk in what is beneficial and what is not," the article continues, stating, "To be saved, one needs only to believe the gospel. There is nothing else that they can do."

Were the article to invoke the words of Christ as regards works and faith, the apparent meaning of those statements might change. Yet instead of Christ, the article cites Paul: "And to one who does not work but trusts him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is reckoned as righteousness" (Romans 4.5).

So we might look at your insistence:

No it is not, as again as I must insist that the Bible NEVER supports your theory of justification by works. In fact, it explicitly rejects it.

I will reiterate again:

• Works will not get you God's blessing unless those works are the product of faith; likewise, works indicative of a lack or rejection of faith, or of a corrupted faith, can get you disqualified.

And yet again:

• I'll see your epistle, and raise you a prophet and a Messiah.

No it's not. Again the Bible rejects the notion of righteousness on account of deeds of the law. As Paul says, "by the law is the knowledge of sin".

And Christ says, "If you were Abraham's children, you would do what Abraham did" (John 8.39).

Also, Lot did not find any favor (see Romans 2:11.).

So what we have, then, is:

• For God shows no partiality. (Romans 2.11)

• And Lot said to them, "Oh, no, my lords; behold, your servant has found favor in your sight, and you have shown me great kindness in saving my life; but I cannot flee to the hills, lest the disaster overtake me, and I die. Behold, yonder city is near enough to flee to, and it is a little one. Let me escape there -- is it not a little one? -- and my life will be saved!" He said to him, "Behold, I grant you this favor also, that I will not overthrow the city of which you have spoken. Make haste, escape there; for I can do nothing till you arrive there." Therefore the name of the city was called Zo'ar. (Genesis 19.18-22)

And, of course, we might take a closer look at Romans 2:

For he will render to every man according to his works: to those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life; but for those who are factious and do not obey the truth, but obey wickedness, there will be wrath and fury. There will be tribulation and distress for every human being who does evil, the Jew first and also the Greek, but glory and honor and peace for every one who does good, the Jew first and also the Greek. For God shows no partiality. (Romans 2.6-11)

I'm at a wall here--I don't know how much more clearly I can put it. Paul to the Romans, James to the tribes, the story of Jonah, and, of course, the words of Christ himself. All point clearly to the place of works within faith, as I have asserted.

No. See Romans 3:10-12.

You're going to have to make your point more clear regarding that one. But still, even that clarification might be moot.

Eh.. if only you had simply read Romans 4.

It would be more accurate to say that I find your interpretation licentious.

The deeds of the law condemn man, as I quoted before, "by the law is the knowledge of sin". Therefore works are NO "indicator" of justification. From Romans 3:27, we see that "a man is justified by faith APART from the deeds of the law."

Why ...? Oh, hang on just a minute on that question.

As Romans 3:31 says, this actually establishes the law. See Romans 3:31, 4:4-6.

My question to you:

• In the face of what we know from the story of Jonah (a prophet), at least two epistles (James, Romans), and the very Lord Jesus Christ, are you sure you wish to hold to your interpretation?

Are you certain that works are no indicator of justification?

There is no such thing as an "unrighteous faith".

That rings so absurdly that I can only ask you to please expand and clarify.

There is actually little logic in that statement. That is like saying were it unrighteous the last time you told a lie, God would not have allowed you to live.

The last time I told a lie, God didn't happen to be in the middle of preparing to destroy the city I was in. The last time I told a lie, Abraham wasn't worrying that I would be destroyed alongside the other liars. I think your counterpoint lacks logic inasmuch as it examines a circumstance so wholly different from Lot's that it's irrelevant.

Adam and Eve sinned, in that case by your very own logic, God would not have "spared" them either.

At this point, I must borrow a phrase from you: Why do you tempt me so?

Depends on who you ask about Adam and Eve. Some assert that they did die that very day. I tend to think the whole thing's mucked up because God lied at Eden. What happened in the Garden is a fairly vociferous debate around here that flares up from time to time. However, God had not at that time decided to destroy all of Eden and the unrighteous who dwelt within the Garden.

Assuredly, in the presence of the deeds of the law, grace abounds. Therefore faith (grace) is not compromised by the law (Romans 5:20). But this itself is an entirely new topic.

Perhaps it is. But at this point, I'm going to borrow from a skeptic's page, which notes Matthew 19.17. I'll go a little further with that citation:

And behold, one came up to him, saying, "Teacher, what good deed must I do, to have eternal life?" And he said to him, "Why do you ask me about what is good? One there is who is good. If you would enter life, keep the commandments." He said to him, "Which?" And Jesus said, "You shall not kill, You shall not commit adultery, You shall not steal, You shall not bear false witness, Honor your father and mother, and, You shall love your neighbor as yourself." (Matthew 19.16-19)

See Romans 2:2. Since his standard of judgement is Truth (Himself), it cannot possibly differ from matter to matter. Again see Romans 3:10-12. The girls would not be any less guilty by God's standard, truth. Moreover, they are not held to the laws of Moses since Moses wasn't even alive yet. See Romans 5:13, which is especially important at this point. I recommend reading the next verse before saying that in that case there was no sin commited. See Romans 4:9-10, 2:12.

I think Romans 2.6 is quite clear.

Like I have said many times before, the Bible does NOT condone Lot's actions.

And I, quite obviously, disagree.

Why was Satan not destroyed for sinning in the first place? Because there is a time for everything (Ecclesiastes).

Well enough. For the time to destroy Sodom and the unrighteous within was at hand, and yet God spared Lot.

Besides ... destroying Satan--that would pretty much render the whole Christ-the-Redeemer thing rather extraneous. Not only is there a time for everything, but timing is everything.

What more, the scriptural descriptions of Lot as "righteous" confirm that he indeed did repent of his deeds.

I would ask you to expand, since part of the underlying question is whether or not Lot needs to repent for offering his daughters to rape. After all, Lot's actions are not condemned by the Lord, except perhaps through the strange device of his daughters raping him. I must admit, though, that's pretty subtle for the Old Testament.

