Why are Bible scholars leaving Christianity?

[Ghada]

Adam was made from the dust of the earth (Genesis 3:19) - he was not born as a baby.
Eve was made from one of Adam's ribs - she was made as a woman, not a baby. But everyone else has been made by humans procreating, and are born as babies. So clearly Adam was made differently from everybody else.

You're going to need to have integrity to keep making an argument. You say Christ now creates us differently with sin, than He did Adam and Eve without sin.

It does matter how we are created, so far as sinning is concerned.

And so, God the Creator now makes sinful creatures.

Adam was created perfect and could have remained sinless,

Perfectly made. No flesh and blood natural thing is perfect. They are all made by Christ with mortal corruption and deterioration on earth.

 

[Ghada]

just as God prepared a perfect human body for Jesus and Jesus remained sinless.

Jesus Christ came in the flesh of man, not after the immortal nature of angels.

Your christ made of immortal angel's flesh, is not Jesus Christ, nor my Christ.

Since 'immortal' flesh does not corrupt nor deteriorate, then that would make it poopless with no need to sleep. Jesus did both.

And when he had called all the people unto him, he said unto them, Hearken unto me every one of you, and understand:

There is nothing from without a man, that entering into him can defile him: but the things which come out of him, those are they that defile the man.

And he saith unto them, Are ye so without understanding also? Do ye not perceive, that whatsoever thing from without entereth into the man, it cannot defile him;

Because it entereth not into his heart, but into the belly, and goeth out into the draught, purging all meats?

And he said, That which cometh out of the man, that defileth the man.

And so, there is no more room for an argument of anything put into the natural body is sinful nor can make man sinful.

All sin, beginning with Lucifer, originates with lusting in the heart, and is judged by God as a committed act of sin.

But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed. Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.

The origin of sin as a person's own lasting. The origin of spiritual death is by sinning from lust.

Whosoever is committing sin transgresses also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.

There is no sin thing independent of the act of lusting and trasngression. It is not created and made by Christ, and so it does not exist, and especially not put into man's body by Him, which would not defile the body anyway.

The only thing put into man lightened by Christ coming into the world, is a lie of the devil, which itself is the spirit's act of unbelief.

Take heed, brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief, in departing from the living God.

 

[Ghada]

Eve, and all women descendants, would suffer much greater pain in childbirth (unlike all other mammals which don't suffer anywhere near as much as women do).

And God makes it that way. He doesn't make man sinful at conception in the womb.

It's not a sin to have hard labor in birth, no more than it is a sin to have hot sex in conceiving and being conceived in the womb.

and he and Eve would also suffer dying and death

Your refusal to acknowledge the truth of the Bible, that soul of man dies the day they sin, shows something else is going on here.

Since the only death you acknowledge is that of natural death of the body, then you are either just a natural man not believing the things of the spirit, or you perhaps believe in the natural theology of the soul of man is his body, and the body is his soul.

That's taught by oblivion heretics that teach against eternal torment of wicked men and angels.

so everyone was born less than perfect physically and mentally, and even more inclined to sin than Adam.

And so now you state plainly the lie of disobedient angels and men, that God is the tempter to sin by making us lusting to sin.

Irrelevant.

It is. It shows it's not important to you teach from the Bible only.

God had not at that time revealed any way of escape from the penalty of death.

Tell that to Enoch who walked with God.

God made a way of escape from sinning in the garden. It's called repentance unto confession with godly sorrow. He gave that way to Adam, and even to Cain, and has been commanding men to repent ever since.

 

[Ghada]

Sin entered the world, that is all humankind, through Adam. So all humankind have become sinful.

And so, you finally answer the question, so that now you make man a maker of himself, without Christ.

You make man his own maker. And a sinful one at that.

Little children, keep yourselves from idols. Amen.

The fact that all men (people) have died shows that everyone has sinned.

