The Fall of Man

[JCSx2]

As far a death is concern, I would disagree that you can make the assumption that animals and plants died. The story simply does not give this information. I could just as easily argue there was no death for anything. Again, the story does not specify whether or not death existed for any living creatures in the Garden. And I would argue that in a “perfect” place for everything to be “perfect” for Adam and Eve even the death of animals would have been limiting, thus less than perfect.


I would have to agree on the Idea that if the Garden was perfect then nothing aged or died. Fruit may have grown as needed, or it may have just vanished in some way.

The Garden of Eden was a place not the same as our worlds physics. Nothing aged; the temperature was perfect, etc..... So who knows extra fruit may have fallen off trees and blended in to the earth, I have no Idea, but I can make up many things that would fit in to my idea of perfect.

When they ate of the tree they died spiritually right away. Then the clock started at that time also; old age and depends undergarments here we come. Creatures dying and rotting, disease etc…

I agree they may have been around for millions of years prior to the fall, I also believe they were made in the image of God, they had all the knowledge they needed, maybe not the experience, but the knowledge they needed was given to them by God. They new not to eat of the Tree, but they did.

Now on to a philosophical view, even though God could make a perfect world without evil, we ended up with a world with evil. Not perfect. Now after the second Coming of Christ, this world and Universe will be done away with and a new earth and universe will be created without evil.

SOOOOOO..

What do you think is the difference between ..

1)A perfect world never encountering Evil. People happy forever no suffering.

2) A Perfect world created after the inhabitants had to endure Evil, making the Choice to be with God in eternity?

I feel the first choice even though it is perfect is lacking something, empty.

I feel, the second choice is more fulfilling for both God and us. We got to choose God over the Devil, we suffered, and were born again in perfection.


Sorry got off track from what I originally wanted to say.

[JCSx2]

One other thing, God made us in his image. Free thinking free to choose, free to make our own decisions.

He did not want automatons, robots that do a pre-selected actions, he wanted free thinkers to talk to him, be his family, free to disagree, free to love of their own accord, not because they were programmed to love.

Its just like the love of a child, my son loves me because he loves me, not because he is programmed to. I give him love and he returns it, even though he gets punished for wrong doing.

God wants that same relationship with us, so in order for that to be, we need to be able to choose to Love God on our own, not because we have to.

We do not have to love God, but we do because we understand his relationship with us. Sure I fear going to hell, but That alone is not enough to make us Love God. Look at all the nonbelievers. They know the option, but choose not to love God.

I love God because he is our father, creator and family. I feet this fill my heart when I choose Christ as my savior. Life without God is empty


WOW, got way off topic, sorry.

[Otisblues]

I have been having some major computer problems so it may be a time before I can respond.

[Otisblues]

I am back on my old computer. My new computer blew a hard drive.

I will agree totally with one of your statements JCSx2, for me life without God is empty.

I would contend that most nonbelievers do not choose to not believe because they do not want to love God, but because they feel the whole ideal of God is ridiculous. They have looked at religion and decided it does not fit into their logical idea of the universe. Their experiences are different from yours and mine, and thus, it is easy for me to understand why a person would not be religious. They watch some of these TV ministers who make wild statements and say those guys are nuts. Why would anyone believe such nonsense? A nonreligious Jewish friend once asked me in all seriousness, do you really believe all that stuff? He wanted to understand and I attempted to explain my beliefs but he was incredulous that anyone would believe such, in his opinion nonsense.

My premise on the Bible is simply one must use common sense when reading the Bible taking into account the history of the Bible. I think many people believe the Bible suddenly existed. Many think the King James version just fell out of the sky. That is simply not the way it happened.

The earliest texts of our New Testament was written at least 40 years after Jesus. Until that time Christianity was mostly a small Jewish sect with an oral tradition. Have you ever played the game where one person would be told a statement and then they were to pass it on? After about 20 people it would be difficult to recognize the statement. Just think what could happen in 40 years.

