P
Pixie_Dust
Guest
You’re right - that was what Eve told the serpent that God said. God never said “Don’t touch it”… I stand (well, to be honest, sit) corrected.
- Status
T
TOME
Guest
As I have been reading the many post in response to this thread I find it interesting but troubling that I didn’t see any references to the writings of our Holy Father who wrote, in my opinion, an important commentary on the first three chapters of Genesis published under the title “In the Beginning”.
But what bothers me the most is it seems so many of us who participate in this forum really seem unfamiliar with the witings of our Holy Father. I find this baffling given the wide range of topics our Pope has written on over for many years yet we seem to be rather ignorant of such a great store of knowledge and insight he has given us. We have been blessed with a great teacher for a long time, and now he is our pope, so I think we should all give considerable thought to studying all the works of our Holy Father and in particular his commentary on Genesis.
But what bothers me the most is it seems so many of us who participate in this forum really seem unfamiliar with the witings of our Holy Father. I find this baffling given the wide range of topics our Pope has written on over for many years yet we seem to be rather ignorant of such a great store of knowledge and insight he has given us. We have been blessed with a great teacher for a long time, and now he is our pope, so I think we should all give considerable thought to studying all the works of our Holy Father and in particular his commentary on Genesis.
P
Pixie_Dust
Guest
As I was never in the Garden of Eden, it doesn’t matter much what I understand by it. What Adam understood was this:
There was a positive revelation of the will of God about this tree, so that by it man might know moral good and evil. What is good? It is good not to eat of this tree. What is evil? It is evil to eat of this tree.
P
Pixie_Dust
Guest
Personally, I have not yet been received into the Church and I had no idea such writings existed. You mention it like everyone should know that the Holy Father has written a commentary on Genesis.
I’m up to my ears in apologetics right now, hoping that my husband will join me in crossing the Tiber. There are only so many hours in the day, y’know.
K
Khalfan
Guest
I am not concerned about the popular conclusion, that Adam and eve sinned by disobeying, but what the Bible teaches. It says Adam and eve didn’t know good or evil. It says they were not guided, how to handle evil temptation. It says they didn’t know serpent. it says they didn’t know death. what they did know is God and his command. But they didn’t know they have choice to obey and to disobey. They didn’t know disobeying is sin. That is why they didn’t disobey until serpent come. they were purely like a child who would believe anything he hear from anyone. That is why they believed serpent. We don’t punish our children for disobeying, as we understand they are not grown enough to catch what we command. Rather, we guide them not to repeat the mistakes. Wasn’t that God supposed to do? Is that what God did? What God did is unjust.
The claim of sin is wrong. The claim of inheritence of sin to entire mankind is another wrong. We are not born sinners, but it is our choice to be sinful and we are responsible for it. What is common (what we are inherited of) in Adam and us is the potential to sin, to disobey. The poitential is not a sin as God created it and it was good.
Bible clearly fails to give us a logical reason for the inheritence of sin. If this fails, crucifixion also fails since Jesus died for the same inherited sin, not our sin that we do. Our sin (including cain), we are accountable for it anyway.
There is another illogical claim that we will get forgiven if we accept cross. First fo all, cross was not the solution to inherit eternal life as per Jesus. It was to obey the commandmends (Luke 18:19-22, 10:25-37) and to follow Jesus. If it was just to accept cross, Jesus wouldn’t say to follow commandmends. But later, by the time paul, the situation of christianity changed as to ignore the commandmend as per Hebrews 7:18. So again, bible gives no logical reason for cross. There is no need of a punishment to get forgiven. If we do any unlawful act and get a penalty of 100 $, there is an unlawful act in our account and we owe 100 4 penalty for it. As soon as we pay the penalty, the account is clear. there is no question to get forgiven because forgivness is to excuse without a payment. If we pay the penalty, it is our right to get rid of the account of sin.
God doesn’t need a penalty to be paid for forgiving us. It is illogic to think of paying the penalty and to get forgiven.
if jesus paid the penalty of our sins, it includes all our sin that we did and will do. God cannot punish us for it anymore. That is another illogic, because it allows us to sin as much as we want.
tell me your taughts.