The fact that all men die bodily, including Adam and Jesus, shows that all bodies of flesh and blood die naturally.

Barnes' Bible notes says:

Sin entered into the world - He was the first sinner of the race.

True. And sin entered into heaven when Lucifer lusted from the heart. He was the first sinner of the race of angels.

He was the first sinner among people, and in consequence all others became sinners.

Because they all sinned for themselves after the example of Adam.

In consequence of sinning, all men make themselves sinners like Adam did.

 

[Ghada]

So how do you explain the death of babies during or shortly after birth?

So, you acknowledge the truth of the verse, that it has nothing to do with inheritance by birth.

You are therefore confused, that it does not agree with your personal ideas about such things.

(Instead of being confused, just believe the truth, and then by the light of truth answer such questions for yourself.

There is no reason why babes of men or beasts die at birth. It's just a part of the nature Christ has created on earth. It's why we deal with it that matters most. Funerals are not for the dead, but the living.

If a baby hasn't sinned, but has a sinful nature, then is God justified by applying/allowing the penalty for sin (death)?

This is a foolish unnecessary question only made by carnal minded unbelievers in all the words of the Bible.

But foolish and unlearned questions avoid, knowing that they do gender strifes.

Again, Barnes' Bible notes says:

2. Moreover, there are certain facts connected with the moral history of mankind, which present insuperable difficulties, if we deny the doctrines of representation and imputed sin.

Insuperable stupidity is beleiving God on the one hand imputes sin into man, but also believes God does not impute sin to some men.

Sin is only imputed and in the soul that sinneth.

“How shall we on any other principle account for the universality of death,

It's called natural creation by Christ. It's not a sin to be mortal in body. Neither with men nor porpoises.

It can be traced back beyond all personal guilt. Its origin is higher.

And so, God is the creator of lust and sin, and so is indeed the tempter to sin.

Talk about the devil's doctrine.

Antecedent to all actual transgression, man is visited with penal evil.

The soul that sinneth, it shall die.

The only 'antecedent' to trasngression with the body, is lust with the heart. Sin is the act of transgression.

His whole constitution is disordered.

True. It's called natural pooping and peeing flesh and blood. Which you say Jesus did neither, since His own flesh was not natural but immortal.


Can the righteous God punish where there is no guilt?

Once again another stupid question only made by them that believe God puts lust and sin in man before man sins.

We must take one side or other of the alternative, that God inflicts punishment without guilt, or that Adam’s sin is imputed to his posterity.

You blind unbelievers won't even consider the Bible alternative.

The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.

Only the man that sins has sin imputed to him.

It may be noticed in this place also, that the death of infants is a striking proof of the infliction of penal evil, prior to personal or actual sin.

Christ is the penal evil maker.

Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created.

Only hard hearted unbelievers of the world accuse God of being an evil creator that takes pleasure in watching creatures fail according to His own 'original penal' design.

It is said, indeed, that the case of infants is not introduced in Scripture in connection with this subject

Give me a break already.

Now you acknowledge your doctrine has nothing to do with babes in the womb. The Bible is all about imputing and having sin by the act of lusting and sinning alone, with absolutely nothing about babes.

You acknowledge it and yet still want to believe the lie.

, and our author tells us, that they are not at all referred to in any part of this disputed passage, nor included in the clause, “death reigned, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam’s transgression.”

For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law;

There is no excuse for man transgressing God and fellow man, so all men lightened by Christ coming into the world, die to God by rejecting His light.

“Why do infants die?”

Because they didn't grow into children.

Perhaps it will be said that though they have committed no actual sin,

Once again. Acknowledging babes have nothing to do with sin and being sinners of the devil.

yet they have a depraved nature;

A depraved nature in man is only be receiving the lie of the devil.

Christ lightens all men coming into the world, but the devil only darkens men than believe a lie and not the truth of Christ.

And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:

I have also yet to meet some fool teaching this, who then picked up their newborn babe and said, "Oh you cute little sinful devil! Who can't love someone so so depraved as you!"