At least 85% of the people were illiterate in the 1st century and probably those who could actually read well enough to understand a text was much less than that. Books were written and then scribes copied them. The scribes did not use capital letters, punctuations, no distinction between lowercase and uppercase, and what is more confusing no spaces between words. They also made mistakes in copying and sometimes added thoughts of their own changing words. As a result the copied texts were usually altered not only by the scribes but then by the person who was interpreting the written text having to figure out the confused writing.

I believe totally in the theme of the Gospels. I think the basic premise of the Gospels are easily seen and are consistent. However, the fine points are the problems because of what I mentioned above. I have been accused of selectively choosing those verses that I happen to like and disregarding the rest. That is not what I do. What I do is look for overall meaning being concerned less with details and more by the overall comprehensive message of the text that I am reading.

Yes, that sometimes leaves me confused but with prayer and meditation I feel I am on a path that would be acceptable to God. I guess I could be wrong but that is why I continue to study and pray.

[bizzt]

My premise on the Bible is simply one must use common sense when reading the Bible taking into account the history of the Bible. I think many people believe the Bible suddenly existed. Many think the King James version just fell out of the sky. That is simply not the way it happened.

The earliest texts of our New Testament was written at least 40 years after Jesus. Until that time Christianity was mostly a small Jewish sect with an oral tradition. Have you ever played the game where one person would be told a statement and then they were to pass it on? After about 20 people it would be difficult to recognize the statement. Just think what could happen in 40 years.

At least 85% of the people were illiterate in the 1st century and probably those who could actually read well enough to understand a text was much less than that. Books were written and then scribes copied them. The scribes did not use capital letters, punctuations, no distinction between lowercase and uppercase, and what is more confusing no spaces between words. They also made mistakes in copying and sometimes added thoughts of their own changing words. As a result the copied texts were usually altered not only by the scribes but then by the person who was interpreting the written text having to figure out the confused writing.

I would love to see your references on this.

[Otisblues]

I mostly recently read the information in Ehrman's book, Misquoting Jesus, but there are many books written on the history of the Bible. Ehrman makes numerous references to historical scholars such as Richard Simon's book in 1689, A Critical History of the Text of the New Testament and Richard Bentley's book A Reply to a Treatise of Free-Thinking as examples of early investigation of such topics. These scholars do not agree on much but they seem to all agree with my statement of how the history of the New Testament began mostly as being transmitted orally. Then texts began to be written about 40 or so years after the death of Jesus with the Gospel of Mark being the earliest. These texts were copied and the problems associated with the copying are easily verified from numerous historical sources.

[Kurieuo]

1 Cor. 15:3-5 is recognised as an early Christian creed. Many critical scholars believe that Paul received it from the disciples Peter and James while visiting them in Jerusalem three years after his conversion. If so, how long after Jesus' crucifixion does this place the foundational Christian teachings found within?

• 1 Cor. 15:3-5
  3For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures,
  4and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures,
  5and that He appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve.

[Otisblues]

I have no ideal on the verse to which you refer. I was referring to the Gospels which Mark was written about 40 or so years after Jesus. Some of Paul's writing might predate this since they were the earliest we have. I have to admit I am much more familiar with the Gospels because they are the closest thing we have to the exact teaching of Christ himself. Of course, Paul did more to propogate the religion than anyone else but I still prefer the Gospel readings.

BTW, I'm in no way saying this invalidates the scriptures and I am just saying you need to take such things into consideration. Remember, the cannons in our New Testament was mostly decided at the Counsel of Nicene because Constantine, a mostly political historical dictator/King, wanted a single creed for Christians. This was very important to him after he decided to become a Christian and then declared everyone in his Armed Forces would also be Christian whether they wanted to or not. It turned out to be a very good political decision for him at least in my opinion.

[FFC]

I have no ideal on the verse to which you refer. I was referring to the Gospels which Mark was written about 40 or so years after Jesus. Some of Paul's writing might predate this since they were the earliest we have. I have to admit I am much more familiar with the Gospels because they are the closest thing we have to the exact teaching of Christ himself. Of course, Paul did more to propagate the religion than anyone else but I still prefer the Gospel readings.

