GOD CREATED MAN (ADAM) SINFUL

[ChristB4us]

The law was always there, it is part of Gods character. Adam and Eve knew God and His love, but chose another to follow into sin.

What was that sin?

I'd say it was for not believing the word of God.

So salvation has to be that simple for repentance and that is by believing the Word of God; hence the Lord Jesus Christ.

@jeremiah1five

Until they had sinned in that manner, they were not sinful until that fall for where is the glory of God in salvation if they were sinful before they did not believe in the Word of God?

 

[jeremiah1five]

The law was always there, it is part of Gods character. Adam and Eve knew God and His love,

That's what I said. And the Law shows us we are sinners before any act of sin. Just the existence of Law shows us we are sinners.

but chose another to follow into sin.

In order to follow something, it must first exist. One can follow a person or Law or an idea. It would need to exist in order to follow it, as you say, and sin existed in Adam and the woman. That's why they sinned (disobeyed) against God. Sin comes from sinner.

 

[jeremiah1five]

Okay. That would apply to all believers in Jesus Christ, both Jew & Greek.

I am seeing that also for how we are one with God to live with Him forever since Jesus Christ is the Bridegroom. Unfortunately, not every saved believers that has been called will be chosen to attend the Marriage Supper in that "kingdom of Heaven" above for why it is also a place and yet where God dwells.

Jesus Christ is the Bridegroom and Israel is His Bride. God is betrothed to Israel, and this is His promised (betrothed) to Her. Gentiles are never under the Law and are not the Bride of Christ - saved or not saved.

I believe the new reality in Christ in alignment with what you are sharing is this;

Ephesians 5:31 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh. 32 This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church.

1 Corinthians 6:17 But he that is joined unto the Lord is one spirit. 18 Flee fornication. Every sin that a man doeth is without the body; but he that committeth fornication sinneth against his own body. 19 What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own? 20 For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God's.

2 Corinthians 13:5 Examine yourselves, whether ye be in the faith; prove your own selves. Know ye not your own selves, how that Jesus Christ is in you, except ye be reprobates?

The Church in Corinth and Ephesus was founded by Jewish Christians who returned to their homes and synagogues in their respective cities after being born again and filled with the Holy Spirit at Pentecost - a Jewish Feast of Harvest.

But physical fornication is not the only sin that can offend the Lord Jesus Christ in us, but spiritual fornication also when saved believers believe the lie that they can receive the Holy Spirit by a sign of tongues or any other sensational sign in the flesh, even one of feeling a filling of the "holy Spirit" as if it is a continual event to experienced it even though He was received by faith in Jesus Christ as promised.

That would be the error of Pentecostals as well as other errors they practice.

I do not believe any Christian of Jewish background fall under the Old Covenant and neither do the Samaritans as there is only one gospel and only one body of Christ.

There is nothing that excludes Jews from covenant if they had children with Gentiles (non-covenant.) This is the same thing that happened with the Sethian sons of God being unequally yoked with the daughters of men (non-covenant) and their children grew up without any training and admonition of God. They grew up as the word is defined as 'tyrants' and 'bullies.'
Samaritans are still in covenant with God and Jesus' interaction with the Samaritan woman at the well. Since Christ is the Bridegroom and was promised to Israel, He has only one Bride: the Jews a.k.a. Israel. To have another separate and strange woman He would love let alone marry would be adultery and fornication. And being the Bridegroom to Israel this would include His Body belonging to her.

 

[jeremiah1five]

And yet Jesus being a Jew, crossed that line.
The Samaritan woman spoke of the separation between Jews & Samaritans.

John 4:7 There cometh a woman of Samaria to draw water: Jesus saith unto her, Give me to drink. 8 (For his disciples were gone away unto the city to buy meat.) 9 Then saith the woman of Samaria unto him, How is it that thou, being a Jew, askest drink of me, which am a woman of Samaria? for the Jews have no dealings with the Samaritans.

Yes, a separation placed upon this minority of Jew-Gentile offspring by the majority Jews. This woman was still in covenant with God. God sent the Assyrians and the Babylonians. God knew what the conquerors do with the women when they conqueror a people: they rape, sometimes marry, fornicate, take as concubines and even sexual slaves as well as non-sexual slaves. Quite possibly these Jewish women caught in such circumstance had no choice in the matter. God knew. And it didn't affect His covenant. Samaritan half-Jew were still in covenant with God.

It was important to report by John that the disciples were not there when this had occurred for why His disciples had asked this question when they had returned.
John 4:27 And upon this came his disciples, and marvelled that he talked with the woman: yet no man said, What seekest thou? or, Why talkest thou with her?

Jesus had to break the divide by revealing who that neighbour is in relation to Israel.

Luke 10:25 And, behold, a certain lawyer stood up, and tempted him, saying, Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life? 26 He said unto him, What is written in the law? how readest thou? 27 And he answering said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself. 28 And he said unto him, Thou hast answered right: this do, and thou shalt live.
29 But he, willing to justify himself, said unto Jesus, And who is my neighbour?