I've heard of ugly cute though.

You people are such insuperable theory-making hypocrites.

but this cedes the whole question, for that depraved nature is just a part of the penal evil, formerly noticed.

Christ is not a penal evil maker of evil flesh and blood.

Why are innocent infants visited with what entails death on them? One answer only can be given, and no ingenuity can evade the conclusion, “in Adam all die.”

In flesh of man all men die. So also in flesh of pig, do all pigs die. The first pig being named Porky.

 

[Ghada]

So Barnes implies that it is God that imputes sin on everybody, and that because of Adam's sin everybody dies.

Blessed is the man unto whom the LORD imputeth not sin, and in whose spirit there is no guile.

According to you, this is not possible.

 

[keithr]

You're going to need to have integrity to keep making an argument. You say Christ now creates us differently with sin, than He did Adam and Eve without sin.

I didn't say that Jesus makes people with sin. I said that a sinful nature was inherited from our parents. Does Jesus make people with physical and mental handicaps too, or is that inherited from their parents, or a result of their parents' imperfect bodies?

Perfectly made. No flesh and blood natural thing is perfect. They are all made by Christ with mortal corruption and deterioration on earth.

What I wrote was that Adam was made perfect and sinless. If he had remained sinless then he would still be alive today, and as long as he did not sin he would continue to live, even live forever. God made man so that he could live forever. Death was/is the penalty for sin. Physical corruption and deterioration is the result of sin - if Adam remained sinless then his body would not have decayed and died, and all of Adam 's descendants would have been born perfect too, rather than being born with an imperfect, decaying and dying body.

 

[NayborBear]

Bible scholars are leaving Christianity in droves. Why?
Not because they don't understand the Bible, obviously. (they're Bible scholars)

- Do you have to be Christian to believe in God?
- Do you have to agree with the institutional church's positions to believe in God?

Previous topic on this subject.

Leaving Room for Faith - why we don't know EVERYTHING

At one time I was bothered by the fact that we don't really have ALL the answers. There was always a loose end somewhere. I chased the apologetics in every direction, but always came up short somewhere. And frankly, I don't remember the specifics, only the moment of my release from the tyranny...

www.christianityboard.com

Is kinda like (meaning is REALLY LIKE) Paul's warning concerning certain members of the body of Christ being so puffed up that they no longer recognize/condone/nor accept any other part of the body of Christ that does not conform or be willingly molded into their particular part.
Call is precepts of men. Call it tryants. Call it traditions of men.
Calls it what ya will!
ALL boils down to APOSTASY!

 

[keithr]

Jesus Christ came in the flesh of man, not after the immortal nature of angels.

That's what I said! I wrote, "God prepared a perfect human body for Jesus". I made no mention of angels. If you can not correctly understand the simple things that I write, then it's very likely that you will misunderstand God's word in the Bible too!

Your christ made of immortal angel's flesh, is not Jesus Christ, nor my Christ.

I never claimed that! Angels don't have flesh, and they are not immortal.

Since 'immortal' flesh does not corrupt nor deteriorate, then that would make it poopless with no need to sleep. Jesus did both.

Humans are not immortal. The word immortal means that you cannot possibly die, that you are not subject to death. Jesus came in the flesh to pay the redemption price, which was death of a perfect human being, so obviously Jesus was mortal (as I wrote, only God was immortal, 1 Timothy 6:16). The opportunity to gain immortality was only revealed by Jesus' ministry, 2 Timothy 1:10 (ESV):

(10) and which now has been manifested through the appearing of our Savior Christ Jesus, who abolished death and brought life and immortality to light through the gospel,​

 

[St. SteVen]

Is kinda like (meaning is REALLY LIKE) Paul's warning concerning certain members of the body of Christ being so puffed up that they no longer recognize/condone/nor accept any other part of the body of Christ that does not conform or be willingly molded into their particular part.
Call is precepts of men. Call it tryants. Call it traditions of men.
Calls it what ya will!
ALL boils down to APOSTASY!