The claim of sin is wrong. The claim of inheritence of sin to entire mankind is another wrong. We are not born sinners, but it is our choice to be sinful and we are responsible for it. What is common (what we are inherited of) in Adam and us is the potential to sin, to disobey. The poitential is not a sin as God created it and it was good.
Bible clearly fails to give us a logical reason for the inheritence of sin. If this fails, crucifixion also fails since Jesus died for the same inherited sin, not our sin that we do. Our sin (including cain), we are accountable for it anyway.
There is another illogical claim that we will get forgiven if we accept cross. First fo all, cross was not the solution to inherit eternal life as per Jesus. It was to obey the commandmends (Luke 18:19-22, 10:25-37) and to follow Jesus. If it was just to accept cross, Jesus wouldn’t say to follow commandmends. But later, by the time paul, the situation of christianity changed as to ignore the commandmend as per Hebrews 7:18. So again, bible gives no logical reason for cross. There is no need of a punishment to get forgiven. If we do any unlawful act and get a penalty of 100 $, there is an unlawful act in our account and we owe 100 4 penalty for it. As soon as we pay the penalty, the account is clear. there is no question to get forgiven because forgivness is to excuse without a payment. If we pay the penalty, it is our right to get rid of the account of sin.
God doesn’t need a penalty to be paid for forgiving us. It is illogic to think of paying the penalty and to get forgiven.
if jesus paid the penalty of our sins, it includes all our sin that we did and will do. God cannot punish us for it anymore. That is another illogic, because it allows us to sin as much as we want.
tell me your taughts.
T
TOME
Guest
Pixie Dust,
First it gives me real joy to read you are in the process of convertion to what I believe is the true Church and the fullness of our Christian Faith. So I sincerely hope that you didn’t take what I wrote personnally. My words were a lement that too many Catholics just are unfamiliar what the writing of our pope.
But your response reenforces my opinion because I ask you to ask yourself just how often,in your studies, were any references to the writings of our Holy Father or to him as Cardinal Ratizenger were ever made the school of theology his thoughts reflect. There has been a growing theological tend these past thirty plus years that when you are able to devote time to the writings of such theologians as our Holy Father hopefully you will find in this theologial school of thought a strong movement to return to the strongest sources of our Catholic teachings and thought with a particular strong emphasis on the study of the Church Fathers. And those advocating this theological understanding do not fear the best of modern biblical scholarship but welcome it and use it but never forgetting the role of biblical scholars which is to serve the teaching authority of the Church and is not the authority on to itself and that there are limitations inherent to modern scholarship especially in regards to the use of historical criticism. The disregard of these limitations have been the root cause of many of the abuses of biblical scholarsip in general and historical criticism in particular, but as the old saying goes you don’t through the baby out with the bath and modern biblical scholarship has a vital role in the Church. (Here I think of one criticism I read and heard the Holy Father offer through many of his works, namely one of the biggest problems of the scholars and their use of the historical critical method is they look only at the past of what was, and fail to understand the past must always point to the present and future with the faith that all this is being guided by the Holy Spirit).
Perhaps one reason why Pope Benedict’s works have, in my opinion, been neglected is due to the fact that they have been overshadowed by the writings and teaching on John Paul the Great. But if you begin serious study of the writings and teaching of John Paul II along with further studies of Pope Benedict I think you will find they both reflect the same theological understanding - they are both from the same school of thought.
I am not suggesting the you disregard any or all your present studies but to give the study of our Holy Father’s works some consideration. And perhaps ask those who are guiding you what they think of the writings of our Holy Father (that is what he has actually has written and not what others say about his writings).
First it gives me real joy to read you are in the process of convertion to what I believe is the true Church and the fullness of our Christian Faith. So I sincerely hope that you didn’t take what I wrote personnally. My words were a lement that too many Catholics just are unfamiliar what the writing of our pope.