If you are going to jump on God because he didn't condemn Lot to death the moment he sinned, then you should really look in the mirror and think of how fortunate you are

Actually, I'm bagging on God for condoning the rape offer. The destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah was delayed until Lot could reach a safe distance (Genesis 19.21-22).

Well, that was a quick look around in Romans. Read the first few chapters thoroughly to get a better gist of it.

Okay. If you say so.

In the meantime, were you standing in a betting line, on whom would you intend to put your money? The Lord Jesus Christ, or Paul?

In whom do you have faith?
_____________________

• The Bible, RSV. See http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/rsv.browse.html
• Akin, James. "Not by Faith Alone." Coming Home Journal. See http://www.chnetwork.org/journals/justification/justify_8.htm
• LetUsReason.org. "Law and Grace, Works and Christ." 2002. See http://www.letusreason.org/Doct31.htm
• Skeptics Annotated Bible. "Is Salvation by faith alone?" See http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/faithalone.html

 

[Jenyar]

In the meantime, were you standing in a betting line, on whom would you intend to put your money? The Lord Jesus Christ, or Paul?

Faith in Christ leads us to believe the works of Paul

For me, the whole issue of faith vs works is moot: they both pick up the tray, but in order to use the tray, you need to hold it with both hands. If Christ was clear about anything, it was that we are supposed to use what He gave us.

 

[Godless]

Perhaps this is why we've come to the conclusion this century that the bible is completely "CONTRADICTING" you think?.

Righteous live?
Ps.92:12: "The righteous shall flourish like the palm tree."

Isa.57:1: "The righteous perisheth, and no man layeth it to heart."

I won't get in to the hundreds of discrepancies and contradictions of the bible, this has been covered here at sci thousands of time.

However the creation myth is not original of the bible fact is the jews just replicated other's myths.

http://www.usbible.com/Creation/creation_myths.htm

Many stories of the bible, are just replications of other's beliefs the jews or hebrews, were mostly illiterate slaves, of other civilizations.

Paul was a liar, and a scoundrel who justified Jesus' death to save the Jews, however the Jews were not saved from Roman rule so Paul makes up lies to start a new religion: http://www.usbible.com/Paul/pauls_character.htm

The man who conceived this great hoax was Paul. No other person has had more influence on Christian thinking than Paul, not Jesus, not Augustine, not Thomas Aquinas. Paul was the true godfather of modern Christianity.

What the evidence points to is that Paul laid the groundwork from which the Gospels were written. There was no living Jesus before him. So the Gospels were conceived as a way to make it appear as if there was. By way of example, Paul argued that Jesus’ failure to rescue Jews was necessary until Gentiles came into the fold. Then Israel can be saved.

25Lest you be wise in your own conceits, I want you to understand this mystery, brethren: a hardening has come upon part of Israel, until the full number of the Gentiles come in, (Rom. 11:25)

He quotes from Hebrew Scripture as saying that the Deliverer will come from Zion to banish ungodliness from Jacob. There will be a new covenant when he takes away their sins.

26and so all Israel will be saved; as it is written, “The Deliverer will come from Zion, he will banish ungodliness from Jacob”;
27“and this will be my covenant with them when I take away their sins.” (Rom. 11:26-27)

Bible footnotes reference Isaiah 59:20-21 which says something entirely different: The Redeemer offered a covenant to Jews who turn from transgression. —The burden was on Jews to repent. In the OT, it was unthinkable to incorporate Gentiles.

20“And he will come to Zion as Redeemer, to those in Jacob who turn from transgression, says the LORD.
21“And as for me, this is my covenant with them, say the LORD: my spirit which is upon you, and my word which I have put in your mouth, shall not depart out of your mouth, or out of the mouth of your children, or out of the mouth of your children’s children, says the LORD, from this time forth and for evermore.” (Isaiah 59:20-21)

Paul is first mentioned in Acts 8:1, when he approved of Stephen’s stoning.

8:1aAnd Saul was consenting to his death. (Acts 8.1a)

Acts 8:3 tells us he “was ravaging the church by entering house after house, dragging off both men and women and committing them to prison.” The man had the mentality of a Gestapo policeman.

3But Saul was ravaging the church, and entering house after house, he dragged off men and women and committed them to prison. (Acts. 8:3)

Still breathing threats and murder against Christians, he went to the high priest for authority to look for Christians in Damascus (Syria) so he could bring them back to Jerusalem.

1But Saul, still breathing threats and murder against the disciples of the Lord, went to the high priest
2and asked him for letters to the synagogues at Damascus, so that if he found any belonging to the Way, men or women, he might bring them bound to Jerusalem. (Acts 9:1-2)

10And I did so in Jerusalem; I not only shut up many of the saints in prison, by authority from the chief priests, but when they were put to death I cast my vote against them.
11And I punished them often in all the synagogues and tried to make them blaspheme; and in raging fury against them, I persecuted them even to foreign cities. (Acts 26:10-11)

On the way to Damascus, Acts tells us, Paul met Jesus as a result of a flash of light from heaven and Jesus’ voice saying to him, “Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me.” What is fishy about this is that it is reminiscent of when Moses met the burning bush.

3Now as he journeyed he approached Damascus, and suddenly a light from heaven flashed about him.
4And he fell to the ground and heard a voice saying to him, “Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?” (Acts 9:3-4)

Before he knew whose voice it was, he addressed Jesus as Lord. The voice told him he is to enter the city to be told what to do. His companions heard the voice but saw no one. Paul was blinded and neither ate or drank for three days.

5And he said, “Who are you, Lord?” And he said, “I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting;
6but rise and enter the city, and you will be told what you are to do.”
7The men who were traveling with him stood speechless, hearing the voice but seeing no one.
8Saul arose from the ground; and when his eyes were opened, he could see nothing; so they led him by the hand and brought him into Damascus.
9And for three days he was without sight, and neither ate nor drank. (Acts 9:5-9)

On the third day, he was approached by Ananias, a follower of Jesus, who brought back his eyesight (Acts 9:9-18).

What we have here in this pice of ancient document we call the "bible", is a historical account of events and fabrications borrorwed from other civilizations written over a span of hundreds of years by many authors, the room for error, and contradictions are after all evident in today's society. However the "need to believe" in some religious dogma is strong in human society. Fact humans are babies that have not left the their crutch with is "religion" to stand upon.