Did you watch ANY of the videos?
Most topic responders rush to judgment without hearing ANY testimony.
I don't get being "puffed up" from any of these folks in the videos. On the contrary, actually.

And "APOSTASY" is like "heresy". Labels we brand on those outside the tribe. Like Jesus.

Was Jesus Heretical? - Why did they crucify Him?

Follow-up to the Was Jesus Orthodox? (or Baptist) topic. The previous thread examined the term 'orthodox". This thread will focus on the term "heretical". In the same way that something is not considered orthodox, it may also be termed as heretical. Thus labeling the person targeted as a...

www.christianityboard.com

/

 

[keithr]

Your refusal to acknowledge the truth of the Bible, that soul of man dies the day they sin, shows something else is going on here.

You misunderstand the Scriptures, most likely due to poor translation of the Bible. It is obvious that people don't drop dead the first time in their life that they commit a sin. We would have no need of a police force and the judicial system if that were the case! The KJV translates Genesis 2:17 as:

(17) But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.​

but note that the footnote says:

{thou shalt surely … : Heb. dying thou shalt die }​

Similarly a literal translation will say the same, e.g. YLT:

(17) and of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, thou dost not eat of it, for in the day of thine eating of it—dying thou dost die.'​

or LSV:

(17) but from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, you do not eat from it, for in the day of your eating from it—dying you die.”​

It means that as soon as Adam ate the fruit of the tree he then started to die. However, he continued to live for many more years before he eventually died.

God made a way of escape from sinning in the garden. It's called repentance unto confession with godly sorrow. He gave that way to Adam, and even to Cain, and has been commanding men to repent ever since.

I see no mention of that in Genesis 3:14-24 when God passed judgement on Adam, Eve and the serpent. Please give Bible quotes to support your claim.

 

[keithr]

The fact that all men die bodily, including Adam and Jesus, shows that all bodies of flesh and blood die naturally.

If everyone is going to die naturally, and could not live forever if they did not sin, then how can death be a punishment for sin?

Romans 6:23 (WEB):

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

Because they all sinned for themselves after the example of Adam.

In consequence of sinning, all men make themselves sinners like Adam did.

How does Jesus' sacrifice of one perfect human life save all of mankind? Hint, Deuteronomy 19:21 (WEB):

(21) Your eyes shall not pity: life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot.​

 

[NayborBear]

Did you watch ANY of the videos?
Most topic responders rush to judgment without hearing ANY testimony.
I don't get being "puffed up" from any of these folks in the videos. On the contrary, actually.

And "APOSTASY" is like "heresy". Labels we brand on those outside the tribe. Like Jesus.

Was Jesus Heretical? - Why did they crucify Him?

Follow-up to the Was Jesus Orthodox? (or Baptist) topic. The previous thread examined the term 'orthodox". This thread will focus on the term "heretical". In the same way that something is not considered orthodox, it may also be termed as heretical. Thus labeling the person targeted as a...

www.christianityboard.com

/

1 John 4
King James Version

3 And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of Instead of christ, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in/of the world.

8 He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love.

14 And we have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son to be the Saviour of the world.

 

[St. SteVen]

St. SteVen said:
Did you watch ANY of the videos?

1 John 4
King James Version

3 And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of Instead of christ, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in/of the world.

8 He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love.

14 And we have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son to be the Saviour of the world.

I'll take that as a "No." You did not watch ANY of the videos. (sigh)
What are you afraid of?

Thirty pages of refusal by Christians to watch any of the video testimonies. Why?

My best guess. Fear of hell.
The church has brainwashed us to accept the idea that believers go to heaven and unbelievers go to hell.
So... any threat to our beliefs is avoided like the plague. The perceived danger is too great.

