The MOTHER of All Sin....

[TMSO]

Yes, when you elevate Saul to God status with the authority of changing Scripture to include Gentiles, yes, that would be a God move, but not even the God of Abraham of His Christ as God have any authority or power to change Scripture. But by your interpretation - not with any passage from the bible - but by your false interpretation of the bible like the Mormons and JW's come up with an interpretation that contradicts clear passages from the OT.

Son of God, child of God, daughter of the Lord. I AM a son of God and as a son the Holy Spirit in me crying "Abba, Abba."

Keep your heresy. I grow weary of repeating myself to people who can't read.

You wrote that Jesus is a son of God as you are. I could cut and paste it for you. It was in the message where I told you that I was going to run, but I decided one more shot, though you sincerely appear to be unitarian and thus deny Jesus came in the flesh. Humans don't come in the flesh, they are flesh. John 1 has the Word, which is stated to be Jesus, both with and is God, and this Logos took upon itself flesh and pitched His tent among us. (I love that wording, because that is basically what happened.) The wording of the old JW bible is that the word was with God, and the Word was A god. Why? They are unitarian as well.

 

[CrowCross]

No, it's just that sin wasn't FOUND IN HIM yet.
It was always there.

Oh, is that what that means? It didn't develop, fester with pride or something like that?

 

[jeremiah1five]

You wrote that Jesus is a son of God as you are. I could cut and paste it for you. It was in the message where I told you that I was going to run, but I decided one more shot,

1 Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God:
1 Jn 3:1.

I said the same thing as God.

though you sincerely appear to be unitarian and thus deny Jesus came in the flesh.

I "appear"? Get your eyes checked.

Humans don't come in the flesh, they are flesh. John 1 has the Word, which is stated to be Jesus, both with and is God, and this Logos took upon itself flesh and pitched His tent among us. (I love that wording, because that is basically what happened.)

Good for you.

The wording of the old JW bible is that the word was with God, and the Word was A god. Why? They are unitarian as well.

That's right.
Has nothing to do with me.

 

[jeremiah1five]

Oh, is that what that means? It didn't develop, fester with pride or something like that?

Nope.

15 Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee.
Ezek. 28:15.

The word "perfect" means "entire," "complete." Its synonym is the word "good" in the Genesis narrative where God declares His creation "good." It means "good enough" or "to specification."
In other words, God created everything to His specification. And He was happy with the result.

 

[TMSO]

1 Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God:
1 Jn 3:1.

I John 3:1 -- See [a]how great a love the Father has given us, that we would be called children of God; and in fact we are. For this reason the world does not know us: because it did not know Him.

From the Greek Lexicon:

children

τέκνα (tekna)

5043: a child (of either sex)

from tiktó

Teknon​

tek'-non
Parts of SpeechNoun Neuter

Teknon Definition​

1. offspring, children

If you look up John 10:36 where Jesus states that they say He blasphemes simply because He said that He is a Son of God, the word Son is a completely different word then in I John 3:1.

the Son

υἱὸς (uios)

5207: a son

a prim. word=

I said the same thing as God.

I "appear"? Get your eyes checked.

This is what you said in post #241 in the thread GOd created man (adam) sinful:
"I'm a son of God. Jesus is a Son of God." You put yourself on the same level as Jesus.

Jesus is THE Son of God, while we are adopted children. We must not lose sight of that. We were bought with a price. Jesus was not. In fact, He was the price.

Good for you.

I know. I think it is incredible that God basically explained exactly what Him coming in the flesh was, so straight forward. The flesh being a tent He stayed in as He dwelt among us. I'm sorry if it doesn't do anything for you. I like the wording because, I saw somewhere, it said that He pitched His tent amongst us. That is basically saying that He was fully vested. It gives meaning when it says that Jesus experienced all we experienced. He was all in, right down to being personally tempted by Satan himself. That carries a lot of meaning for me, if not for you.

That's right.
Has nothing to do with me.

We can only hope.

 

[jeremiah1five]

I John 3:1 -- See [a]how great a love the Father has given us, that we would be called children of God; and in fact we are. For this reason the world does not know us: because it did not know Him.

From the Greek Lexicon:

children

τέκνα (tekna)

5043: a child (of either sex)

from tiktó

Teknon​

tek'-non
Parts of SpeechNoun Neuter

Teknon Definition​

1. offspring, children

If you look up John 10:36 where Jesus states that they say He blasphemes simply because He said that He is a Son of God, the word Son is a completely different word then in I John 3:1.

the Son

υἱὸς (uios)

5207: a son

a prim. word=

This is what you said in post #241 in the thread GOd created man (adam) sinful:
"I'm a son of God. Jesus is a Son of God." You put yourself on the same level as Jesus.

Jesus is THE Son of God, while we are adopted children. We must not lose sight of that. We were bought with a price. Jesus was not. In fact, He was the price.