But your response reenforces my opinion because I ask you to ask yourself just how often,in your studies, were any references to the writings of our Holy Father or to him as Cardinal Ratizenger were ever made the school of theology his thoughts reflect. There has been a growing theological tend these past thirty plus years that when you are able to devote time to the writings of such theologians as our Holy Father hopefully you will find in this theologial school of thought a strong movement to return to the strongest sources of our Catholic teachings and thought with a particular strong emphasis on the study of the Church Fathers. And those advocating this theological understanding do not fear the best of modern biblical scholarship but welcome it and use it but never forgetting the role of biblical scholars which is to serve the teaching authority of the Church and is not the authority on to itself and that there are limitations inherent to modern scholarship especially in regards to the use of historical criticism. The disregard of these limitations have been the root cause of many of the abuses of biblical scholarsip in general and historical criticism in particular, but as the old saying goes you don’t through the baby out with the bath and modern biblical scholarship has a vital role in the Church. (Here I think of one criticism I read and heard the Holy Father offer through many of his works, namely one of the biggest problems of the scholars and their use of the historical critical method is they look only at the past of what was, and fail to understand the past must always point to the present and future with the faith that all this is being guided by the Holy Spirit).
Perhaps one reason why Pope Benedict’s works have, in my opinion, been neglected is due to the fact that they have been overshadowed by the writings and teaching on John Paul the Great. But if you begin serious study of the writings and teaching of John Paul II along with further studies of Pope Benedict I think you will find they both reflect the same theological understanding - they are both from the same school of thought.
I am not suggesting the you disregard any or all your present studies but to give the study of our Holy Father’s works some consideration. And perhaps ask those who are guiding you what they think of the writings of our Holy Father (that is what he has actually has written and not what others say about his writings).
M
MHalsey
Guest
You started this whole thread by asking the question, and now that just about everyone has pointed out the obvious, you don’t accept it. Why? Because if you accept it, your entire argument falls.
There is nothing in the Bible to support your interpretation. The Bible does NOT say they were not guided, or didn’t know they had a choice or didn’t know death, or any other claim you make. All of this is speculation.
Only based on your incorrect interpretation of Adam and Eve. Since God is almighty, why is it so hard to accept that he made this sin something we inherit? In fact, it is because of all the reasons you mention, that give credence to original sin.
You are taking the passage from Luke out of context, because if you read just a little further, there is people were asking who could be saved then:
Note that it is impossible for us to be saved by ourselves. Only God can do it. Also, in the rest of this chapter, Jesus describes the entry into Jerusalem and what will happen to him. Basically, he is explaining how God will do what is impossible. But they don’t understand yet.
Jesus did not die on the cross to pay a penalty. He died offering himself for the forgiveness of our sins. However, forgiveness is a 2 way street. Before God forgives us, we must ask for that forgiveness. It’s not paying the penalty, it is asking for that penalty to be waived because someone else paid it. However, God will allow you to pay it yourself if you don’t ask for forgiveness.
P
paarsurrey
Guest
Hi
JesusYeshuaIssa, in my opinion, did not and could not die on Cross, since he was to show Sign of Jonah who never died in the belly of fish, so those who base their faith on this notion are mistaken. They should rectify their misunderstanding of the events.Kindly view the following, if you like:
tombofjesus.com/
Did Jesus die on the Cross? A BBC documentary
video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1669658378154953060&q
Thanks
I am an Ahmadi – a peaceful faith in Islam bridging gaps between faiths/denominations/religions/agnostics
B
Benadam
Guest
hello and peace to you
Remember that Jesus mentions his connection to jonah after being asked for a sign . It is likely this was asked from a prejudiced outlook that would require a progression of signs greater in magnitude than the one before it in order to believe. Of course this is not a true faith and Jesus didn’t oblige it. The sign of jonah could not be understood untill after Christ ressurected because the belly of the fish is the belly of the earth where the souls of the departed dwelt. If Jesus had not risen from death and be witnessed after dying on the cross the sign of jonah would not be fulfilled nor understood in the way Christians understand it.
The tomb where Jesus’ body was, is the belly of the fish that entombed Jonah. Just as Jonah left the belly of the fish, Christ left the Tomb. Empty. That was the sign for them who demanded increasingly greater signs. Because it is the greatest.
B
Benadam
Guest
K
Khalfan
Guest
You are mistaken. The very head of the thread itself answers you.
Did Adam and Eve knew good and Evil before they eat the fruit?
None of you could give me any Bible reference, that they did know good and evil before eating the fruit rather than interpreting. I am not concerned about what they did, what Christians believe. Instead, what made them to disobey God.