30 And Jesus answering said, A certain man went down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and fell among thieves, which stripped him of his raiment, and wounded him, and departed, leaving him half dead. 31 And by chance there came down a certain priest that way: and when he saw him, he passed by on the other side. 32 And likewise a Levite, when he was at the place, came and looked on him, and passed by on the other side. 33 But a certain Samaritan, as he journeyed, came where he was: and when he saw him, he had compassion on him, 34 And went to him, and bound up his wounds, pouring in oil and wine, and set him on his own beast, and brought him to an inn, and took care of him. 35 And on the morrow when he departed, he took out two pence, and gave them to the host, and said unto him, Take care of him; and whatsoever thou spendest more, when I come again, I will repay thee. 36 Which now of these three, thinkest thou, was neighbour unto him that fell among the thieves? 37 And he said, He that shewed mercy on him. Then said Jesus unto him, Go, and do thou likewise.

Unless I am missing something; do you have scripture testifying to the Samaritans being under the Old Covenant as well? I cannot find it as much as I tried a word search at Bible Gateway to find that connection.

God has covenant with Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Jacob's twelve sons a people identified in Scripture as the children of Israel or the short version: Jews. Samaritans are half Jew. God has covenant with the Jews.

At any rate, so far, it looks like there is a separation between the Jews & the Samaritans by seeing the Samaritans as Gentiles to separate themselves as Jews from them.

If I follow your confusion correctly it was as she said, "the JEWS have no dealings with Samaritans or half Jew. But isn't Jesus a half-Jew through Ruth and Rahab? Yes, maybe quarter-Jew.

 

[jeremiah1five]

@jeremiah1five

Until they had sinned in that manner, they were not sinful until that fall for where is the glory of God in salvation if they were sinful before they did not believe in the Word of God?

Can God reduplicate Himself? Can God copy Himself in anything or share or give any aspect of His Nature or Deific Attributes such as sinlessness. Sinlessness is the Nature of God, and it is Himself. He doesn't have a reserve in a jar on the shelf. God is the 'canon' or 'ruler' or standard by which everything and everyone is judged. Just by virtue of his creation and having a beginning shows they fall short of God's Eternal glory. The word for this is sin. That is why they disobeyed (sinned) against God. Sin comes from sinner as wickedness comes from the wicked. Believing or disbelieving is irrelevant. The woman sinned because the fruit from the tree was 'good for food, pleasant to the eyes, and something she believed would make her wise (another downfall in their creative make-up - they were not All-Wise which is another Deific Attribute of God. Yes, these two were certainly created fallen short of God's glory. Only the Holy Son and the Holy Spirit can stand blameless, holy, perfect, sinless, eternal, All-Wise with God.

 

[ChristB4us]

Jesus Christ is the Bridegroom and Israel is His Bride. God is betrothed to Israel, and this is His promised (betrothed) to Her. Gentiles are never under the Law and are not the Bride of Christ - saved or not saved.

I disagree.

Romans 15:7 Wherefore receive ye one another, as Christ also received us to the glory of God. 8 Now I say that Jesus Christ was a minister of the circumcision for the truth of God, to confirm the promises made unto the fathers: 9 And that the Gentiles might glorify God for his mercy; as it is written, For this cause I will confess to thee among the Gentiles, and sing unto thy name. 10 And again he saith, Rejoice, ye Gentiles, with his people. 11 And again, Praise the Lord, all ye Gentiles; and laud him, all ye people.

John 1:12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: 13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
So not born of the lineage of the 12 tribes of Israel nor the will of the flesh nor the will of man converting to Judaism, but Jews & Gentiles are born of God by believing in Jesus Christ, even in His name, thus as sons of God; of the promise given to Abraham.

The Church in Corinth and Ephesus was founded by Jewish Christians who returned to their homes and synagogues in their respective cities after being born again and filled with the Holy Spirit at Pentecost - a Jewish Feast of Harvest.

Even if that be true..... which I dare say you may have a hard time proving it..... these verses serves as a rebuttal.

1 Corinthians 1:1Paul called to be an apostle of Jesus Christ through the will of God, and Sosthenes our brother, 2 Unto the church of God which is at Corinth, to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, with all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both their's and our's: 3 Grace be unto you, and peace, from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ.

9 God is faithful, by whom ye were called unto the fellowship of his Son Jesus Christ our Lord. 10 Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment.

1 Corinthians 10:32 Give none offence, neither to the Jews, nor to the Gentiles, nor to the church of God:

Ephesians 3:1For this cause I Paul, the prisoner of Jesus Christ for you Gentiles, 2 If ye have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which is given me to you-ward: 3 How that by revelation he made known unto me the mystery; (as I wrote afore in few words, 4 Whereby, when ye read, ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ) 5 Which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit; 6 That the Gentiles should be fellowheirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel:

That would be the error of Pentecostals as well as other errors they practice.

The principle of the antichrist is "instead of Christ" as in "instead of the Son" to be clearer still. So when Jesus says He is the only way to come to God the Father by, that excludes the way of the Holy Spirit or the broad way of the "blessed" Trinity per John 14:6. Any doubt upon this is the offense as known by climbing up another way per John 10:1 when Jesus is the door for living that reconciled relationship with the Father per John 10:7-9. The Nicene creed of 381 A.D. had broadened the way in the worship place by including the worship of the Holy Spirit with the Father & the Son in an attempt to be ecumenical as gathering grapes of thorns & figs of thistles ( Matthew 7:13-16 ), but God the Father is glorified by glorifying the Son as that is the mind of Christ we are to have in worship in Philippians 2:5-11 and how God the Father is only glorified by per John 13:31-32. Any doubt should be by applying the standard of judgment for how there is only one way to honor the Father and the stressing point is when we stop honoring the Son, we are no longer honoring the Father.