I know. I think it is incredible that God basically explained exactly what Him coming in the flesh was, so straight forward. The flesh being a tent He stayed in as He dwelt among us. I'm sorry if it doesn't do anything for you. I like the wording because, I saw somewhere, it said that He pitched His tent amongst us. That is basically saying that He was fully vested. It gives meaning when it says that Jesus experienced all we experienced. He was all in, right down to being personally tempted by Satan himself. That carries a lot of meaning for me, if not for you.

We can only hope.

I understand. Emmanuel. God with us.

 

[CrowCross]

Nope.

15 Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee.
Ezek. 28:15.

The word "perfect" means "entire," "complete." Its synonym is the word "good" in the Genesis narrative where God declares His creation "good." It means "good enough" or "to specification."
In other words, God created everything to His specification. And He was happy with the result.

The creation was declared better than good....it was very good. But then again you already knew that.

The word "found" has several nuances.... Why should I accept your definition that it always was there... rather than was attained.

 

[TMSO]

I understand. Emmanuel. God with us.

That's good. Now you just need to understand how Adam and Eve were created sinless, but with the capacity to sin. They didn't have to, and they would have just moved right into the age of eternity without having to go through all the pain and suffering first. The creation would have never been corrupted, and so on and so forth. However, I don't believe God planned for that to happen, and already knew Adam and Eve would sin, because He had planned it. So, the questions He asked were rehearsed. He already knew why they knew they were naked. He already knew where they were. The plan of redemption, and all the things God was/is going to do, was already set before He got around to creating the world.

Again, they were sinless, which means that they were without sin. They are not God, so the reason why they were without sin is they had not yet missed the mark of God's standard. Another reason they were without sin and sinless is that they were created innocent. They didn't know what sin was. And the narrative tells us that they didn't know what evil was, hence eating the fruit would "open their eyes", and they would understand good and evil. (And they did, however, it wasn't told that they would know the difference because they would BECOME that very evil.)

God cannot sin because He is the standard. So no matter what He does, that will always be the standard. He cannot deny Himself. So if God was shooting at a target, everything in front of him, around him, anywhere the arrow could go is bullseye automatically. Homing arrows. However you want to see it. NEVER put man on God's level, and NEVER put God on man's level. Jesus is the closest we get, and there it is only that Jesus experienced what we experience, and so He understands. There will be no excuse on judgment day, "Well, you just don't understand what we go through." He does. He experience it. He even experienced heart felt grief. He also faced down Sata himself, so he faced the worst that we face. All three major categories of sin, all in one encounter. (The lust of the eyes, the lust of the flesh, and the boastful pride of life.) Lust of the flesh is making bread out of stone. Lust of the eyes is looking upon the whole world and also avoiding the pain to come by having Satan give it all to Him, just by worshiping Satan. And the boastful pride of life is avoiding the rejection and the denying that He is God/the Son of God and better then them, by jumping from the pinnacle and shoving it in every one's faces when the Father sends His angels to keep His Son from stubbing a toe on a rock. Royalty amongst the commoners who deny Him at every turn.

God did not create Adam and Eve as sinners. He created them innocent, so with the capability to sin. However, as I said before about sinless, that state continues only until one sins. Then they are no longer sinless. (Common sense, right?) God is incapable of sinning, for He, as God and Creator, is the standard. For Him to sin would be a complete denial of Himself. Impossible. When you are light, there is no darkness. There is no place for darkness.

I hope this better explains it for you.

 

[Mr GLee]

...or The Fall of the Doctrine of the Fall.

After centuries of the Gentile false doctrine of the "Fall" of mankind the truth finally comes out!

So, what is the Mother of all sin? Just as Judas was called the son of perdition, there is no passage of Scripture that says Judas was the father of perdition. And for good reason. And being the "son" of something implies being the "offspring" of it, a deriving of the thing from which it came. So, what is the Fall of the Doctrine of the Fall of mankind? It means the end of the teaching that in the man and woman in the Garden of Eden their eating the fruit from the forbidden Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, this sin caused their "Fall" from grace. It very clearly can be labeled a major teaching in the Gentile fellowship held on to all these centuries, a teaching that Scripture rightly divided and applied blows it clean out of the water. For before their sin of disobedience at eating from the forbidden tree they were already sinners to begin with, and if sinners before the so-called sin of disobedience, then that devilish doctrine of a "Fall" is a lie.
Here is the Scripture:

I would offer the mother of all sin is the false bride of Christ the church She refuses to hear the word of our living God and rather does whatsoever come out of her own mouth with full approval of the men . His and hers gods catholic call her Mary, Ishtar the Hebrew


Jerimiah 44: 15 Then all the men which knew that their wives had burned incense unto other gods, and all the women that stood by, a great multitude, even all the people that dwelt in the land of Egypt, in Pathros, answered Jeremiah, saying As for the word that thou hast spoken unto us in the name of the Lord, we will not hearken unto thee.But we will certainly do whatsoever thing goeth forth out of our own mouth, to burn incense unto the queen of heaven, and to pour out drink offerings unto her, as we have done, we, and our fathers, our kings, and our princes, in the cities of Judah, and in the streets of Jerusalem: for then had we plenty of victuals, and were well, and saw no evil.
But since we left off to burn incense to the queen of heaven, and to pour out drink offerings unto her, we have wanted all things, and have been consumed by the sword and by the famine. And when we burned incense to the queen of heaven, and poured out drink offerings unto her, did we make her cakes to worship her, and pour out drink offerings unto her, without our men?