Latters I'll post some more bits of info I found on "original sin".

Godless.

 

[§outh§tar]

@ tiassa

Could you ever spare me the horror of seeing such a monstrous reply?

 

[§outh§tar]

However--


So in the end, I'll see your epistle, and raise you a prophet and a Messiah.

If you want me to address anything from that quote specifically, put it outside of quotes so it appears in my reply and I will.

Right about here is a good place to reiterate:

• Works will not get you God's blessing unless those works are the product of faith; likewise, works indicative of a lack or rejection of faith, or of a corrupted faith, can get you disqualified.

I feel very confident in my interpretation. So much so that I'll throw in an interesting, albeit political commentary:



(Yes, I picked up James 2 from that article.)

What's ironic is that a website called Let Us Reason goes on to explain that it is faith alone. But strangely, Christ is silent on the matter in their discussion. In fact, the article goes on to proclaim, "It is by the work of Christ that we are accepted, not by anything we can do." And while the author notes that, "The holy Spirit becomes our instructor in the word and in our personal walk in what is beneficial and what is not," the article continues, stating, "To be saved, one needs only to believe the gospel. There is nothing else that they can do."

I assure you, that is Calvinistic doctrine at it's best. Heresy of heresies. That rejects the command of Scripture, which is to work out our salvation with fear and trembling. (Phil. 2:12)

Like I said, this issue takes a grand turn from our current discussion into free will and security in salvation. I recommend: http://www.christiancourier.com/archives/justificationWorks.htm

I must remind you that there is a great distinction between works in contrast to faith and the works I spoke of in my discussion, which were usually used interchangeably with "deeds of the law".

Were the article to invoke the words of Christ as regards works and faith, the apparent meaning of those statements might change. Yet instead of Christ, the article cites Paul: "And to one who does not work but trusts him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is reckoned as righteousness" (Romans 4.5).

So we might look at your insistence:



I will reiterate again:

• Works will not get you God's blessing unless those works are the product of faith; likewise, works indicative of a lack or rejection of faith, or of a corrupted faith, can get you disqualified.

And yet again:

• I'll see your epistle, and raise you a prophet and a Messiah.

Could you possibly make it any more difficult with your method of quoting things so that it appears as a blank in the reply..? As I said, there is a difference between works and deeds of the law, according to context. It seems you fail to see the context by which Paul refers to works, which would be deeds of the law, especially in context of his chapter on the law.

I do not know where you got the idea of "works indicative of a lack or rejection of faith" "disqualifies" a Christian. Where is the Biblical evidence for these things?

And Christ says, "If you were Abraham's children, you would do what Abraham did" (John 8.39).

And again in Romans 4, Abraham is the father of all those who believe (v11). Not only the circumicised, as you should know from reading the chapter..

So what we have, then, is:



And, of course, we might take a closer look at Romans 2:



I'm at a wall here--I don't know how much more clearly I can put it. Paul to the Romans, James to the tribes, the story of Jonah, and, of course, the words of Christ himself. All point clearly to the place of works within faith, as I have asserted.

In that case you had better take a look ar Romans 3:31. The Law is not invalidated by faith and consequently not the deeds of the Law. But the condemnation is to him who has his faith in the deeds of the Law (Rom. 4:4)

You're going to have to make your point more clear regarding that one. But still, even that clarification might be moot.

This Scripture clearly indicates that there is none who seeks after God. Therefore your assertion that Lot "earned" his way out of God's onslaught by doing Him a "favor" is invalid.

It would be more accurate to say that I find your interpretation licentious.

May Scripture determine that.

My question to you:

• In the face of what we know from the story of Jonah (a prophet), at least two epistles (James, Romans), and the very Lord Jesus Christ, are you sure you wish to hold to your interpretation?

Are you certain that works are no indicator of justification?

Can you provide Scripture concerning the indication of justification by deeds of the law?

That rings so absurdly that I can only ask you to please expand and clarify.

In context of what you asked me, it is not at all possible that there was anything unrighteous about Lot's faith in terms of the phrase "unrighteous faith", which is ungodly faith. I would caution you against being tricked by this otherwise obvious difference.

The last time I told a lie, God didn't happen to be in the middle of preparing to destroy the city I was in. The last time I told a lie, Abraham wasn't worrying that I would be destroyed alongside the other liars. I think your counterpoint lacks logic inasmuch as it examines a circumstance so wholly different from Lot's that it's irrelevant.

It is a shameful thing that you have been unable to see past the circumstances surrounding Lot to his actual position. Had you been a little more careful, you would have noted that Lot's actions were inexcusable, as are yours (Romans 3:13). Just because the last time you told a lie, God wasn't about to destroy your city does not make it any more excusable. Therefore your comments really are invalid.

At this point, I must borrow a phrase from you: Why do you tempt me so?

Depends on who you ask about Adam and Eve. Some assert that they did die that very day. I tend to think the whole thing's mucked up because God lied at Eden. What happened in the Garden is a fairly vociferous debate around here that flares up from time to time. However, God had not at that time decided to destroy all of Eden and the unrighteous who dwelt within the Garden.

God did not lie at Eden. God did not destroy Adam and Eve, if even they were destroyed, it was by their own hand. Why do you not cease to blame God (Romans 3:4)?

Perhaps it is. But at this point, I'm going to borrow from a skeptic's page, which notes Matthew 19.17. I'll go a little further with that citation:





I think Romans 2.6 is quite clear.

It is rather unfortunate that you take that verse from Matthew out of context. Romans 2:25 shows the harmony between the verses. The circumcision of the young ruler became uncircumcision by his unwillingness to have faith. Romans 3:20 condemns the young ruler for his faith in the deeds of the law, which you must not overlook for Christ's counsel, which is of course in harmony with Romans 2:12.

And I, quite obviously, disagree.

Well I still await your scriptural evidence of this, for we know that Lot's justification was while uncircumcised. (Romans 3:26, 4:10, 2:14)

Well enough. For the time to destroy Sodom and the unrighteous within was at hand, and yet God spared Lot.