John 5:22 For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son: 23 That all men should honour the Son, even as they honour the Father. He that honoureth not the Son honoureth not the Father which hath sent him.

So whenever focus is off of the Son in honoring Him in worship, that is not being watchful and thus suffering a thief to break through for why many denominations experiences the holy laughter movement in 1997 thus no longer a streamlined Pentecostal/Charismatic phenomenon.

Because of the false prophets, & the spirits of the antichrist, Jesus stressed for believers to avoid that iniquity by striving to enter through that straight gate if they do not want to be excommunicated from the Marriage Supper when the Bridegroom comes. Luke 13:24-30 KJV

There is nothing that excludes Jews from covenant if they had children with Gentiles (non-covenant.) This is the same thing that happened with the Sethian sons of God being unequally yoked with the daughters of men (non-covenant) and their children grew up without any training and admonition of God. They grew up as the word is defined as 'tyrants' and 'bullies.'
Samaritans are still in covenant with God and Jesus' interaction with the Samaritan woman at the well. Since Christ is the Bridegroom and was promised to Israel, He has only one Bride: the Jews a.k.a. Israel. To have another separate and strange woman He would love let alone marry would be adultery and fornication. And being the Bridegroom to Israel this would include His Body belonging to her.

Seems there was something, a warning given to the Jews not to marry outside the nation of Israel.

Deuteronomy 7:1When the Lord thy God shall bring thee into the land whither thou goest to possess it, and hath cast out many nations before thee, the Hittites, and the Girgashites, and the Amorites, and the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, and the Hivites, and the Jebusites, seven nations greater and mightier than thou; 2 And when the Lord thy God shall deliver them before thee; thou shalt smite them, and utterly destroy them; thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor shew mercy unto them: 3 Neither shalt thou make marriages with them; thy daughter thou shalt not give unto his son, nor his daughter shalt thou take unto thy son. 4 For they will turn away thy son from following me, that they may serve other gods: so will the anger of the Lord be kindled against you, and destroy thee suddenly.

I understand that foreigners converted to Judaism for which they can marry, but I believe this commandment is the sticking point for why the Jews separate themselves from Samaritans that did not actually convert to Judaism for then they would no longer be called Samaritans.

 

[ChristB4us]

Yes, a separation placed upon this minority of Jew-Gentile offspring by the majority Jews. This woman was still in covenant with God. God sent the Assyrians and the Babylonians. God knew what the conquerors do with the women when they conqueror a people: they rape, sometimes marry, fornicate, take as concubines and even sexual slaves as well as non-sexual slaves. Quite possibly these Jewish women caught in such circumstance had no choice in the matter. God knew. And it didn't affect His covenant. Samaritan half-Jew were still in covenant with God.

Did the Samaritan woman believed she was a Jew even as a half Jew? Then why not worship as a Jew?

God has covenant with Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Jacob's twelve sons a people identified in Scripture as the children of Israel or the short version: Jews. Samaritans are half Jew. God has covenant with the Jews.

I do wonder if blood relations in those cases do not matter until they convert to Judaism.

If I follow your confusion correctly it was as she said, "the JEWS have no dealings with Samaritans or half Jew. But isn't Jesus a half-Jew through Ruth and Rahab? Yes, maybe quarter-Jew.

Seeing how His parents, Mary & Joseph ( not his actual father ) were Jewish followers of Judaism.. that saw to it for His circumcision, thus being raised in a household in Judaism, not sure if blood relations no matter how mixed, matters, when conceived by the Holy Ghost.

 

[ChristB4us]

Can God reduplicate Himself? Can God copy Himself in anything or share or give any aspect of His Nature or Deific Attributes such as sinlessness. Sinlessness is the Nature of God, and it is Himself. He doesn't have a reserve in a jar on the shelf. God is the 'canon' or 'ruler' or standard by which everything and everyone is judged. Just by virtue of his creation and having a beginning shows they fall short of God's Eternal glory. The word for this is sin. That is why they disobeyed (sinned) against God. Sin comes from sinner as wickedness comes from the wicked. Believing or disbelieving is irrelevant. The woman sinned because the fruit from the tree was 'good for food, pleasant to the eyes, and something she believed would make her wise (another downfall in their creative make-up - they were not All-Wise which is another Deific Attribute of God. Yes, these two were certainly created fallen short of God's glory. Only the Holy Son and the Holy Spirit can stand blameless, holy, perfect, sinless, eternal, All-Wise with God.

How do you apply this request by the Word of God to the father for the creation of man and how He said it was good after He was done?

Genesis 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. 27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. 28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth. 29 And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat. 30 And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so. 31 And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

Was God a liar if He had created man to be sinful when He said everything was good that 6th day?

Was God sinful to begin with in order for Him to create man after His likeness as if sinful and after His image?

If man was sinful before the fall, then why report how the generation of man had fallen by which death had entered the world because of that sin at the fall?