 

[jeremiah1five]

The creation was declared better than good....it was very good. But then again you already knew that.

The word "found" has several nuances.... Why should I accept your definition that it always was there... rather than was attained.

The word merely means "to specification." There is no moral quality to this word. There is a word translated "good" that has moral reference, but it is not here in the creation narrative.
God is merely saying of His creation, "good job", or [my creation is] "to specification" (or exactly the way I wanted it.)

 

[jeremiah1five]

That's good. Now you just need to understand how Adam and Eve were created sinless, but with the capacity to sin. They didn't have to, and they would have just moved right into the age of eternity without having to go through all the pain and suffering first. The creation would have never been corrupted, and so on and so forth. However, I don't believe God planned for that to happen, and already knew Adam and Eve would sin, because He had planned it. So, the questions He asked were rehearsed. He already knew why they knew they were naked. He already knew where they were. The plan of redemption, and all the things God was/is going to do, was already set before He got around to creating the world.

Again, they were sinless, which means that they were without sin. They are not God, so the reason why they were without sin is they had not yet missed the mark of God's standard. Another reason they were without sin and sinless is that they were created innocent. They didn't know what sin was. And the narrative tells us that they didn't know what evil was, hence eating the fruit would "open their eyes", and they would understand good and evil. (And they did, however, it wasn't told that they would know the difference because they would BECOME that very evil.)

God cannot sin because He is the standard. So no matter what He does, that will always be the standard. He cannot deny Himself. So if God was shooting at a target, everything in front of him, around him, anywhere the arrow could go is bullseye automatically. Homing arrows. However you want to see it. NEVER put man on God's level, and NEVER put God on man's level. Jesus is the closest we get, and there it is only that Jesus experienced what we experience, and so He understands. There will be no excuse on judgment day, "Well, you just don't understand what we go through." He does. He experience it. He even experienced heart felt grief. He also faced down Sata himself, so he faced the worst that we face. All three major categories of sin, all in one encounter. (The lust of the eyes, the lust of the flesh, and the boastful pride of life.) Lust of the flesh is making bread out of stone. Lust of the eyes is looking upon the whole world and also avoiding the pain to come by having Satan give it all to Him, just by worshiping Satan. And the boastful pride of life is avoiding the rejection and the denying that He is God/the Son of God and better then them, by jumping from the pinnacle and shoving it in every one's faces when the Father sends His angels to keep His Son from stubbing a toe on a rock. Royalty amongst the commoners who deny Him at every turn.

God did not create Adam and Eve as sinners. He created them innocent, so with the capability to sin. However, as I said before about sinless, that state continues only until one sins. Then they are no longer sinless. (Common sense, right?) God is incapable of sinning, for He, as God and Creator, is the standard. For Him to sin would be a complete denial of Himself. Impossible. When you are light, there is no darkness. There is no place for darkness.

I hope this better explains it for you.

So, sin comes from sinlessness.


I wonder how you interpret this:

13 As saith the proverb of the ancients, Wickedness proceedeth from the wicked: 1 Sa 24:12–13.

It doesn't say, "the wicked have the capacity to wickedness." It says, "wickedness proceeds from the wicked" just as sin comes from sinner.
Everything in creation is the result of God. This is why it says in Isaiah 45:7 "I create evil (moral evil) and I the Lord do all these things."
There is nothing in creation that is not the result of God, so the false belief that God is not the Author of sin is a lie. Scripture contradicts that lie and I prefer to believe Scripture/God.

 

[TMSO]

So, sin comes from sinlessness.

No. Sin does not come from sinlessness. Sinlessness by definition is not missing the mark. So missing the mark does not come from not missing the mark.

I wonder how you interpret this:

13 As saith the proverb of the ancients, Wickedness proceedeth from the wicked: 1 Sa 24:12–13.

If a person is wicked, all that can be expected of them is wickedness. It proceedeth. That is like vomit proceedeth from a sick person. Can one vomit and not be sick? Sure. However, it won't be endless streams. (I know, a little... different, but it is what I could think of when half asleep.)

It doesn't say, "the wicked have the capacity to wickedness." It says, "wickedness proceeds from the wicked" just as sin comes from sinner.

Yes, but Adam wasn't in that position, now was he? That proverb obviously did not exist at his time or prior, considering he was the first man. The point is, we don't speak of Adam as sinless because that does not properly line up with the idea of his innocence. He was born with the capacity to sin, but not the propensity. He did not know what evil or sin was, because God created man in innocence. However, once Adam sinned, the flood gates were opened. You need to understand that Adam is a special case, just as Jesus is a special case. By Adam, sin and death entered the creation, and by Christ, the possibility of righteousness and life were brought back into creation.