Because his uncircumcision became circumcision, Romans 3:28, 30, 2:28.

I would ask you to expand, since part of the underlying question is whether or not Lot needs to repent for offering his daughters to rape. After all, Lot's actions are not condemned by the Lord, except perhaps through the strange device of his daughters raping him. I must admit, though, that's pretty subtle for the Old Testament.

The answer is yes. He unfortunately tried to choose the lesser of two evils, although their no such thing, for "there is none who does good, no, not one" Romans 3:12

Actually, I'm bagging on God for condoning the rape offer. The destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah was delayed until Lot could reach a safe distance (Genesis 19.21-22).

God never condoned it, for "by the deeds of the law NO flesh will be justified in His sight" (Romans 3:20)

Okay. If you say so.

In the meantime, were you standing in a betting line, on whom would you intend to put your money? The Lord Jesus Christ, or Paul?

In whom do you have faith?

Romans 5:1


Thank you for that long and rather awkward comment reply system which had me scrolling up and down to figure out what you were talking about.

 

[Tiassa]

§outh§tar

Quick question: Are you perchance on a 56k connection?

The reason I ask--

• If you want me to address anything from that quote specifically, put it outside of quotes so it appears in my reply and I will

• Thank you for that long and rather awkward comment reply system which had me scrolling up and down to figure out what you were talking about.

--is because I normally consider a couple of your points (noted above) particularly weak as a response except under certain circumstances. Chief among those are connection speed and what I remember of the hazards of maintaining connections over the phone line.

However, generally speaking, I've got links all over the place, largely offered for your opportunity to view things in context. Consider, please, that some folks prefer specific translations or at least dislike others; I have a habit of noting versions in case anyone wishes to argue that specifically. My use of the RSV has been challenged before by one who prefers the KJV, and it's not any secret that American mainline Christians tend to dislike the Old Testament of the NASB, which is the paper Bible I use for research when I'm not in front of the computer. (There is an online version, but it's really bulky for trying to post without simply transcribing.) And, of course, I'm known to shift to the NAB if necessary (e.g Catholic books). Or we might consider when I cite an article online somewhere; the least I ought to do is offer the whole for contextual review in case someone wishes to challenge my interpretation. As you can see, my linking appears inconsistent. Part of that comes from tagging so many links that I cut out the ones we've already seen once, part of that comes from tagging so many links at that particular time of night, and unfortunately, in the case of our disagreement regarding Romans 2.11 (or 2.6-11), there's also the occasional oversight.

So it comes down to wondering why you don't click the reference links. And hence the idea that it may not be the most polite thing in the world to ask someone with a slow connection to be linking all over the place. Sometimes it's necessary, though. But I ask about your connection speed because that is a factor I would definitely keep in mind.

All of those links are there for the reader's benefit. So you can see the actual information at the actual web page I'm seeing and using.

But, there are conditions where I am sympathetic to certain problems people encounter with the number of links I provide in support of my arguments.

As to the second point of yours I've noted (see above): It would be even more confusing if I tried to go in the actual written order. We have a couple of lines of argument mixed together here. I hope to straighten them out some in the course of answering the argument.

In deference to your request for a smaller post, I will continue to address your arguments on the topic in the next post.

 

[Tiassa]

(Go ahead, baby ... Title me!)

I assure you, that is Calvinistic doctrine at it's best.

Which part? Honestly, in the quote you cited, there's two separate viewpoints discussed.

Judging by the article you posted, you appear to be aiming at the article from LetUsReason. As you can tell by my posts, I disagree with almost any form of sola fide. (The only one I find legitimate, you seem to reject. Curious, that.)

But the article you posted from Christian Courier--I thank you for posting it. Mr. Jackson seems to reinforce my point:

• Martin Luther was so adamant regarding the doctrine of “faith only” that he smuggled the word “only” into the text of his German translation in Romans 3:28. Lenski, a Lutheran commentator, attempted to defend Luther’s addition to the Word (cf. Rev. 22:18) by suggesting that although the term “only” is not found in the original text, the “sense” is (1961, p. 271).

Shall we conclude that Luther was more adept at rendering the “sense” than Paul was?

• It is utterly incredible that some, professing an acquaintance with the New Testament, deny the role of works (obedience) in the sacred scheme of redemption. Jesus plainly taught that one must “work” for that spiritual sustenance which abides unto eternal life (Jn. 6:27), and that even faith itself is a divinely appointed “work” (Jn. 6:29).

(Source: Jackson)

I must remind you that there is a great distinction between works in contrast to faith and the works I spoke of in my discussion, which were usually used interchangeably with "deeds of the law".

Why remind me now? Although 'tis true, I'm left zeroing in on your use of "deeds of the law", as well. I don't get entirely where it comes from, yet I'm constantly trying to account for it. I don't think you're necessarily tilting a windmill here, but it's ... a bit odd that you're focusing so intently on it.

As I said, there is a difference between works and deeds of the law, according to context. It seems you fail to see the context by which Paul refers to works, which would be deeds of the law, especially in context of his chapter on the law.

More to the point, I think it's kind of irrelevant. When we started this cycle, we were discussing Lot. You injected a New Testament interpretation. You're mixing the idea of condoning with justification. (See below for more discussion of that issue.)

I do not know where you got the idea of "works indicative of a lack or rejection of faith" "disqualifies" a Christian. Where is the Biblical evidence for these things?

I ....

Uh ....

Really?!

Because you'll notice I keep using the word "reiterate" in that post. I cited where I get the idea from--Jesus Christ--the first time I stated the point.

• Works will not get you God's blessing unless those works are the product of faith (Matt. 25); likewise, works indicative of a lack or rejection of faith, or of a corrupted faith, can get you disqualified (ibid).

Source: Tiassa

I also included the specific citation from within Matthew 25 in the post when I reiterated the point repeatedly, but you didn't address it because it wouldn't appear in your reply window. Did it not appear in your browser window when you read my post?

And again in Romans 4, Abraham is the father of all those who believe (v11). Not only the circumicised, as you should know from reading the chapter..

I don't see what that has to do with anything aside from complicating the discussion extraneously.