Where is the glory of God in salvation by how we believe in Him if the sin because of the fall was by not believing the Word of God?

How can death enter the world at the fall of man by sin of unbelief in the Word of God if death was in the world at the creation of man?

 

[jeremiah1five]

I disagree.

You can disagree all you want, God has covenant with Israel not Gentiles. There is no mention of Gentiles in the Abrahamic and Mosaic Covenants. NONE.

Romans 15:7 Wherefore receive ye one another, as Christ also received us to the glory of God. 8 Now I say that Jesus Christ was a minister of the circumcision for the truth of God, to confirm the promises made unto the fathers: 9 And that the Gentiles might glorify God for his mercy; as it is written, For this cause I will confess to thee among the Gentiles, and sing unto thy name. 10 And again he saith, Rejoice, ye Gentiles, with his people. 11 And again, Praise the Lord, all ye Gentiles; and laud him, all ye people.

All prophecies of the Millennium when Christ sits on the throne, and everything is said and done.
And you can't prove these "Gentiles" if the prophet was mentioning them for the present are hard-core, uncircumcised Gentiles. They were circumcised Gentile proselyte converts. They were in the synagogues and Temple and would have access to any testimonies about Israel's Messiah and a Holy Spirit.

John 1:12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: 13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
So not born of the lineage of the 12 tribes of Israel nor the will of the flesh nor the will of man converting to Judaism, but Jews & Gentiles are born of God by believing in Jesus Christ, even in His name, thus as sons of God; of the promise given to Abraham.

First, the gospels are written to covenant Israel to show this Jesus was their long-awaited Messiah. The gospels record Jewish history, Jewish prophets, Jewish covenants, Jewish promises, Jewish language, Jewish culture, Jewish personalities (Moses, Abe, David, Isaiah, etc.) something uncircumcised, idol-worshiping non-covenant Gentiles would be oblivious of and no interest, and Jewish Temple, Jewish practices, all these things about Israel that only a Jew would be familiar and understand. John especially writes to Jews:

31 But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name. Jn 20:31.

Jewish nation, Jewish Messiah. Jewish testimony of not two or three witnesses, but three and four.

Even if that be true..... which I dare say you may have a hard time proving it..... these verses serves as a rebuttal.

1 Corinthians 1:1Paul called to be an apostle of Jesus Christ through the will of God, and Sosthenes our brother, 2 Unto the church of God which is at Corinth, to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, with all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both their's and our's: 3 Grace be unto you, and peace, from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ.

The only "saints" identified as "saints" (and Saul as Pharisee would know) are those in the First Covenant writings:

15 Precious in the sight of the LORD Is the death of his saints. Ps 116:15.

9 O fear the LORD, ye his saints: Ps 34:9.
{Content deleted by admin for inappropriate content}

9 God is faithful, by whom ye were called unto the fellowship of his Son Jesus Christ our Lord. 10 Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment.

Speaking to Jewish Christians.

1 Corinthians 10:32 Give none offence, neither to the Jews, nor to the Gentiles, nor to the church of God:

Ephesians 3:1For this cause I Paul, the prisoner of Jesus Christ for you Gentiles, 2 If ye have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which is given me to you-ward: 3 How that by revelation he made known unto me the mystery; (as I wrote afore in few words, 4 Whereby, when ye read, ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ) 5 Which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit; 6 That the Gentiles should be fellowheirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel:

Gentile proselytes. There was enough that in the building of the Temple there was assigned a Court just for them and later for the future.

So whenever focus is off of the Son in honoring Him in worship, that is not being watchful and thus suffering a thief to break through for why many denominations experiences the holy laughter movement in 1997 thus no longer a streamlined Pentecostal/Charismatic phenomenon.

Because of the false prophets, & the spirits of the antichrist, Jesus stressed for believers to avoid that iniquity by striving to enter through that straight gate if they do not want to be excommunicated from the Marriage Supper when the Bridegroom comes. Luke 13:24-30 KJV

19 And I will betroth thee unto me for ever;
Yea, I will betroth thee unto me in righteousness, and in judgment,
And in lovingkindness, and in mercies.
20 I will even betroth thee unto me in faithfulness:
And thou shalt know the LORD.
Hosea 2:19–20.

Israel is the Bride and Church of God through covenant.
Gentiles have no covenant in the Law, Psalms, and Prophets neither in the Abrahamic, Mosaic, and New Covenants. If God wanted uncircumcised Gentiles, He would have said so when these covenants were being given/made. But there is no record of any covenant God has made with Gentiles above.

Seems there was something, a warning given to the Jews not to marry outside the nation of Israel.

Deuteronomy 7:1When the Lord thy God shall bring thee into the land whither thou goest to possess it, and hath cast out many nations before thee, the Hittites, and the Girgashites, and the Amorites, and the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, and the Hivites, and the Jebusites, seven nations greater and mightier than thou; 2 And when the Lord thy God shall deliver them before thee; thou shalt smite them, and utterly destroy them; thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor shew mercy unto them: 3 Neither shalt thou make marriages with them; thy daughter thou shalt not give unto his son, nor his daughter shalt thou take unto thy son. 4 For they will turn away thy son from following me, that they may serve other gods: so will the anger of the Lord be kindled against you, and destroy thee suddenly.