Everything in creation is the result of God. This is why it says in Isaiah 45:7 "I create evil (moral evil) and I the Lord do all these things."
There is nothing in creation that is not the result of God, so the false belief that God is not the Author of sin is a lie. Scripture contradicts that lie and I prefer to believe Scripture/God.

I don't like how you just pick a translation that matches what you want without looking at the language. It is that God creates calamity, not evil.
For instance:
"The One forming light and creating darkness,
Causing [a]well-being and creating disaster;
I am the Lord who does all these things."

Nothing about moral evil. If you read the verse in context, it is apparent God is saying that he creates calamity/woe/disaster (which are all meanings of the word in Hebrew), not moral evil. God is not the author of sin.

 

[Mr GLee]

I don't like how you just pick a translation that matches what you want without looking at the language. It is that God creates calamity, not evil.
For instance:
"The One forming light and creating darkness,
Causing [a]well-being and creating disaster;
I am the Lord who does all these things."

Nothing about moral evil. If you read the verse in context, it is apparent God is saying that he creates calamity/woe/disaster (which are all meanings of the word in Hebrew), not moral evil. God is not the author of sin.

I would offer. While God is not the author of sin he can as does create a evil. Like when punishing's wandering unbelieving Israel and bringing an opposing evil nation against them.

When he said to them go they would not move and when he said stay they would take off wondering

Christ in effect said. I do not love you because of your number, but because I loved. I am kind and tender hearted to those who know they do not deserve it. His daily bread gives them the go; go, go power of grace .

 

[CrowCross]

The word merely means "to specification." There is no moral quality to this word. There is a word translated "good" that has moral reference, but it is not here in the creation narrative.
God is merely saying of His creation, "good job", or [my creation is] "to specification" (or exactly the way I wanted it.)

Care to prove that?

 

[jeremiah1five]

No. Sin does not come from sinlessness. Sinlessness by definition is not missing the mark. So missing the mark does not come from not missing the mark.

I never said that. I said the word sin is defined as "missing the mark" (as in archery.)
The standard is God. When He created man, He created a being that was less than God and thus missed the mark of God's glory. The word for that is sin. This is why Adam sinned. He was a sinner. Sin comes from sinner. It doesn't just pop up out of nowhere. Just as holy comes from holiness and righteousness comes from righteousness. Comparing the first Adam and the last Adam should make that clear but for some reason there's a mental block preventing you from seeing this.

If a person is wicked, all that can be expected of them is wickedness. It proceedeth. That is like vomit proceedeth from a sick person. Can one vomit and not be sick? Sure. However, it won't be endless streams. (I know, a little... different, but it is what I could think of when half asleep.)

Yes, and sin comes from sinner. That's why Adam sinned. He was a sinner. He wasn't holy for sin does not come from holiness. It comes from sinner.

Yes, but Adam wasn't in that position, now was he? That proverb obviously did not exist at his time or prior, considering he was the first man.

It is a proverb of the ancients. Who's to say it's not as ancient as the Garden.

The point is, we don't speak of Adam as sinless because that does not properly line up with the idea of his innocence. He was born with the capacity to sin, but not the propensity. He did not know what evil or sin was, because God created man in innocence. However, once Adam sinned, the flood gates were opened. You need to understand that Adam is a special case, just as Jesus is a special case. By Adam, sin and death entered the creation, and by Christ, the possibility of righteousness and life were brought back into creation.

All that Gentile gibberish. You should listen to yourself.
Sin comes from sinner. Adam sinned because he was a sinner. He was created that way because there is ONLY ONE God, there is NONE like Him, and He gives His glory (sinlessness, holiness, etc.), to NO ONE.
So, if there is only ONE sinless God what does that make Adam but sin-ful.

I don't like how you just pick a translation that matches what you want without looking at the language. It is that God creates calamity, not evil.
For instance:
"The One forming light and creating darkness,
Causing [a]well-being and creating disaster;
I am the Lord who does all these things."

Nothing about moral evil. If you read the verse in context, it is apparent God is saying that he creates calamity/woe/disaster (which are all meanings of the word in Hebrew), not moral evil. God is not the author of sin.

I use the Authorized for the English people translation. The KJV.

No, the word "ra" has moral qualities and something like "calamity" is neutral, like a gun. It depends on what you do with the gun. Rob or defense.

God created evil when he created angel and man. Since there is only ONE God everything and everyone God may create will be far, far less than God and the standard of Himself. Look at the Law. Those Laws are God's standard. And sinful man cannot attain them which is why Christ came. But Christ is not created. He is God. Holy, Righteous, sinless, and as such He did not sin.
Compare Him to the first Adam who did sin then it becomes clear: anything and anyone God CREATES WILL fall short of His glory and sinlessness is a glory of God. I pray it, don't you?