In that case you had better take a look ar Romans 3:31. The Law is not invalidated by faith and consequently not the deeds of the Law. But the condemnation is to him who has his faith in the deeds of the Law (Rom. 4:4)

How many more times do you want me to look through Romans? 100? 500? 666?

Therefore your assertion that Lot "earned" his way out of God's onslaught by doing Him a "favor" is invalid.

I don't see that Lot ever sought to earn his way out of anything. Your point seems rather irrelevant on this occasion.

Can you provide Scripture concerning the indication of justification by deeds of the law?

Why do I care about deeds of the Law? Answer me that, please. Sincerely--I'm not being sarcastic. I just don't see the connection you do.

In context of what you asked me, it is not at all possible that there was anything unrighteous about Lot's faith in terms of the phrase "unrighteous faith", which is ungodly faith. I would caution you against being tricked by this otherwise obvious difference.

It was a rhetorical question which I addressed in the following sentences. However, deferring to the division you have quoted in your response, we come 'round to:

Just because the last time you told a lie, God wasn't about to destroy your city does not make it any more excusable. Therefore your comments really are invalid.

You seem to be comparing the following circumstances as equal:

• God did not make a specific effort to destroy me at the time of my lie
• God made a specific effort to excuse Lot from a punishment He had decided to lay upon Sodom

In other words, God should make a special effort to punish me in a manner unique compared to any other sinner? In other words, God should make a special effort to excuse Lot in a manner unique to any other sinner?

This isn't about me, §outh§tar. Your counterpoint is what is invalid. It's not a matter of whether my sin is any more or less excusable or forgivable. It's a matter of why God should make a special effort for any one individual. The time for judgment was at hand for Sodom. The time for judgment for me? As I understand it, He will come as a thief in the night, so I'd best not worry 'bout when.

God did not lie at Eden. God did not destroy Adam and Eve, if even they were destroyed, it was by their own hand. Why do you not cease to blame God (Romans 3:4)?

Adam and Eve did not die that day. In other words, when God told Adam he would die if he ate the fruit (Gen. 2.16-17), He was incorrect. It would be a dizzying leap of the imagination to assert that God did not know Adam and Eve would not die.

Nonetheless, your original point regarding Adam and Eve, that God would not have spared them, only opens a Pandora's box. As I noted, there's a fairly vociferous debate that flares up from time to time at Sciforums regarding what happened at Eden.

It is rather unfortunate that you take that verse from Matthew out of context.

Well, 'tis true I don't understand your context regarding those verses.

Romans 2:25 shows the harmony between the verses. The circumcision of the young ruler became uncircumcision by his unwillingness to have faith. Romans 3:20 condemns the young ruler for his faith in the deeds of the law, which you must not overlook for Christ's counsel, which is of course in harmony with Romans 2:12.

In a strange way, you seem to be arguing something close to what you reject.

Well I still await your scriptural evidence of this, for we know that Lot's justification was while uncircumcised. (Romans 3:26, 4:10, 2:14)

You seem to be considering an Old Testament story according to Christian (e.g. New Testament) values, and furthermore focusing so intently on that value that you're overlooking the underpinning theme:

• I don't think I would sacrifice any doughter of mine for some of god's angels would you?

Source: Godless

The underlying repugnance shown Lot's offer to allow a mob to rape his daughters depends on a modern values assertion. So does the repugnance shown the accusation--e.g. the need to defend against it. In the modern era, I find Lot's actions repugnant.

Do you? I mean, it seems as if you do; else the assertion that God condoned Lot's offer wouldn't strike such a sour chord for you.

You ask for scriptural evidence, and I have provided already. Furthermore, I assert directly that you are confusing the issue of God condoning Lot's offer with the politics of redemption.

Beyond that, shall I simply take up more space with this post repeating what I have already provided and asserted?

Because his uncircumcision became circumcision, Romans 3:28, 30, 2:28.

Thank you for the conceptual citation, but I'm going to have to ask for some deeper explanation of that assertion.

The answer is yes. He unfortunately tried to choose the lesser of two evils, although their no such thing, for "there is none who does good, no, not one" Romans 3:12

That ... didn't help at all. Hmm ... could you give me your specific take on the verses describing that process in Lot?

God never condoned it, for "by the deeds of the law NO flesh will be justified in His sight" (Romans 3:20)

I urge you to click this link: Dictionary.com - "condone".

The definitions given there include:

• To overlook, forgive, or disregard (an offense) without protest or censure. (American Heritage, 2000)
• to pardon or overlook voluntarily (Merriam-Webster Dictionary of Law, 1996)
• To pardon; to forgive. (Webster's Revised Unabridged, 1998)
• excuse, overlook, or make allowances for; be lenient with; "excuse someone's behavior" (WordNet, 2003)

Justification, salvation, redemption--these things are irrelevant to whether or not God condones an act.

Romans 5:1

Is that as specific as you're going to get?

I suppose it's enough.

Is that what you will answer when the hour of your judgment is at hand? "Lord, I put my faith in Paul"?
___________________

• Jackson, Wayne. "Justification: By Faith or Works?" Christian Courier, December 2, 2000. See http://www.christiancourier.com/archives/justificationWorks.htm
• Dictionary.com. See http://dictionary.reference.com/

 

[Godless]

Could you ever spare me the horror of seeing such a monstrous reply?

Southstar; if your going to debate with T. on bible literature prepare yourself for long posts, he's a bible scholar around here for sci-forums, I've known him for the past four years, and most of his post on just about any subject from religion to capitalism are long winded. (no pun intended T.)

Getting back on topic: Original Sin

original sin and Christian Salvation

Only through woman did man learn to taste the tree of knowledge
Science is the first sin, the germ of all sins, original sin.
—F. Nietzsche
Introduction

The doctrine of sin stands out as one of the most effective manipulative devices ever invented. It has a subtle terrorizing effect which intimidates believers into accepting the Church's view that there is an almighty deity who takes interest in their affairs. If he was only a creator, he would leave us alone to go about our business. But if he is a personal God who takes issue with our behavior, then we have cause to be mindful of his will.