I understand that foreigners converted to Judaism for which they can marry, but I believe this commandment is the sticking point for why the Jews separate themselves from Samaritans that did not actually convert to Judaism for then they would no longer be called Samaritans.

There was no need to convert half-Jews. They were in covenant through and through. Samaritans began as fully Jew. They were conquered and you know what conquerors do with the women. Rape, and being captive they were held as slaves, sexual slaves, sold to other Gentiles, forced to marry, forced to fornicate, all these a natural occurrence to a conquered people. Twice. And over 100 years separated the Assyrian and Babylonian defeats. Half-Jew/half-Gentile offspring could have tried to marry Judaean brethren and most likely this is where the "You're not a Jew, you're a mutt" attitude began. But in time these same people suffered being conquered and raped and forced into slavery and eventually had half-Jew/half-Gentile offspring and the Samarian Samaritans might have given their Judean brethren the same treatment which is why there is no mention (to my knowledge) of half-Jews in/from the south as half-Jews are mentioned (Samaritan) in the north of Israel.

Now, think for a moment. How would you end up theologically if your bible was kept from you and there was no information on how to worship the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, nor had a Temple to worship in. What would (mostly) Assyrian and Babylonian fathers have taught their children until maybe the Jewish parent gave a history of their birth and instill in their children their heritage as a seed of Abraham their father? You'd go on oral tradition. And without a source of authority (Law, Psalms, Prophets) I'm sure you'd end up at the wrong mountain.

 

[jeremiah1five]

Did the Samaritan woman believed she was a Jew even as a half Jew?

12 Art thou greater than our father Jacob, which gave us the well, and drank thereof himself, and his children, and his cattle? Jn 4:12.

Then why not worship as a Jew?

How many generations were born to Jewish/Assyrian and Jewish/Babylonian as well as other Jewish/Gentile parents. How could they rightly worship after at least one generation later if their Scriptures were kept from them - even if they had any left behind when the crux of the people were carried away to these places. At least the Magi had some Scriptures to discern the signs of the times. Imagine seeing His star in the east. What made them go west to Jerusalem? Methinks thou needest to thinkest this through further.

I do wonder if blood relations in those cases do not matter until they convert to Judaism.

God made covenant with a particular family. And you (and others) are going to tell me God is not ethnic? Ha.

Seeing how His parents, Mary & Joseph ( not his actual father ) were Jewish followers of Judaism.. that saw to it for His circumcision, thus being raised in a household in Judaism, not sure if blood relations no matter how mixed, matters, when conceived by the Holy Ghost.

Again, God made covenant with a certain Hebrew. Then with his son. Then with his grandson. Then with his great-grandchildren. Sounds ethnic to me.

 

[jeremiah1five]

How do you apply this request by the Word of God to the father for the creation of man and how He said it was good after He was done?

Genesis 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. 27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. 28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth. 29 And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat. 30 And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so. 31 And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

Was God a liar if He had created man to be sinful when He said everything was good that 6th day?

The word "good" merely means "good [enough], or "to specification." In other words God was pleased with the result and said so. We do the same thing with a job well done.
God said the "grass and herb-yielding seed" was good, too. What's implied/indicated? That the grass and herb yielding seed was sinless or holy or morally "good" as many believers believe erroneously?

Was God sinful to begin with in order for Him to create man after His likeness as if sinful and after His image?

A lamb was slain from [before] the foundation (creation) of the world in the heavenly Tabernacle. God was busy preparing for the creation of man and from man, His elect.

If man was sinful before the fall, then why report how the generation of man had fallen by which death had entered the world because of that sin at the fall?

Not following you.

Where is the glory of God in salvation by how we believe in Him if the sin because of the fall was by not believing the Word of God?

16 So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.
Rom. 9:16.

How can death enter the world at the fall of man by sin of unbelief in the Word of God if death was in the world at the creation of man?

This is what Saul said:

12 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.

There is no evidence of any act of sin. But it does read by one man sin entered the world.

If Adam and the woman had not disobeyed and God had not commanded "thou shalt not" in the Garden they would have still eventually died.

 

[Kermos]

For example (and this is only one of many from which I could select),

No, it does not follow.

The errors begin with the assumption "Adam was a part of God's plan of redemption (the capitals are unnecessary, unwarranted, and do nothing for the argument) through the Christ for mankind before the foundation of the world" is treated as a given. In other words, it begs the question of that which it should first prove. Prior to the one man's act of disobedience there was no need for redemption. That means no plan for redemption was necessary and that means either God made a plan that was unnecessary for a time or God and His plan was dependent on conditions ontologically antithetical to His being (and a pile of scripture stating God makes good things, not bad things). The claim also commits a form of the fallacy, post hoc ergo propter hoc, by asserting "because X happened then Y must exist." Because redemption did become necessary then a plan for it must have previously existed. There are other explanations, ones much more consistent with the whole of scripture and ones that do not make God and His plan for creation dependent on sin, but none are found in Post 135.