BTW, I'm in no way saying this invalidates the scriptures and I am just saying you need to take such things into consideration. Remember, the cannons in our New Testament was mostly decided at the Counsel of Nicene because Constantine, a mostly political historical dictator/King, wanted a single creed for Christians. This was very important to him after he decided to become a Christian and then declared everyone in his Armed Forces would also be Christian whether they wanted to or not. It turned out to be a very good political decision for him at least in my opinion.

Otis blues, are the scriptures inerrant and inspired by God or not? Because I feel like I am hearing something different from you. There may have been some political stuff going on when it came time to deciding what to include and exclude in the cannon but wouldn't you agree that God is soveriegn and in control of even that in overseeing what goes into His Holy word. Otherwise I don't see the point of believing any of it if there is a chance some of it isn't trustworthy.

Just my opinion
FFC

[Kurieuo]

I have no ideal on the verse to which you refer. I was referring to the Gospels which Mark was written about 40 or so years after Jesus. Some of Paul's writing might predate this since they were the earliest we have. I have to admit I am much more familiar with the Gospels because they are the closest thing we have to the exact teaching of Christ himself. Of course, Paul did more to propogate the religion than anyone else but I still prefer the Gospel readings.

BTW, I'm in no way saying this invalidates the scriptures and I am just saying you need to take such things into consideration. Remember, the cannons in our New Testament was mostly decided at the Counsel of Nicene because Constantine, a mostly political historical dictator/King, wanted a single creed for Christians. This was very important to him after he decided to become a Christian and then declared everyone in his Armed Forces would also be Christian whether they wanted to or not. It turned out to be a very good political decision for him at least in my opinion.

I have studied historical critical methods so I am quite aware of the various thoughts out there when considering my beliefs regarding what Scripture says.

The description of the canon being formed at the Counsel of Nicene is quite distorted. No one individual, or body for that matter, decided which books of the NT were in or out. I see it as more an accounting for why particular writings had come to be considered as authoritative by many Christians at that time, and as such they were given them an official stamp of approval for Christians to use.

Mentioning the early creed found in Paul's writings was a reponse to one of your previously mentioned points of the "chinese whispers" scenario of oral traditions leading to distortions (it is quite interesting you take this approach since many modern critics adhere to the "Q" hypothesis for the formation of the Gospels which relies upon a shared source). Yet, core foundational Christian beliefs in the form of a creed are found in Paul's letter to the Corinithians.

Corinthians was written c.55 AD, and thus presents itself as powerful evidence against core beliefs of Christianity being a developed legend. The creed would have actually formed much earlier bringing us to within only a few years after Jesus' death. Thus, we have historical evidence of core Christian claims existing very early on, including who Jesus was such as Jesus being the Christ, fulfilling Old Testament prophecy, dying for our sins, being buried, rising on the third day, and being seen by believers and non-believers.

[Otisblues]

First of all, no matter how the New Testament came to be, I have choosen to believe the major themes of it. I do believe that there is a validity to the New Testament but again I have simply said it is not a perfect book with no errors, that just seems evident to me as per my previous examples of obvious contradictions between among others the stories in the Gospels. I have in no way said these invaluate the Gospels. Maybe the original words written were inspired by God, but we do not have those original words. I believe if God wanted us to have those original words we would have them.

I would also argue that even if we did have a perfect text, our individual interpretation of those texts would always be different. When we read anything we have to filter it through our own personal experiences which have formed our view of the world. So if the words of the text were perfect it would make no difference in the diverisity of religious thought as seen in the various number of demoninations ranging from Roman Catholics to Mormans. All claim their version of Christianity is just a little bit more valid than everyone else.


The description of the canon being formed at the Counsel of Nicene is quite distorted. No one individual, or body for that matter, decided which books of the NT were in or out. I see it as more an accounting for why particular writings had come to be considered as authoritative by many Christians at that time, and as such they were given them an official stamp of approval for Christians to use.

I was simply attempting to point out there were many political pressurs on the Counsel of Nicene by the government of the time by a leader who main concern was his empire rather than his religion. The protoorthodox became the orthodox at the this time. Before that, Christianity was even more diverse in its beliefs than it is now.