 

[jeremiah1five]

Care to prove that?

Prove what? That there is no morality to the word "good" in the creative narrative?
Is that what you're asking?
Are you saying the word "good" has moral qualities?

 

[TMSO]

I never said that. I said the word sin is defined as "missing the mark" (as in archery.)
The standard is God.

The standard is not God as God. The standard is the rules God has set in place, which at Adam's time was only one. Even Paul brings this up in Romans.

When He created man, He created a being that was less than God and thus missed the mark of God's glory. The word for that is sin. This is why Adam sinned. He was a sinner. Sin comes from sinner. It doesn't just pop up out of nowhere. Just as holy comes from holiness and righteousness comes from righteousness. Comparing the first Adam and the last Adam should make that clear but for some reason there's a mental block preventing you from seeing this.

We are not to measure up to the glory due to God. We are to follow the standard He set, which at Adam's time was the one "command"/"law" given to Adam, and later, the Law given to Moses, which we could never hope to measure up to. No one can keep the Law except Jesus.

Yes, and sin comes from sinner. That's why Adam sinned. He was a sinner. He wasn't holy for sin does not come from holiness. It comes from sinner.

No, that isn't how it works. Adam was not a sinner until He sinned. Again, He was innocent until He sinned. Then He became a sinner. I'm not sure why you are having such a difficult time understanding this. Paul was pretty clear on the subject.

It is a proverb of the ancients. Who's to say it's not as ancient as the Garden.

Really?

All that Gentile gibberish. You should listen to yourself.
Sin comes from sinner. Adam sinned because he was a sinner. He was created that way because there is ONLY ONE God, there is NONE like Him, and He gives His glory (sinlessness, holiness, etc.), to NO ONE.

You aren't understanding. Sinless has nothing to do with glory for God. Glory is not a state of being. Glory, praise, and honor are what we give unto God, and belong to God. They are not His nature. Now glorious, that's different. That's an adjective. Glory is noun.

So, if there is only ONE sinless God what does that make Adam but sin-ful.

No, it does not make Adam sinful. You really are having a difficult time understanding this all. Adam was INNOCENT. He was not sinful. While he was sinless, as he had not violated God's command, Adam had the capacity to do so. God has no such capacity. Why can't you understand this. Adam can be sinless and God can be sinless. What's the next level to check. Adam had the capacity to sin. God has never had any such capacity, and will never have any such capacity. Ding! Ding! Ding! We have a winner. A difference between the two. And a difference that is not subtle. Adam had the capacity to sin, and then, Adam did sin. As Adam had the capacity to sin, he was created INNOCENT. He had the capacity, but not the propensity. He also had no sin until he succumbed. When you stand by what you stand by, you miss all the other things.

I use the Authorized for the English people translation. The KJV.

There is your problem. You use the Catholic Bible that has issues.

No, the word "ra" has moral qualities and something like "calamity" is neutral, like a gun. It depends on what you do with the gun. Rob or defense.

CONTEXT. When you read the context, the word does not take up moral qualities. If you look up the word in the Hebrew dictionary, evil is among a number of possible translations, and it depends on nuance which is picked up from the context. I understand you NEED God to be morally evil, but that doesn't make God morally evil. He is incapable of being morally evil. That would make Him a sinner, which is impossible.

God created evil when he created angel and man. Since there is only ONE God everything and everyone God may create will be far, far less than God and the standard of Himself. Look at the Law. Those Laws are God's standard. And sinful man cannot attain them which is why Christ came. But Christ is not created. He is God. Holy, Righteous, sinless, and as such He did not sin.
Compare Him to the first Adam who did sin then it becomes clear: anything and anyone God CREATES WILL fall short of His glory and sinlessness is a glory of God. I pray it, don't you?

God did not create something that does not exist. Evil, technically, does not have an existence. It is the ABSENCE of something. It is like darkness. Darkness is the absence of light. Cold is the absence of heat. They do not have an actual existence, but denote an absence. Evil is the absence of God. So did God create the absence of Himself? Does that even make sense?

 

[jeremiah1five]

The standard is not God as God. The standard is the rules God has set in place, which at Adam's time was only one. Even Paul brings this up in Romans.

The standard is God Himself.
You seem to think that His Law is what? Less or more of who God is?
Just as He cannot promise by anyone more greater than Himself, so, too do His Law come from WHO He is. All sin is against God, not against some law.

We are not to measure up to the glory due to God. We are to follow the standard He set, which at Adam's time was the one "command"/"law" given to Adam, and later, the Law given to Moses, which we could never hope to measure up to. No one can keep the Law except Jesus.

God gave command to Adam "Thou shalt not eat of it." This command shows Adam a sinner before the actual sin. Sin comes from sinner.

No, that isn't how it works. Adam was not a sinner until He sinned. Again, He was innocent until He sinned. Then He became a sinner. I'm not sure why you are having such a difficult time understanding this. Paul was pretty clear on the subject.