The idea of a mind-reading, all-seeing deity as judge, jury and executioner, has an Orwellian scariness to it. Is it impossible to entertain heretical private thoughts without fear of punishment? Does it pursue us into death? Is there no escape?

The reason for believing in sin rests on the say-so of Church authorities. There is a suspicious smell to this. If you violate Church law, you violate God's law. Violate God's law and God will punish you. And how do we know the Church speaks for God? Answer: because Church authorities insist on it. It goes in circles. That is why unquestionable faith is so important to these people. Their reasoning can make you dizzy. In reality, believers are not conforming to God’s law; they are conforming to Church law.

If there truly was such thing as a God, then it is the God of Reality and the laws of nature. These laws can’t be disobeyed; they are self enforcing and they no moral conscience. Then there is the biblical God. To think that such a God has the power and intelligence to create the universe and keep it running, only to have the first man go against his will, is utterly comical for its irony.

The very nature of the original sin presents us with a picture of a powerless god. Since he failed so early at a relatively simple task, there is no reason to presume God has any influence over human actions. No reason to believe he was involved with the Bible. No reason to believe he orchestrated Jesus’ crucifixion. No reason to believe he can restore the dead to life. No reason to believe he has a plan. And most importantly, no reason to believe he exists.
The Church's Case for Original Sin

This report presents the Church’s case for Original Sin. Supporting references come from the Catholic Encyclopedia, the Epistles of Paul and the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

Frankly it can be boring; but it does serve as a refresher to those who don’t have a full understanding of why they are Christians. What is especially striking is the science defying claim that God intended the first man to be immortal until he sinned.

What is more important is what is missing. The Gospels and the Old Testament have nothing to say about the original sin and there is not a word from Jesus. What it means is that Jesus died for reasons having nothing to do with the original sin and that Paul concocted a big fat lie.

We analyze a paragraph from the Catechism of the Catholic Church to show how priestly writing can be appear to be saying something when it is really saying nothing.

Finally we take look into the writings of Thomas Aquinas. His genius for criticizing human nature earned him the status as one of Christianity’s most prominent theologians.
What is a Fall

In the context used here, “fall” refers to a state when one disobeys God. So then, to fall means to fall into the devil’s clutches. In this context, the term does not appear anywhere the Old Testament and is not recognized by Jews. It is not until we get to the New Testament where the word is used synonymously with disobeying God by allowing oneself to be deceived by the devil.

12Therefore let any one who thinks that he stands take heed lest he fall. (1 Cor. 10:12)

6He must not be a recent convert, or he may be puffed up with conceit and fall into the condemnation of the devil;
7moreover he must be well thought of by outsiders, or he may fall into reproach and the snare of the devil. (1 Tim. 3:6-7)

11Let us therefore strive to enter that rest, that no one fall by the same sort of disobedience. (Heb. 4:11)
Explaining Original Sin

The doctrine of Original Sin is founded upon what the Catholic Church defines as the first man's first sin, when Adam disobeyed God by eating from the tree of good and evil. From that time on, every human inherited the stain of his act. The stain itself brings eventual death to all men.

Original sin may be taken to mean: (1) the sin that Adam committed; (2) a consequence of this first sin, the hereditary stain with which we are born on account of our origin or descent from Adam. From the earliest times the latter sense of the word was more common, as may be seen by St. Augustine's statement: "the deliberate sin of the First man is the cause of original sin" (Catholic Encyclopedia: Original Sin)

12Therefore as sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all men sinned. (Rom. 5:12)

23For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord. (Rom 6:23)

Eve was exonerated for being deceived.

3But I am afraid that as the serpent deceived Eve by his cunning, your thoughts will be led astray from a sincere and pure devotion to Christ. (1 Cor. 11:3)

14and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. (1 Tim. 2:14)

*For the rest of it go here:http://www.usbible.com/Sin/original_sin.htm

And I'll still stand on my view that original sin, is nothing more than a ploy to control people by their own natural emotions. To be made quilty of a crime that our ancestors supposely commited, is nothing more than a slap at justice, moral, and a complete evasion of reason.

Godless.

 

[§outh§tar]

@ Godless

I must admit I was shocked by the length of Tiassa's reply but I'd better hold my tongue till he replies now..

However, must I remind you that the doctrine of original sin is false and lacks any scriptural base whatsoever?

http://www.christiancourier.com/archives/originalSin.htm

 

[Tiassa]

I must admit I was shocked by the length of Tiassa's reply but I'd better hold my tongue till he replies now.

What would you like me to reply to at this point?

 

[§outh§tar]

By all means. I have faith in these works.

Just try not to make too many quotes since they don't appear in the replies and makes it tedious to try to figure out what you are saying. But I do enjoy a good discussion, although the law is established by faith.

 

[Tiassa]

Just try not to make too many quotes since they don't appear in the replies and makes it tedious to try to figure out what you are saying.

With all due respect, §outh§tar, this topic is the first occasion I've ever encountered that issue. I am unsure what to make of it except to reiterate a question I've asked--

• Are you on a 56k connection?

--and to add another--

• What browser are you using?

 

[§outh§tar]

I'm using Mozilla and a very very slow connection. Impossibly slow is one way of putting it but it doesn't matter. Just do what needs to be done.

 

[Tiassa]

Ok. I'll see what I can come up with.

 

[Godless]

@southstar, O!! G's I forgot your looking at the fake made up religion of Paul, Christianity, I refered to the Catholics account of it. My bad!!.

Godless.

 

[Godless]

*However, must I remind you that the doctrine of original sin is false and lacks any scriptural base whatsoever?*


Oh!! realy? this is what I've found I'll try not to post too many links, however I will lead you to bible verses:

The first mention of the concept of Original Sin is found, not in Genesis, where the fatal event was supposed to happen, but in the fifth chapter of Romans, written by Paul. According to Paul, humanity was cursed because Adam sinned when he ate of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. As Paul puts it:

Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned (Rom. 5:12).

For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive (1 Cor. 15:22).

(Also note Rom. 5:17-19).