Christianity as a fear-filled tightrope act.
Carefully making our way across the dark abyss of life to heaven,
with the flames of hell licking hungrily at our feet.
The abundant life Jesus promised us, right?

Interesting to note verse fourteen in your quote above.
Did Jesus succeed, or fail, at his mission to be "the Saviour of the world."

14 And we have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son to be the Saviour of the world.

/

 

[keithr]

Blessed is the man unto whom the LORD imputeth not sin, and in whose spirit there is no guile.

According to you, this is not possible.

Rubbish. I never said that. You keep accusing me of saying things that I have not said. Even after I have clearly pointed out that I had not said them, you still repeat your claim that I have. Your idiotic response in post #577, where you misinterpret the Cambridge Bible Notes' expression "the primeval Sin" to mean that dinosaurs sinned, also shows that your understanding cannot be trusted. If you can't discuss the subject reasonably, then I'll stop discussing it.

This has drifted off the thread subject anyway, so it's probably time to discontinue this digression.

 

[keithr]

1 John 4
King James Version

3 And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of Instead of christ, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in/of the world.

If you state that you're quoting from a specific translation (KJV) and then you change the text rather than quoting it exactly, then you should make that clear, so that people don't think that you're deliberately trying to deceive them. While "instead of Christ" is a possible interpretation of "antichrist", nevertheless the KJV (and virtually every other English translation) uses the word "antichrist". I would recommend using "... spirit of antichrist {'instead of Christ'}, whereof ..." to make it clear that you are adding to the quote. The KJV also doesn't say "in/of".

Albert Barnes ' Notes on the Bible (for 1 John 2:18) says concerning the word antichrist:

The word “antichrist,” therefore, might denote anyone who either was or claimed to be in the place of Christ, or one who, for any cause, was in opposition to him. The word, further, would apply to one opposed to him, on whatever ground the opposition might be; whether it were open and avowed, or whether it were only in fact, as resulting from certain claims which were adverse to his, or which were inconsistent with his. A “vice-functionary,” or an “opposing functionary,” would be the idea which the word would naturally suggest. If the word stood alone, and there were nothing said further to explain its meaning, we should think, when the word “antichrist” was used, either of one who claimed to be the Christ, and who thus was a rival; or of one who stood in opposition to him on some other ground. That which constituted the characteristics of antichrist, according to John, who only has used the word, he has himself stated. 1Jn_2:22, “who is a liar, but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son.” 1Jn_4:3, “and every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh, is not of God; and this is that spirit of antichrist.” 2Jn_1:7, “for many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.”​

​

From this it is clear, that John understood by the word all those that denied that Jesus is the Messiah, or that the Messiah has come in the flesh. If they held that Jesus was a deceiver, and that he was not the Christ, or if they maintained that, though Christ had come, he had not come in the flesh, that is, with a proper human nature, this showed that such persons had the spirit of antichrist. They arrayed themselves against him, and held doctrines which were in fact in entire opposition to the Son of God. It would appear then that John does not use the word in the sense which it would bear as denoting one who set up a rival claim, or who came in the place of Christ, but in the sense of those who were opposed to him by denying essential doctrines in regard to his person and advent. It is not certainly known to what persons he refers, but it would seem not improbable to Jewish adversaries, (see Suicer’s Thesaur. s. voc.,) or to some forms of the Gnostic belief. See the notes at 1Jn_4:2. The doctrine respecting antichrist, as stated in the New Testament, may be summed up in the following particulars:​

​

(1) That there would be those, perhaps in considerable numbers, who would openly claim to be the Christ, or the true Messiah, Mat_24:5, Mat_24:24.​

​

(2) That there would be a spirit, which would manifest itself early in the church, that would strongly tend to some great apostasy under some one head or leader, or to a concentration on an individual, or a succession of individuals, who would have eminently the spirit of antichrist, though for a time the developement of that spirit would be hindered or restrained. See the notes at 2Th_2:1-7.​