Sin must come from somewhere. It came from the sinful nature of Adam. If you compare the first Adam and the last Adam hopefully, you'll understand WHY Jesus did not sin. He was holy. Adam was not.

35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.
Lk 1:35.

Sin does not come from holy. Thus, Adam was not holy else he would have not sinned. But he did sin showing he was a sinner before he sinned. Sin comes from sinner. To believe as you do that it is the act of sin that makes one a sinner, this destroys the Doctrine of Imputation and I ask you what was Adam before he sinned? Not holy. Dirt is not holy. God does not give His glory of Holiness to NO ONE.

Really?

You aren't understanding. Sinless has nothing to do with glory for God. Glory is not a state of being. Glory, praise, and honor are what we give unto God, and belong to God. They are not His nature. Now glorious, that's different. That's an adjective. Glory is noun.

I AM is the state of BE-ING.

No, it does not make Adam sinful. You really are having a difficult time understanding this all. Adam was INNOCENT. He was not sinful. While he was sinless, as he had not violated God's command, Adam had the capacity to do so. God has no such capacity. Why can't you understand this. Adam can be sinless and God can be sinless. What's the next level to check. Adam had the capacity to sin. God has never had any such capacity, and will never have any such capacity. Ding! Ding! Ding! We have a winner. A difference between the two. And a difference that is not subtle. Adam had the capacity to sin, and then, Adam did sin. As Adam had the capacity to sin, he was created INNOCENT. He had the capacity, but not the propensity. He also had no sin until he succumbed. When you stand by what you stand by, you miss all the other things.

The Law of God and the Command of God are the same thing. The Law of God are His Commands, and the Commands of God are Law.
If there is a prohibition against doing something, according to Scripture, then that Law of Command shows Adam was a sinner before any act of sin. Sin comes from sinner. Anything less than holy is sin. And Adam was less than holy. He was less than the last Adam in all things.

There is your problem. You use the Catholic Bible that has issues.

CONTEXT. When you read the context, the word does not take up moral qualities. If you look up the word in the Hebrew dictionary, evil is among a number of possible translations, and it depends on nuance which is picked up from the context. I understand you NEED God to be morally evil, but that doesn't make God morally evil. He is incapable of being morally evil. That would make Him a sinner, which is impossible.

God did not create something that does not exist. Evil, technically, does not have an existence. It is the ABSENCE of something. It is like darkness. Darkness is the absence of light. Cold is the absence of heat. They do not have an actual existence, but denote an absence. Evil is the absence of God. So did God create the absence of Himself? Does that even make sense?

The KJV is not Catholic. It is Protestant.
You even got this wrong.

 

[TMSO]

The standard is God Himself.

If the standard is God Himself, we are all going to hell. There is no salvation in being substandard. Jesus does not make us God, so, He can't make us hit the mark. God would have to IGNORE the standard in order to save anyone. He does not ignore the standard, because, even Jesus tells us that the Law is the standard, and He came to fulfill that Law. The Law of death. The Law that says that we have missed the standard, and thus must die.

You seem to think that His Law is what? Less or more of who God is?

I think the Law is the Law. According to Paul, the Law is how we know the God's standard.

Just as He cannot promise by anyone more greater than Himself, so, too do His Law come from WHO He is. All sin is against God, not against some law.

Apparently you don't understand what a standard is.

God gave command to Adam "Thou shalt not eat of it." This command shows Adam a sinner before the actual sin. Sin comes from sinner.

Wow. Um... no. That command became a law, a standard, set by God. As long as Adam did not violate that "law" that "command", then Adam was not a sinner. He did not shoot and miss the mark. The serpent shows that it took temptation in order to get Eve to sin. Why? They were both innocent in the ways of the world. They did not know what sin was. Adam didn't realize he was naked when God gave the command, but the moment that he sinned his eyes were opened.

Sin must come from somewhere. It came from the sinful nature of Adam. If you compare the first Adam and the last Adam hopefully, you'll understand WHY Jesus did not sin. He was holy. Adam was not.

So missing the bullseye at an archery tournament has to come from somewhere? Where are you getting these ideas that are foreign to scripture. Adam did not sin until he ate the fruit. That is why creation was not corrupted, was "very good", using God's standard to say "very good", until Adam sinned. If Adam had never sinned, we would be living in a very different world. However, God had determined, from before the foundation of the world, the plan of redemption through Christ. From the foundation of the world. Adam would sin. It would not be because of God. Jesus was Holy because Jesus is God... and man. Jesus was a fleshy being. Jesus had a human nature from Mary. However, Jesus did not have an earthly father from which to get a sin nature, as that is passed on by the father to the children. Adam, the man, was the federal head.

35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.
Lk 1:35.

Sin does not come from holy. Thus, Adam was not holy else he would have not sinned. But he did sin showing he was a sinner before he sinned. Sin comes from sinner. To believe as you do that it is the act of sin that makes one a sinner, this destroys the Doctrine of Imputation and I ask you what was Adam before he sinned? Not holy. Dirt is not holy. God does not give His glory of Holiness to NO ONE.