Does the Bible say, they did know? No. How could you interpret they did know, something the scripture doesn’t say? If you say, they did know good and evil, it is against Gen 2:9 and 17. How do you assume something against what scripture says?
From this one sin, sin nature inherited the entire humanity and that made God himself to die for it. Whatever beliefs developed after Jesus, the Christianity itself is based on this one assumption that we are born sinners. This sin and its inheritance is the reason for cross.
Before Jesus, it was ‘The soul that sin, shall die’ -Eze 18:20. No one had to die for someone else.
I hope you understand how serious the issue is.
Who made the sin,
God? Then it has to be good. Not sin.
Adam? He didn’t know what he is doing is a sin, because the knowledge of good and evil was in the fruit as per Gen 2:9 and 17.
Isn’t hard to accept something illogic? I am finding for a logical reason.
Does that invalidate Luke 18:19-22, 10:25-37? I didn’t know that.
Dear Friend, it is like 50:50. We have to make sure we are doing our half. That is what Luke 18:19-22 and 10:25-37 says. God will do the other half which said in 18:27. God will not do his half until you accomplish your half. Which means, our deeds are always accounted. Then God will decide, weather to save us or not. You cannot be guaranteed to be saved until you fulfill your half, doing only good, stay away from evil, follow the commandments.
That is what I knew from many Christians, ‘Jesus paid for our sin’. Anyway, the reason is our forgiveness.
Consider, I am ready to pay for my sin. Let’s imagine, I punched you at your face for no reason. You consider that a sin and you want me to pay for it. I said “I am sorry, forgive me”. You said “No. I want to punch you back”. It’s your choice, either to punch me back or just to forgive me. You cannot do both together, because after you punch me back, you cannot say “I forgive you”, it doesn’t make any sense. Even if my brother took the punishment, your forgiveness doesn’t make any mean, because you owed a penalty from me and it is paid by someone.
If forgiveness needs a meaning, it is to excuse without payment of penalty. If you had forgiven me without punching me or my brother back, that makes sense. If God forgives us without the payment of Jesus, that makes sense. What can make you think of just forgiving me is my ‘sorry’. What can make God think of just forgiving our sin is our repentance and its sincerity.
K
Khalfan
Guest
I still don’t find any biblical support for what you said. Interpretations are human understanding. It can go wrong.
I just want to know if Bible gives enough logical reasons for what Christians believe.
K
Khalfan
Guest
Why do you call pope ‘Father’, when Bible say you should not?
“And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven” -Matthew 23:9.
K
Khalfan
Guest
Did Adam and Eve knew, it is evil to eat from that tree?
K
Khalfan
Guest
In hope that you read the book, Did Adam and Eve knew good and Evil before they eat the fruit?
K
Khalfan
Guest
Did Eve know good and Evil before she eat the fruit?
K
Khalfan
Guest
Consider, you took your child to hospital and he survived. What you will do with your child, will you punish him for the disobedience or guide him about the dangerousness of poison? Please be honest.
K
Khalfan
Guest
Out of what they erred?
K
Khalfan
Guest
We are inherited of something because of that one act of eating, the knowledge of good and evil, a wide open eye to see the world. We are able to choose good from evil because we can see and we have knowledge of good and evil. Adam and Eve knew good and evil only after eating the fruit. Adam and Eve got their eyes open only after eating the fruit. We can’t compare our acts to Adam and Eve. They haven’t had any good or evil will. They were unable to recognize their will if it is good or evil.
B
Benadam
Guest
The explanation given to you from me was entirely biblical.
you have been given very reasonable explanations for what we believe. What is required of you isn’t whether or not ‘you’ find biblical support, but that you offer an objection that shows that the belief is unreasonable. You haven’t once offered an objection that exposes the error of what we believe.
I
We believe that God provided Adam and Eve with everything they needed to do the right thing. That doesn’t have to be written in the account about Adam and Eve to be true because that is the nature of the God our bible reveals. Do you believe the bible doesn’t offer good reason to believe that?
The crux of your objection on this thread so far has been that.
The bible gives us quite eneogh reason to believe that God doesn’t expect more from us than what should be.
- Status