​

(3) That this would be ultimately concentrated on a single leader - “the man of sin” - and embodied under some great apostasy, at the head of which would be that “man of sin,” 2Th_2:3-4, 2Th_2:8-10. It is to this that Paul particularly refers, or this is the view which he took of this apostacy, and it is this which he particularly describes.​

​

(4) That, in the meantime, and before the elements of the great apostasy should be concentrated and embodied, there might not be a few who would partake of the same general spirit, and who would be equally opposed to Christ in their doctrines and aims; that is, who would embody in themselves the essential spirit of antichrist, and by whose appearing it might be known that the last dispensation had come. It is to these that John refers, and these he found in his own age. Paul fixed the eye on future times, when the spirit of antichrist should be embodied under a distinct and mighty organization; John on his own time, and found then essentially what it had been predicted would occur in the church. He here says that they had been taught to expect that antichrist would come under the last dispensation; and it is implied that it could be ascertained that it was the last time, from the fact that the predicted opposer of Christ had come. The reference is probably to the language of the Saviour, that before the end should be, and as a sign that it was coming, many would arise claiming to be Christ, and, of course, practically denying that he was the Christ. Mat_24:5, “many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many.” Mat_24:24, “and there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets; and they shall show great signs and wonders, insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.” This prediction it is probable the apostles had referred to wherever they had preached, so that there was a general expectation that one or more persons would appear claiming to be the Christ, or maintaining such opinions as to be inconsistent with the true doctrine that Jesus was the Messiah. Such persons, John says, had then in fact appeared, by which it could be known that they were living under the closing dispensations of the world referred to by the Saviour. Compare the notes at 2Th_2:2-5.​

​

Even now are there many antichrists - There are many who have the characteristics which it was predicted that antichrist would have; that is, as explained above, there are many who deny that Jesus is the Messiah, or who deny that he has come in the flesh. If they maintained that Jesus was an impostor and not the true Messiah, or if, though they admitted that the Messiah had come, they affirmed, as the “Docetae” did, (Note at 1Jn_4:2) that he had come in “appearance” only, and not really come in the flesh, this was the spirit of antichrist. John says that there were many such persons in fact in his time. It would seem from this that John did not refer to a single individual, or to a succession of individuals who should come previous to the winding up of the affairs of the world, as Paul did (2Th_2:2 ff), but that he understood that there might be many at the same time who would evince the spirit of antichrist. Both he and Paul, however, refer to the expectation that before the coming of the Saviour to judge the world there would be prominent adversaries of the Christian religion, and that the end would not come until such adversaries appeared. Paul goes more into detail, and describes the characteristics of the great apostasy more at length (2Th_2:2 ff; 1Ti_4:1 ff; 2Ti_3:1 ff) John says, not that the appearing of these persons indicated that the end of the world was near, but that they had such characteristics as to show that they were living in the last dispensation. Paul so describes them as to show that the end of the world was not to be immediately expected (2Th_2:1 ff), John, without referring to that point, says that there were enough of that character then to prove that the last dispensation had come, though he does not say how long it would continue.​

 

[Ghada]

I didn't say that Jesus makes people with sin. I said that a sinful nature was inherited from our parents.

No difference. Jesus must make the sin nature and impute it into man's seed and flesh.

Does Jesus make people with physical and mental handicaps too, or is that inherited from their parents, or a result of their parents' imperfect bodies?

Jesus makes the natural seed mortal and corruptible naturally, which has nothing to do with sin.

And his disciples asked him, saying, Master, who did sin, this man, or his parents, that he was born blind?

Jesus answered, Neither hath this man sinned, nor his parents: but that the works of God should be made manifest in him.

Neither mortality nor deformity of flesh is from sin, nor does it make Christ sinful.

Your doctrine of making sinning natural, by being born with it naturally, is just an excuse for sinning against God.