This does not at all fit what Paul taught.

I AM is the state of BE-ING.

Actually the name is I Am that I Am. Names define who we are. God was defining Himself to the Jews by using Himself. Why? There was no possible way for the Jews to comprehend, much less understand who God is. Hence the inability for some people to accept the trinity. They cannot fathom how there can be only One God, when there are three persons. We have no shared experience of anything of the kind anywhere in all of creation. It's like telling a life long vegan, it tastes like chicken. They aren't going to have any idea what you are talking about.

The Law of God and the Command of God are the same thing. The Law of God are His Commands, and the Commands of God are Law.

And they are the standard by which we are to live. To miss this standard is to sin. To explain it best, this is the reason why scripture says that if you break any point of the law, you are guilty of breaking it all. Archery. There is only one bullseye. There are MULTIPLE outer rings. If you hit any of those rings, you have missed the bullseye. The same condition if you hit all the outer rings and miss the bullseye. You missed the bullseye. That is all that matters.

If there is a prohibition against doing something, according to Scripture, then that Law of Command shows Adam was a sinner before any act of sin. Sin comes from sinner. Anything less than holy is sin. And Adam was less than holy. He was less than the last Adam in all things.

No. No. No. No. No. That is not how it works. It stands as a standard. As long as Adam does not eat of the fruit, he is hitting bullseyes. That is, he is not a sinner. He is not missing the bullseye. He does not become someone who misses the bullseye UNTIL he misses the bullseye. I mean... common sense. The reason why there is a first Adam and a second Adam is that the first Adam served as federal head of humanity, in that the MOMENT HE SINNED, all humanity was plunged into sin. They were not guilty of what Adam had done, but the gates were opened by Adam. He sold the whole human race into slavery to sin, the moment he sinned. Not before. And, since God had given Adam dominion over the creation, creation also became enslaved to sin and corrupt.. and groans out awaiting redemption. Jesus, as the second Adam, is the federal head of all who believe.

The KJV is not Catholic. It is Protestant.

Okay, it is Anglican, which is the same as being Catholic. You notice how the word baptism is there? You know why that word exists right? Because the Catholic church does not believe in immersion, which is what the greek word baptizo means. So the scholars said, there is no direct translation (there is) and tranlsiterated baptizo as baptized and said it could mean sprinkle. Sure. It could. There are other places tranlstated to support the Catholic Church (I mean Anglican church).

 

[jeremiah1five]

If the standard is God Himself, we are all going to hell.

The Law reflects God's Holy, Righteous Nature. The only Person who could obey every aspect of the Law is the Son of God. And He did. He fulfilled the very Word(s) He gave to Moses to give to the children of Israel.
Jesus can never make us God. Impossible to do because as Isaiah said, "There is ONLY ONE God, there is NONE like Him, He gives His glory to NO ONE. There is ONLY ONE God. The Only Person who can stand before a Holy, Righteous God is a Holy, Righteous Son. This is why I believe along with other important truths, that God created man sinful, or as Strong defines the word "sin" as "missing the mark." What is the "mark missed?"
The glory of God, or the glory that is God.
Saul said in Romans 7, "The Law is spiritual." This is why it killeth. Because man is unatoned flesh. But once we become born again by the Spirit, we become spiritual beings, and the Law can no longer kill us. But to the unatoned it will kill them. They remain body and soul, the same way they were born into the world, and unless converted, cast into "hell" (Matt. 10:28.) In its original form the Law is not death. It cannot be. It comes from God who is Life. It is only its effect upon man who is flesh.

I think the Law is the Law. According to Paul, the Law is how we know the God's standard.

Apparently you don't understand what a standard is.

There are several meanings to the word but the one that is applicable is "measure" or "rule."

Wow. Um... no. That command became a law, a standard, set by God. As long as Adam did not violate that "law" that "command", then Adam was not a sinner. He did not shoot and miss the mark.

Thou shalt not eat of it, thou shalt not kill. What God says is Law. When God says, "bear no longer any figs" it is done. Adam was created sinful because there is only ONE God. Anything God creates will be by default be sinful, oir less than God. Even if man was not created and God stopped after creating heaven and earth, both heaven and earth will degenerate into chaos, which is the prevailing science today. The Law of entropy. Everything breaks down. Everything dies. Even man.

The serpent shows that it took temptation in order to get Eve to sin. Why? They were both innocent in the ways of the world. They did not know what sin was. Adam didn't realize he was naked when God gave the command, but the moment that he sinned his eyes were opened.

Let me guess. The serpent to you is Lucifer or Satan, right? That would be impossible since the angels that sinned were locked up (2 Peter 2:4.) And they weren't locked up because these sinful spirit beings grew penises, had the right DNA which they didn't ("after their kind") entered holy matrimony, and married physical women and had children. Such a false belief is very problematic. The angels, also a creation, were created sinful like the man and iniquity was found in their heart and even before they could act to ascend into heaven God dealt with them immediately and locked them up before man was created.