I believe that God takes all of these things into consideration. Afterall, he made us the way we are (we likely would disagree on the creation method) and since I believe he is a Just and fair God, he will be just in his judgements. If I did not believe in this eternal Justice, Plato's Form of Justice, I would likely not be able to be a Christian. I can not give you a particular verse for this but will simply say I believe Jesus preached a message of love and forgiveness and this was a reflection of what I would call the "Form of Justice".

The last paragraph will probably be torn apart by you guys but hey, that is why I post on here.

[B. W.]

I believe that God takes all of these things into consideration. Afterall, he made us the way we are (we likely would disagree on the creation method) and since I believe he is a Just and fair God, he will be just in his judgements. If I did not believe in this eternal Justice, Plato's Form of Justice, I would likely not be able to be a Christian. I can not give you a particular verse for this but will simply say I believe Jesus preached a message of love and forgiveness and this was a reflection of what I would call the "Form of Justice".

The last paragraph will probably be torn apart by you guys but hey, that is why I post on here.

Hi Otisblues, I'll investigate the last statement not tear it apart. But for now, please forgive me for my delay in responding to you. My Father is in late-late stage Alzheimer's and his body is becoming ridged — curling. Hospice doctor states that his time left could be a week — month — but who really knows. My Father is a Christian and it is my family's prayer that the Lord take him home soon.

Let me say from this. Why there is suffering like this for as good and honorable man as my father and those like him is unknown to me. One thing I do know is that my father will be whole again in heaven. The sufferings of this life do not compare with the glories to come that will come to God's children. I know my Christian father well enough that he would tell you the same.

This world and mortal life is temporary — fleeting. God is preparing and new heaven's and earth. In this newness — no more sin-sickness-death will ever be again. Why does God judge and allow people to reject him and then hold them to account. You state that you cannot accept that God can do this as well as reject people in an everlasting sense and will instead embrace everyone.

How can God embrace those that do not want such an embrace? You do not understand God on this matter of how perfect and just he really is. To allow those that reject him into the newness of life would keep sin alive. Now read:

Revelation 20:2-3, 7: "And he seized the dragon, that ancient serpent, who is the devil and Satan, and bound him for a thousand years, 3 and threw him into the pit, and shut it and sealed it over him, so that he might not deceive the nations any longer, until the thousand years were ended. After that he must be released for a little while… 7 And when the thousand years are ended, Satan will be released from his prison “ ESV

If Satan cannot be redeemed by a little suffering what makes you think a mere human can be that reject the Lord? They likewise after a thousand years would return to evil — why? They tasted it and learned God, in his great love/justice will not extinguish the gift of life he gives as that would be unjust. They'll see an angle to manipulate the goodness of God and spread sin into heaven. Does a dog naturally return to its own vomit? Instead, a place of eternal judgment-recompense would be just for all those that reject God to avoid such a return.

As for those that are of other faiths — we as Christians have a great commission. Next, do you find fault with God's all knowing ability to place people in groups, nations, and tongues according to common minds? There will those that reject the saving message of Christ and those that will accept. Let God be in charge and not your arguments.

Trust God that he knows what he is doing and why a Hindu will not enter heaven no matter how good a Hindu he or she is. You see, the sin nature of humanity seeks to overthrow the ways of the Lord and establish their own in God's place. By denying eternal recompense — that sin nature attempts to do the same.

Otisblues, you have a great love for people but do you really love Jesus the same? Defend the Lord. His judgments and ways are truly best left to him. What does the bible say on this matter:

Revelation 20:11-15, “Then I saw a great white throne and him who was seated on it. From his presence earth and sky fled away, and no place was found for them. 12 And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Then another book was opened, which is the book of life. And the dead were judged by what was written in the books, according to what they had done. 13 And the sea gave up the dead who were in it, Death and Hades gave up the dead who were in them, and they were judged, each one of them, according to what they had done. 14 Then Death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire. 15 And if anyone's name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire.” ESV

John 5:24-25, “Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life. He does not come into judgment, but has passed from death to life. 25 "Truly, truly, I say to you, an hour is coming, and is now here, when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God, and those who hear will live.” ESV

John 6:40, “For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day." ESV

John 3:16-21, "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. 17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. 18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God. 19 And this is the judgment: the light has come into the world, and people loved the darkness rather than the light because their works were evil. 20 For everyone who does wicked things hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his works should be exposed. 21 But whoever does what is true comes to the light, so that it may be clearly seen that his works have been carried out in God." ESV

Who is correct — God or man?