You preach that God failed from Plan A of a good Adam living forever unto an unforeknown Plan B of God's for the Redemption of Mankind through the Christ. Behold the Apostle Peter's word about God's Plan BEFORE THE FOUNDATION OF THE WORLD:

​

with precious blood, as of a lamb unblemished and spotless, the blood of Christ for He was foreknown before the foundation of the world, but has appeared in these last times for the sake of you who through Him are believers in God, who raised Him from the dead and gave Him glory, so that your faith and hope are in God, your souls having purified in the obedience of the truth through the Spirit for a sincere love of the brethren, fervently love one another from the heart,​

(1 Peter 1:19-22)​

​

Did God's Plan A Fail - Forcing God To Spontaneously Develop Plan B?​

According to the "good Adam" teaching, God had an original plan for Adam to live forever in the paradise on earth where Adam was made, and it is just termed the Good Plan until Adam ate the fruit.
I equate "spiritually alive", "upright", "perfect", "righteous" and the like with "good" for the purposes of this sidebar.

Advocating the "good Adam" precept advocates the concept of good people converting to evil people; in other words, a GOOD Adam conquering a GOOD command of God in order to convert to an EVIL Adam.

The "good Adam" precept goes with the GOOD God being surprised by the GOOD Adam destroying the GOOD God's GOOD Plan A of the GOOD Adam living forever in God's GOOD paradise, so the GOOD God in a panic abandoned the GOOD Plan A to develop a GOOD Plan B to expel the EVIL Adam from paradise into a CURSED land with the GOOD promise of a Redeemer. The GOOD Plan A stopped being GOOD Plan A, so that means GOOD Plan A converted to EVIL plan A since the GOOD Adam caused GOOD Plan A to error out.

So, the "good Adam" precept conveys that God unwittingly created everything only to have it catastrophically crumble right in front of God. By the hand of man taken away from God. With God at the mercy of man. Unmercy perhaps being a better word.

This means GOOD God produced an imperfect plan, formerly GOOD Plan A now EVIL plan A; in other words, the GOOD God's GOOD Plan A failed with a spiritually alive Adam lost to be spiritually dead; in other words , the "good Adam" precept has it that GOOD Adam thwarted GOOD God, so GOOD God was too small to preserve GOOD Plan A, so GOOD God converted to EVIL god (this is following to where the "good Adam" precept leads), and EVIL god was incapable of preserving a spiritually alive person.

See that the "good Adam" precept has man snatching the "very good" of creation right out of God's hand; not only that, the man acts self-destructively during the snatching.

The "good Adam" precept has a good man doing the action of an evil man, so that is not a good man.

The "good Adam" doctrine leads to a different god than revealed by the Word of God.

The "good Adam" precept grossly distorts good and evil. The "good Adam" precept is confusion in the knowledge of good and evil.

In conclusion, the supporters of the "good Adam" precept advocate for good people converting to evil people which is absent from the entirety of the scripture; on the other hand, the Word of God is replete with God converting evil people into good people in Christ.

Moreover, God is good, and God's Way is good. Man is evil, yet God works all things out for good for the man of God's Way.

In actuality, with God there is no plan B - God is mightier than that. God's plan for the Redemption of Mankind through the Christ succeeds and is victorious, and this is God's plan before the foundation of the world.

You wrote "There are other explanations, ones much more consistent with the whole of scripture and ones that do not make God and His plan for creation dependent on sin, but none are found in Post 135", so you think God's plan is dependent and centralized upon an evil man named Adam instead of the Good Shepherd Jesus Christ as central in the whole of Scripture being God's Plan for the Redemption of Mankind through the Christ (1 Peter 1:19-22).

 

[ChristB4us]

The word "good" merely means "good [enough], or "to specification." In other words God was pleased with the result and said so. We do the same thing with a job well done.
God said the "grass and herb-yielding seed" was good, too. What's implied/indicated? That the grass and herb yielding seed was sinless or holy or morally "good" as many believers believe erroneously?

On the finished 6th day of creation, all that breathe air, and the marine life of the sea, could not die.

There were no meat eaters and therefore no need to kill another living thing for that meat. It was that way until after the Biblical global flood where the fear of man fell on all living things as they can now look to them instead of herbs for their "meat".

A lamb was slain from [before] the foundation (creation) of the world in the heavenly Tabernacle. God was busy preparing for the creation of man and from man, His elect.

If the penalty for the wages of sin is death, and then Christ paid for it, it is God's foresight that He saw Adam & Eve would sin by not believing the Word of God for why Jesus would have to come to reconcile us back to God for all those that the Father worked in us so we can believe.

Not following you.

If man was created sinful, then what is the point of commanding them not to eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil for which the consequence was physical death and separation from God forever?

16 So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.
Rom. 9:16.

That is about the vessels unto honor from the vessels unto dishonor for why He will show mercy unto the vessels unto dishonor for not departing from iniquity and yet they believed in him or they had formerly before some lie turned them away from the truth & overthrew their faith.

This is what Saul said:

12 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.

There is no evidence of any act of sin. But it does read by one man sin entered the world.

How do you explain Genesis 3rd chapter then? Look at the consequence for that sin by the serpent, the woman, and the man.

Genesis 3:14 And the Lord God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life: 15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

16 Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.

17 And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life; 18 Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field; 19 In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.

Would that not testify that these punishments was not present before the fall?

If Adam and the woman had not disobeyed and God had not commanded "thou shalt not" in the Garden they would have still eventually died.