They answered and said unto him, Thou wast altogether born in sins, and dost thou teach us? And they cast him out.

You are preaching an old Jewish fable, that the hypocrites used to condemn the innocent. Now, they just use it to justify the guilty.

What I wrote was that Adam was made perfect and sinless.

And I agreed. As with all babes in the womb.

If he had remained sinless then he would still be alive today, and as long as he did not sin he would continue to live, even live forever. God made man so that he could live forever. Death was/is the penalty for sin. Physical corruption and deterioration is the result of sin - if Adam remained sinless then his body would not have decayed and died, and all of Adam 's descendants would have been born perfect too, rather than being born with an imperfect, decaying and dying body.

Already offered Bible correction to this stuff. You ignore them.

 

[Ghada]

That's what I said! I wrote, "God prepared a perfect human body for Jesus". I made no mention of angels. If you can not correctly understand the simple things that I write, then it's very likely that you will misunderstand God's word in the Bible too!

Ok, I see. Your not teaching immortal flesh, but 'perfect' flesh and blood. As in perfect 'sinless' flesh.

In any case, I read God prepared a body for His Son. Nothing about this 'perfect' body of yours, which obviously you mean to be different than that of other men.

So far as being without deformity, that would be called a sound body. (The Bible has God making man's bodies naturally sinless, but not 'perfect'.)

I never claimed that!

Yes, I understand that now. Thanks

You preach a christ coming with another kind of 'perfect' body than man. That's not Jesus Christ come in the flesh and blood of man.

And your christ is even different for another christ, that comes with a different immortal flesh, than that of man.

Your christ's body is 'perfect' but mortal. Their christ's body is perfect and immortal.

If I weren't believing and loving Jesus Christ, who had the same flesh and blood as me, then I'd go with the the perfect immortal body of their christ, not yours.

Angels don't have flesh, and they are not immortal.

We'll just leave out your ignorance about the nature of angels' bodies being made immortal spirit by God.

And of the angels he saith, Who maketh his angels spirits, and his ministers a flame of fire.

And you're not believing the Bible where angels have and still do come temporarily with immortal flesh at the will of God.

Docetism teaches a christ-spirit coming temporarily as angels with immortal flesh in the shape of men, but for the longest stay ever recorded in the Bible. 33 years.

Humans are not immortal.

So now you add mortal soul theology to your flesh with sin in it doctrine.

Mortal souls are the same as no souls. It's just bodies given a different name. It's the lip-service theological side of honest natural men, that simply say there is neither soul nor spirit.

It's also made by sinners that want there to be heaven or oblivion, rather than heaven or hell.

Since you preach sinning from cradle to grave, due to being made 'with sin' in the womb, then I can see how you'd also not want your soul to be judged by works at the end.

The word immortal means that you cannot possibly die, that you are not subject to death.

Your own definition for your own beliefs apart from the Bible. Immortality in the Bible is conscious knowledge and self-awareness forever.

Death in the Bible is spiritual, for the soul that sins against God, and physical for the natural born bodies on earth.

The immortal existence of angels and men is either in the light with Christ, or in darkness without God's Spirit of life.

That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world:

The angels that sinned, and the men that sin unto the grave, will be immortality in darkness without God forever.

These are spots in your feasts of charity, when they feast with you, feeding themselves without fear: clouds they are without water, carried about of winds; trees whose fruit withereth, without fruit, twice dead, plucked up by the roots;

Raging waves of the sea, foaming out their own shame; wandering stars, to whom is reserved the blackness of darkness for ever.

Jesus came in the flesh to pay the redemption price, which was death of a perfect human being,

Where does the Bible say Jesus the man was perfect?

Only God in heaven is perfect, where He cannot even be tempted to sin. All men on earth are tempted to sin, including Jesus. But only Jesus was without sinning, and only those in Christ Jesus are not sinning like Him.

Once again. You're use of 'perfect human being' is meaningless and something of your own making.