You see, the Lord is sorting out people just as it is written:

Mattew 13:24-30, “He put another parable before them, saying, "The kingdom of heaven may be compared to a man who sowed good seed in his field, 25 but while his men were sleeping, his enemy came and sowed weeds among the wheat and went away. 26 So when the plants came up and bore grain, then the weeds appeared also. 27 And the servants of the master of the house came and said to him, 'Master, did you not sow good seed in your field? How then does it have weeds?' 28 He said to them, 'An enemy has done this.' So the servants said to him, 'Then do you want us to go and gather them?' 29 But he said, 'No, lest in gathering the weeds you root up the wheat along with them. 30 Let both grow together until the harvest, and at harvest time I will tell the reapers, Gather the weeds first and bind them in bundles to be burned, but gather the wheat into my barn.'" ESV

God's ways are perfect — in mercy he lets the tares grow with the wheat revealing his great character. Be wheat not a tare. The enemy has sown a sin nature within our hearts but Jesus removes this and makes us wheat — fruitful — never to rebel again — he does so righteously, justly, graciously, perfectly!

We may think mortal death is unjust and unfair but mercy made us mortal and have a second chance. In the eternal - you are sealed and will live for ever as God will not renege his gift of life to anyone. Be wheat and not a tare. We are held to account for what we have done with this gift of life.

May you soon understand the Mercy and Glory of God that his great name reveals!
-
-
-

[Otisblues]

First of all let me say I can somewhat understand your circumstances. My mother did not have alzheimer disease but after a stroke was little more than a body lying in a bed in a nursing home. Also, my band plays every Tuesday night at one of our local nursing homes and I have watched a number of individuals, some of whom I knew in their younger days, simply cease to exist as their brain was destroyed. They turned into empty shells. They still had hearts beating but little else.

I hope that before I get to that point someone will put an end to my life.

I will have to digest your statements and will respond.

[jenna]

Even though you point is well taken, no child was born until after the Fall.

I will then go back to my original thesis, Adam and Eve never had a chance.

What are you really saying here? If they never had a chance then the logical conclusion is that it is not their fault and there is no guilt.

At what point can we use this excuse? "We never had a chance" Can pedophiles around children use this excuse? Can rapists use this excuse. "Well, she just tempted me beyond bearing" Can thieves use this excuse? Can we use this excuse? To be mean? To cheat on our spouses? "Well, gee, honey, she was just too sexy, I didn't have a chance..." To lie? To think mean thoughtS? To think lustful thoughts? At what point do we get a free pass. FROM a righteous and just God? Who we defied?

God is at fault? We have no guilt?

Come on. We had the BEST of ALL relationships. If ANYTHING, we had the BEST of all chances of resisting any temptation!! Who should want a mud pie when a banquet awaits them....every day?!?!? But such was our desire for our own wants and power that we decided that the banquet was insufficient.

Ultimately, we choose to disobey and defy God. We had all the chances in the garden....but we choose ourselves to worship instead of God...

Excellent response! It states in the bible, that while we do have choices, God never tempts us more than we can bear, but provides a means of escape from temptation.

[jenna]

When I have time I will attempt to address your questions as I have been doing for most of the time. However, let me asked you a couple of questions that you have not answered for me?

1. Why should I suffer the guilt of two humans of which I had no interaction and no possible means to effect their actions? Hence my example, if my father killed someone, why should I go to jail because I was his son?
I don't know if this was answered or not, but we are not bearing the guilt of Adam and Eve. they made the 1st sin, yes, but mankind has continued to sin ever since. Jesus died for OUR sins, and we are all held accountable for our own sins. Please read Ezekial 18:19-21. everyone is responsible for their own sins.
2. If I create a self willed android who has free choice, who is responsible for his actions?

If the android has free will, it would be responsible.