I disagree because that tales way the glory of God in salvation for how we are saved by believing in the Word of God, hence the Lord Jesus Christ. The sin of not believing the Word of God is the actual sin that was committed for how death came into the world by Adam.

Otherwise scripture cannot say death was brought into the world by Adam's sin which was due to unbelief in the Word of God.

 

[ChristB4us]

12 Art thou greater than our father Jacob, which gave us the well, and drank thereof himself, and his children, and his cattle? Jn 4:12.

How many generations were born to Jewish/Assyrian and Jewish/Babylonian as well as other Jewish/Gentile parents. How could they rightly worship after at least one generation later if their Scriptures were kept from them - even if they had any left behind when the crux of the people were carried away to these places. At least the Magi had some Scriptures to discern the signs of the times. Imagine seeing His star in the east. What made them go west to Jerusalem? Methinks thou needest to thinkest this through further.

God made covenant with a particular family. And you (and others) are going to tell me God is not ethnic? Ha.

Again, God made covenant with a certain Hebrew. Then with his son. Then with his grandson. Then with his great-grandchildren. Sounds ethnic to me.

Why would God have a chosen people unless to represent Him to the world at large? Was not Judaism open to all?

 

[Kermos]

The statement in question appeals to 1 Peter 1:20 (without saying so) but the 1 Peter 1 text is not specifically or explicitly about redemption. It's about sacrifice. This conflation is a common mistake but common or not it remains a mistake. Jesus was coming as the perfect, blemish-free sacrifice whether a single sin was ever committed or not. To condition his sacrifice solely on the existence and redemption of sin again compromises the ontology of God. It, again, make the Perfect God dependent upon imperfection, the Creator dependent upon the creature, the Righteous One subject to unrighteousness, the Law Maker needing lawlessness, the only truly autonomous self-sufficient God reliant upon slavery. In other words, that one single premise, based on a selective appeal to 1 Peter 1:20 commits a variety of logical/theological errors. Yes, Jesus' sacrifice does redeem those sanctified by the Spirit, but sin is not the cause of Jesus being the Redeemer. That's not only a false-cause argument, but that is also the cart before the horse. Because Jesus is the prefect sacrifice, he is also the redeemer, not the other way around. Now, you might be thinking the same argument applies to my dissent but there are multiple reasons Jesus is the perfect sacrifice and multiple effects of his sacrifice and they do not all have to do with the existence of sin but, again, that is nowhere found in Post 135. Post 135 assumes things not in evidence and neglects things that should be necessarily stated. These errors are compounded by a mistake I mentioned in my post: do not apply post-disobedient scriptures about post-disobedient conditions to sinless creatures living in a sinless world!

In Truth (John 14:6), I referenced 1 Peter 1:20 in post #135, and you even recognized it!

Now, you think "sin is not the cause of Jesus being the Redeemer", but John the Baptist testified "Behold, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world! This is He on behalf of whom I said, ‘After me comes a Man who has a higher rank than I, for He existed before me.’" (John 1:29-30) and Lord Jesus says "the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many" (Matthew 20:28); therefore, you preach that Jesus redeemed not sinnners based upon your writing "sin is not the cause of Jesus being the Redeemer" as if Jesus sacrificed for some other reason.

The statement "God's Plan for the Redemption of Mankind through the Christ (1 Peter 1:19-22)" by no means negates "the blessed, priceless treasure of Lord Jesus Christ's sacrifice to bring us His people peace with God".

 

[Kermos]

In other words, I am not even done with the first line of argument 2 and there are a handful of errors. One error is fatal and there are many. Cases built on erroneous premises lead to erroneous cases and flawed cases built on flawed premises lead to flawed conclusions AND any case containing multiple errors in its opening sentence is not worthy of consideration. It should be discarded out of hand and a better case from true and factual premises made.

In Truth (John 14:6), your writings are "Cases built on erroneous premises lead to erroneous cases and flawed cases built on flawed premises lead to flawed conclusions".

For example, you convey that the Word of God is not good unto salvation (see Romans 1:16) with your writing of "any case containing multiple errors in its opening sentence is not worthy of consideration. It should be discarded out of hand and a better case from true and factual premises made". Notice that your post contains no Scripture citations except your mention of the citation that God had me reference of 1 Peter.

 

[Kermos]

Another problem running throughout Post 135 is the failure to define the terms. For example, "free will" is never truly "free" in the dictionary definition of the word (autonomous, unfettered, or not under the control or influence of another) and those who hold to that definition in the context of free will are not only exceedingly rare but also foolish. There is, however, a wide array of views held within Christianity and the various views are so diverse that the term should have been defined as it was intended to be used so that I and everyone else reading the post can understand exactly what you mean when using the phrase "free will." Line five of argument 1 contradicts the conclusion of argument 2. If Adam was made "a free will into man in the likeness God's will" then either Adam was endowed with the attribute of free will or God does not Himself possess free will. Argument 1 and argument 2 cannot both be correct, true, logical, scriptural, or acceptable. One or both are irrational and unscriptural.

You wrote "I read every word of it" regarding post #135, and you also wrote "Another problem running throughout Post 135 is the failure to define the terms. For example, 'free will'", yet Lord Jesus caused me to write "Largely, I use free will to mean man choosing toward God, emphatically Lord Jesus Christ".