You intermix a little Bible into your abundance of personal stuff.

 

[Ghada]

so obviously Jesus was mortal (as I wrote, only God was immortal, 1 Timothy 6:16).

All flesh is mortal. All souls made in the image of God are immortal as God. Especially God the Word.

Oh wait. You're saying souls are mortal, and angels are mortal, and now Jesus Christ was mortal.

You're teaching a created christ angel come in a 'perfect' body different from men! Now, it makes sense. It's the pagan pantheon of mythical heroes, where certain men came in supernatural bodies born of the gods, and then were deified with the gods for their heroic god-born deeds!

And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.

For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty.

I've heard of this before, and it's as old as pagans intermixing their hero worship with Christ, just as the Jews tried mixing the law of Moses with that of Christ.

The opportunity to gain immortality was only revealed by Jesus' ministry, 2 Timothy 1:10 (ESV):

(10) and which now has been manifested through the appearing of our Savior Christ Jesus, who abolished death and brought life and immortality to light through the gospel,​

The opportunity to be redeemed to gain immortality in the light is revealed by the gospel.

The opportunity to gain immortality in darkness forever, has been around since God commanded Adam not to disobey Him.

These are spots in your feasts of charity, when they feast with you, feeding themselves without fear: clouds they are without water, carried about of winds; trees whose fruit withereth, without fruit, twice dead, plucked up by the roots;

Raging waves of the sea, foaming out their own shame; wandering stars, to whom is reserved the blackness of darkness for ever.

Your opportunity to become immortal fits perfectly with your paganist deification of heroes myth. And since you apply it only to becoming immortal as a god forever, then it also applies to your heaven or oblivion theology.

You teach men are like all beasts with mortal bodies only, without souls. (Or with 'mortal' souls, which is a pseudo distinction without a difference.) Theologians saying the souls of men are 'mortal', is like natural men saying the mortal bodies of men are souls.

No difference between the natural man and natural theologian. They both reject man's soul and spirit being created in the image of the immortal God.

 

[Ghada]

It is obvious that people don't drop dead the first time in their life that they commit a sin.

It is obvious you have the carnal mind of natural man blind to the spiritual things of God.

You don't even acknowledge an argument made about spiritual death by the soul sinning.

And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.

I believe in your case, with all your natural training without the spiritual things of God, that you can't acknowledge them when given.

(17) and of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, thou dost not eat of it, for in the day of thine eating of it—dying thou dost die.'​

or LSV:

(17) but from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, you do not eat from it, for in the day of your eating from it—dying you die.”​

And so once again back to original languages hijinks. A lying translation for a false doctrine. And in this case just as bad as 'the word was a god'.

The lie of course is partly 'Dying'. The exact same word and tense is used each time, which is the definitive, not participle. You change the word in one of them to change the translation to change the commandment warning of God.

Other possible translations are "Thou shalt die, surely be dead." Thou shalt be dead, surely dead."

It means that as soon as Adam ate the fruit of the tree he then started to die.

That's what your corrupt trasnlation certainly means. And the reason is obvious.

However, he continued to live for many more years before he eventually died.

True. His body lived on naturally for however long on earth.

I see no mention of that in Genesis 3:14-24 when God passed judgement on Adam, Eve and the serpent. Please give Bible quotes to support your claim.

If you can't see God seeking an honest confession from both them, before condemning them, then quoting anything won't help. He didn't give the serpent that chance.

You have no interest in what the Bible really says, as proven by your willingness to even corrupt translation to teach something else.

We both know we are at the point of no agreement. For me, it is only another exercise of disciplined Bible correction with any new stuff you bring in.

So far, it's been interesting and fun. I learned long ago, that some of the best perfecting of knowledge in the Bible, is from needing to accurately correct the errors. By seeing so many ways of how not to teach the Bible, I learn better how to stick exactly to the Bible and teach only that.