Despite these clear claims on the part of Paul, where are we to find the basis for them in Genesis? In that text, God pronounces all sorts of condemnations and curses upon Adam, Eve and the nefarious Serpent - working for their food, pain in childbirth, being stepped on, etc. Here is the relevant passage for reference:

The Lord God said to the serpent, Because you have done this, cursed are you among all animals and among all wild creatures; upon your belly you shall go, and dust you shall eat all the days of your life. I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; he will strike your head, and you will strike his heel." To the woman he said, I will greatly increase your pangs in childbearing; in pain you shall bring forth children, yet your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you." And to the man he said, Because you have listened to the voice of your wife, and have eaten of the tree about which I commanded you, You shall not eat of it, cursed is the ground because of you; in toil you shall eat of it all the days of your life; thorns and thistles it shall bring forth for you; and you shall eat the plants of the field. By the sweat of your face you shall eat bread until you return to the ground, for out of it you were taken; you are dust, and to dust you shall return." (Genesis 3:14-19)

At no point, however, do we see anything which might qualify as a curse of "Original Sin" to be handed down to all of Adam's descendants. Sure, their lives are supposed to become much more difficult than what they had heretofore experienced; but where in all of that is the "Sin" being passed along?

And even more importantly, where is there any indication that this sin must be "redeemed" eventually by Jesus? Christianity is anxious to portray itself as the logical and theological progeny of Judaism, but if Christianity simply invents a concept and tacks it on to Jewish stories, it's hard to see how that goal is accomplished.

The rest of the Old Testament is of no help to Christian theology in this area: from this point in Genesis all of the way through the ending of Malachi, there isn't the slightest hint of there being any sort of Original Sin inherited by all humans through Adam. There are plenty of stories of God getting angry at humanity in general and at the Jews in particular, thus offering many opportunities for God to point out how everyone is "sinful" because of Adam. Yet we read nothing about that.

Furthermore, there is nothing about how everyone who isn't "right" with God will go to hell and be tormented - another staple of Christian theology closely connected to Original Sin, since it is this sin which automatically condemns us. You'd think that God would have had enough heart to mention something this important, right?

Instead, God's punishments are all physical and temporal in nature: they apply here and now, not in the hereafter. Not even Jesus is quoted as having been concerned with Adam and Original Sin. By all appearances, Paul's interpretation is not really warranted by the actual story - a problem, since if this interpretation is not right, the whole Christian scheme of salvation falls apart.
Links of reference here

Now a little bit more on the scoundrel who started it all: Paul.

aul’s character

Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge.
—Charles Darwin

More than anything else, what defines Christianity is the idea that Jesus came to atone for the sins of humankind because the first man’s sin tainted the human race. If Jesus was God, then surely we should have learned that from him—but we don’t. He said he expected to die, but that was because he knew he had enemies. A man who wanted to die for a cause would not call his accuser a betrayer. And certainly, his enemies didn’t crucify him to atone for human sin.

42“He saved others; he cannot save himself. He is the King of Israel; let him come down now from the cross, and we will believe in him. (Matt. 27:42)

What are we left with? What becomes clear is that Jesus died because of his guilt. The reasons were bound up in the politics of the time and had nothing to do with atonement. His crucifixion wasn’t just, but it had nothing to do with Gentiles.

24“I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” (Matt. 15:24)

The jump from the gospel narratives to Christian interpretation of the events would be like arguing that Lincoln died to free the slaves. While it is true Lincoln's career was related to his death, he did not conduct a war with plans on getting killed.

The man who conceived this great hoax was Paul. No other person has had more influence on Christian thinking than Paul, not Jesus, not Augustine, not Thomas Aquinas. Paul was the true godfather of modern Christianity.

What the evidence points to is that Paul laid the groundwork from which the Gospels were written. There was no living Jesus before him. So the Gospels were conceived as a way to make it appear as if there was. By way of example, Paul argued that Jesus’ failure to rescue Jews was necessary until Gentiles came into the fold. Then Israel can be saved.

25Lest you be wise in your own conceits, I want you to understand this mystery, brethren: a hardening has come upon part of Israel, until the full number of the Gentiles come in, (Rom. 11:25)

He quotes from Hebrew Scripture as saying that the Deliverer will come from Zion to banish ungodliness from Jacob. There will be a new covenant when he takes away their sins.

26and so all Israel will be saved; as it is written, “The Deliverer will come from Zion, he will banish ungodliness from Jacob”;
27“and this will be my covenant with them when I take away their sins.” (Rom. 11:26-27)

Bible footnotes reference Isaiah 59:20-21 which says something entirely different: The Redeemer offered a covenant to Jews who turn from transgression. —The burden was on Jews to repent. In the OT, it was unthinkable to incorporate Gentiles.

20“And he will come to Zion as Redeemer, to those in Jacob who turn from transgression, says the LORD.
21“And as for me, this is my covenant with them, say the LORD: my spirit which is upon you, and my word which I have put in your mouth, shall not depart out of your mouth, or out of the mouth of your children, or out of the mouth of your children’s children, says the LORD, from this time forth and for evermore.” (Isaiah 59:20-21)

Paul is first mentioned in Acts 8:1, when he approved of Stephen’s stoning.

8:1aAnd Saul was consenting to his death. (Acts 8.1a)

Acts 8:3 tells us he “was ravaging the church by entering house after house, dragging off both men and women and committing them to prison.” The man had the mentality of a Gestapo policeman.

3But Saul was ravaging the church, and entering house after house, he dragged off men and women and committed them to prison. (Acts. 8:3)

Still breathing threats and murder against Christians, he went to the high priest for authority to look for Christians in Damascus (Syria) so he could bring them back to Jerusalem.

1But Saul, still breathing threats and murder against the disciples of the Lord, went to the high priest
2and asked him for letters to the synagogues at Damascus, so that if he found any belonging to the Way, men or women, he might bring them bound to Jerusalem. (Acts 9:1-2)

10And I did so in Jerusalem; I not only shut up many of the saints in prison, by authority from the chief priests, but when they were put to death I cast my vote against them.
11And I punished them often in all the synagogues and tried to make them blaspheme; and in raging fury against them, I persecuted them even to foreign cities. (Acts 26:10-11)

On the way to Damascus, Acts tells us, Paul met Jesus as a result of a flash of light from heaven and Jesus’ voice saying to him, “Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me.” What is fishy about this is that it is reminiscent of when Moses met the burning bush.