We Christians believe the Christ exclusively chooses persons unto salvation:

• "you did not choose Me, but I chose you" (Lord Jesus Christ, John 15:16), so God chooses people to be friends (John 15:15, the prior verse) and to believe (John 6:29) and to be born again (John 3:3-8) and for righteous works (John 3:21, John 15:5) and to repent (Matthew 11:25) and to love (John 13:34) and unto salvation (John 15:19 the same passage).
• "I chose you out of the world" (Lord Jesus Christ, John 15:19, includes salvation), so God exclusively chooses people unto salvation.
• "What I say to you I say to all" (Lord Jesus Christ, Mark 13:37 - Jesus had taken the Apostles Peter, Andrew, James, and John aside in private and said this), so all the blessings of God mentioned above are to all believers in all time.

Your quoted writing begs the questions:

• do you understand that which you read or hear?
• did you publicly deceive when you wrote "I read every word of it" regarding post #135?

 

[Kermos]

Remember, it is YOU who said peace is the opposite of evil.

Where? Let's look:

I believe calamity is a better word than evil. The poetic form of Hebrew parallelism shows evil is the wrong translation.

Light is the opposite of darkness....calamity is the opposite of peace....not evil.

You wrote "calamity is the opposite of peace" which is imprecise. War is the opposite of peace.

We discuss a passage from the Prophets (Nevi'im), not the Poetry (Ketuvim), so you must not impose your thoughts upon the Word of God recorded by the Prophet Isaiah.

The Prophet Isaiah recorded the Word of God "I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I YHWH do all these." (Isaiah 45:7).

Light and peace parallel. Both of these are good, a parallelism.

Darkness and evil parallel. Both of these are bad, a parallelism.

You, a mere human, change the Hebrew word "רַע" (Strong's 7451 - ra' - bad, evil) THAT GOD USED AS RECORDED IN BOTH GENESIS 2:16-17 and in Isaiah 45:7 into a different word that results in a redefinition of God according to your thoughts.
​

Nowhere did I write "peace is the opposite of evil", so you bear false witness against me (Exodus 20:16).

 

[Josheb]

You wrote "The entire post is dross and should be treated as such" regarding post #135.

Post #135 contains this blessed Word of God "No one is good except God alone" (Mark 10:18), so you are on record calling the Word of God "dross" regarding post #135.

Utter falsehood bearing false witness. I am on record stating the POST is dross. That includes the abuse of Mark 10:18 contained in that post, not Mark 10:18 itself. Four other quote mines of my post demonstrate the same abuse of others' posts as you do with God's word, the attempt at defending wrongdoing and a complete absence of any willingness to earn. The examples I gave should have been corrected, not defended and attempts to turn the table(s) on others as evidence of more selfishness, more depravity, NOT Spirit-driven truth. Correcting the errors should have been the first and only response (especially the two clearly contradictory statements where premise 1 contradicts premise 2, and vice versa (that has absolutely nothing to do with any supposed mishandling of scripture on anyone else's part).



Here's how this reads:

"There are errors in Post 135."
"Yeah, well, there's bad stuff in your post, too."

That is a fallacy called tu quoque. It is a godless work of the flesh. The Spirit NEVER inspires fallacy in God's people. Post 178 had some merit in it because you started to define your terms but you sabotaged your own posts by leaving the op-relevant content to attack me.


Posts 172, 173, 176, 177, and 178, are five more examples of dross that's not worth the time or effort to address. Post 179 isn't any better, but I'll let Crow take that up with you. I will say peace has nothing to do with the presence or absence of conflict or calamity. A person can have peace in the middle of both.


Fix the errors already cited and finish defining your terms. Do it in a manner that demonstrates a willingness to discuss the op (and your dissent of my op-reply) and the possibility of learning. There's simply no way those errors can be considered correct (scripturally or logically). Otherwise, do not expect more from me other than to repeat what I have already said:

There are so many errors in Post 135 that it does not deserve a reply. The post is filled with error upon error, both scripturally and logically, and needs to be overhauled and corrected from its foundational premises (which are mostly assumptions in need of justification) to its misguided conclusion(s). God did not make Adam sinful. God did declare Adam God and from Genesis 3:6 on, which is where Adam disobeyed God and sin entered the world, no one since then has been called good. Adam was, for a brief time, good, unashamed, and sinless. At Genesis 3:6 Adam disobeyed God and, according to Paul in Romans 5, that is when sin entered the world. No sin prior to that event.



Both the op and Post 135 are wrong.

 

[Kermos]

Post #135 is wrong, and very badly wrong. Were I to believe the errors are intentional for the purpose of deception I would call the post sophistry. It's a bad post.

Your big post presented error (proof post #172) after error (proof post #173) after error (proof post #176) after error (proof post #177) after error (proof post #178).

Your writing lacks any Word of God showing that Adam was good, and your writing never will show Adam was good because the Word of God declares "No one is good except God alone" (Mark 10:18).

Jesus says not "No one is good except God and Adam before he ate of the tree that he was told not to eat" as your writing portrayed, but Jesus says "No one is good except God alone" (Mark 10:18) in Truth (John 14:6).