So missing the bullseye at an archery tournament has to come from somewhere? Where are you getting these ideas that are foreign to scripture. Adam did not sin until he ate the fruit.

Sin comes from sinner. Isaiah says God created evil; He created darkness. Sin had to come from somewhere. It didn't materialize out of nowhere. It was already in existence in creation because again, there is only ONE God. But from your response you believe we are sinners because we sin. Holding to this false belief destroys the Doctrine of Imputation. In other words, 2 Cor. 5:21 is void. It is not our acts that are sinful, but our created sinful 'less than God' nature. It doesn't say in 2 Cor. 5:21, "He became the sinful acts of man that we may be made the righteous acts of God in Christ." This leaves the sin nature intact. No, it says, "He became sin that we might be made the [actual] righteousness of God." If our sinful nature is not converted from sinful to holiness, then we are still sinners on our way to heaven. How preposterous is that!

That is why creation was not corrupted, was "very good", using God's standard to say "very good", until Adam sinned.

Gentile theology. "Federal head." The word "good" merely means "good enough" or "to specification." In other words, after God created something, He was pleased with the outcome and says, "it is good to my specification."
There is no moral aspect to this Hebrew word. We say the same thing as when a recipe is followed to specification, and it is good, good enough.

This does not at all fit what Paul taught.

Actually the name is I Am that I Am. Names define who we are. God was defining Himself to the Jews by using Himself. Why? There was no possible way for the Jews to comprehend, much less understand who God is.

Babies that grow up eat meat and know what chicken tastes like unless they were never fed chicken. And the philosophy behind being a 'vegan' is a lie. It's a deception. Like the theology that man was created with the Nature or Deific Attributes of God like holiness or sinlessness. It's all a lie.

And they are the standard by which we are to live. To miss this standard is to sin. To explain it best, this is the reason why scripture says that if you break any point of the law, you are guilty of breaking it all.

Adam didn't need to sin to be a sinner. By virtue of his creation, he was already sinful. It says, By one man sin entered," it doesn't say, "by the act of sin, sin entered." "From Adam until Moses sin was in the world." It doesn't say, When Adam sinned then sin was in the world."

No. No. No. No. No. That is not how it works. It stands as a standard. As long as Adam does not eat of the fruit, he is hitting bullseyes. That is, he is not a sinner. He is not missing the bullseye. He does not become someone who misses the bullseye UNTIL he misses the bullseye. I mean... common sense.

Typical false Gentile theology void of any biblical truth. I used to believe that crap until Scripture contradicted that theology. I chose Scripture. The alternative is to choose the false theology of Gentiles then make the Scripture fit that narrative. Democrats, liberals, radical liberals, even liberals in the Gentile church fellowship during the mid-to-late 1800s taught that false theology. Then, in the 1920s the Dallas Theological Seminary was founded to challenge all those liberal teachings of the north that found its way into the Gentile churches in America. This why our American universities all produce radical liberals. At one time universities and colleges in this country were founded by Christians and the faculty were Christians. But liberals began to take up presidencies and liberals ousted Christian leaderships and took over their campuses. The same thing occurred in the Gentile churches. Liberalism took over. Unsaved men took over Christian schools and changed them from God-honoring places of learning to Godless places of chaos and antichristian thought. You've been infected by their false theology and influenced to the point that when Scripture contradicts your beliefs, you make the Scripture to fit your narrative. Even to the point that if you can't twist Scripture or explain it away, you reject it outright.

Okay, it is Anglican, which is the same as being Catholic. You notice how the word baptism is there? You know why that word exists right?

Anglican when it was led by Protestants after Henry VIII was purely Protestant, not Catholic. In England there were many wars between Protestants and Catholics. If England was Catholic, there would not have been the seven years' war or the hundred years war. But eventually liberal Catholicism won out and the Reformation lost out. There were even battles within the Reformation between Presbyterians and Congregationalists and Independents. The English Civil War was fought between Presbyterians and Anglicans who were at that time influenced by Catholicism and its own self-importance. But what happened in Europe led to Christians from the Reformation coming to American shores. But in time even American Christianity was corrupted as the struggle between Arminianism and Calvinism dragged on until Arminianism won the day and the churches in this country have all been infected with "accept Jesus into your heart" and "just confess with your mouth and believe in your heart that God raised Jesus from the dead/grave, and you will be saved," and other false theologies.
The Gentile churches in the world will never recover and do you know why? Because God has no covenant with Gentiles as He does with Israel and even though Israel has sinned in her past, God has preserved this people through enormous challenges to their existence. God will preserve Israel, even send two witnesses to them in the near future to restore their sight and take their leadership ABOVE all the nations of the earth. God has no plans to preserve Gentiles. Soon, an antichrist and false prophet will lead them, and we'll see which side Christ fights alongside with when He returns.
Jew or Gentile.