3Now as he journeyed he approached Damascus, and suddenly a light from heaven flashed about him.
4And he fell to the ground and heard a voice saying to him, “Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?” (Acts 9:3-4)

Before he knew whose voice it was, he addressed Jesus as Lord. The voice told him he is to enter the city to be told what to do. His companions heard the voice but saw no one. Paul was blinded and neither ate or drank for three days.

5And he said, “Who are you, Lord?” And he said, “I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting;
6but rise and enter the city, and you will be told what you are to do.”
7The men who were traveling with him stood speechless, hearing the voice but seeing no one.
8Saul arose from the ground; and when his eyes were opened, he could see nothing; so they led him by the hand and brought him into Damascus.
9And for three days he was without sight, and neither ate nor drank. (Acts 9:5-9)

On the third day, he was approached by Ananias, a follower of Jesus, who brought back his eyesight (Acts 9:9-18).

“Saul increased more in strength and confounded the Jews who lived in Damascus by proving that Jesus was the Messiah” (Acts 9:22). “After some time had passed, the Jews plotted to kill him” (Acts 9:23). The writer was suggesting that the Jews hated him for advocating Jesus. Let it be noticed that there were others preaching in the name of Jesus without having their lives threatened. One reason he was hated was for saying Roman authority was appointed by God to punish resisters.

1Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God.
2Therefore he who resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. (Rom. 13:1)

You can get the resthere

 

[TheVisitor]

Despite these clear claims on the part of Paul, where are we to find the basis for them in Genesis? In that text, God pronounces all sorts of condemnations and curses upon Adam, Eve and the nefarious Serpent - working for their food, pain in childbirth, being stepped on, etc. Here is the relevant passage for reference:

The Lord God said to the serpent, Because you have done this, cursed are you among all animals and among all wild creatures; upon your belly you shall go, and dust you shall eat all the days of your life. I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; he will strike your head, and you will strike his heel." To the woman he said, I will greatly increase your pangs in childbearing; in pain you shall bring forth children, yet your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you." And to the man he said, Because you have listened to the voice of your wife, and have eaten of the tree about which I commanded you, You shall not eat of it, cursed is the ground because of you; in toil you shall eat of it all the days of your life; thorns and thistles it shall bring forth for you; and you shall eat the plants of the field. By the sweat of your face you shall eat bread until you return to the ground, for out of it you were taken; you are dust, and to dust you shall return." (Genesis 3:14-19)
At no point, however, do we see anything which might qualify as a curse of "Original Sin" to be handed down to all of Adam's descendants. Sure, their lives are supposed to become much more difficult than what they had heretofore experienced; but where in all of that is the "Sin" being passed along?

=============================

Sin never began in the garden of Eden; it began in heaven....

Isaiah 14:12
How art thou falling from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cast down to the ground, which did weaken the nations!
For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God:... (Sons of God, now)... and I will set also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north

It was Satan's ambition to be worshipped like God.
We were told to "Lean not upon thy own understanding"
Look today at our churches, over 1000 all claiming something different with big buildings, big denominations, and intellectual theology.
Has he not succeded in his plan to deceive the whole world and become a god. ?


Eve did not take a apple that a snake give her, but she had a sexual affair with the person of Satan in the form of the beast, the Serpent.
This "Serpent" was not a reptile, but the smartest, subtlest of all the beast of the field, in the image of man, only thing that the seed would mix in.
It's the missing link between Man and the Apes.

Now before you say; ..."Eve had sex with Satan..?" please realize that what I'm saying is Satan is a spirit, the serpent he entered to deceive and seduce Eve was merly an animal, and therefore a host for this spirit, much like the pigs at Gardenea - however the serpent was also in the order of creation, the closest animal species to Man, and able to mix and form a hybrid.
This through Cain created an entrance for Satan into the human race for the purpose of destroying this new creation of Son's and Daughters of God, which according to the scriptures would be higher in power and authority than the angels.
This is what Jesus came to "restore" or redeem...that which was lost.
That's why He said we must be born again, not of flesh but of the "Spirit".
Cain's children were scientific; they were educated. They were the players of musical instruments, and the builders of cities.
Remeber - "lean not to thy own understanding"....
God hides Himself in simplicity, and reveals Himself in the same.
It's noteworthy to notice, at the beginning Seth and his children never went the scientific way. They were humble herdsmen, farmers, and so forth. But Cain's children did. Why? They were inspired by their father, the devil.
Jesus said; "I thank thee Father, you've hidden this from the "wise and prudent", and revealed it unto babes, such as are willing to learn"

Not one place in the Bible that Cain was ever called Adam's son.
Eve said; "I've gotten a man from the Lord", but thats because all life comes from God according to His laws...that if you plant a seed it has to grow.
God gives the increase.
The Bible said he was the son of that evil one: serpent's seed.
Notice what he did, and his thoughts.
He thought God dwelled in worldly beauty. Lucifer did that in heaven.
Sin never began in the garden of Eden; it began in heaven.... when Lucifer, the son of the morning, exalted himself in beauty and wanted a more beautiful kingdom than that of Michael. And he thought that God dwelled in beauty.
Notice Cain didn't want a blood sacrifice. He offered the fruit of the fields upon his altar.
He was very religious, and did everything just exactly as Abel, offered a sacrifice, fell down before God in worship, obedient in every way, but without the revelation of the Word.
Now look back at our churches today..having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof....denying "the Word" for their own theology.
And the Word was from the beginning, God's plan.
Everything was created by God's word, and by it held in place.
That word, spoken through the lips of a Son or Daughter of God contain all the creative power of God.........something even Satan could not do.
Satan's plan was to get Man to disbelieve God's word, and rely upon his own understanding.
That was the origin of Sin.
"Sin" doesn't mean to smoke or drink or commit adultry....those are the atributes of sin, but Sin means to "disbelieve God's word".

 

[vslayer]

the original sin was adam and eve who were brother and sister having sex, if you beleive that then we are all horrible disfigured inbreds,
INBREDS I TELL YOU!!!