• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Did Jesus Christ actually die?

Skywalker

Well-Known Member
How do you think that helps you?

The angel guarded Eden so that Adam and Eve would not partake of the tree of life in their sinful state. Questions about the Tree of Life

Did Adam and Eve have to eat from the Tree of Life to keep from dying? Why didn’t God remove it from Eden? What happened to it?

Did Adam and Eve Have to Eat from the Tree of Life to Keep from Dying?
This question assumes that the Man and Woman were already dying and required the Tree of Life to live. But there is no reason to assume they were, as death was the punishment for sin (Genesis 2:17) and they hadn’t sinned yet.

And the Lord God commanded the man, “You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die.” (Genesis 2:16–17)

Adam and Eve probably could have eaten from the Tree of Life originally (Genesis 2:16), but God gives no decree that they had to eat of it to sustain their life at that point. However, the tree may have been one means by which God used to help support and maintain Adam and Eve—perhaps a type of sustenance. God ultimately sustains all things (Colossians 1:17), and if we look at the Israelites wandering in the desert for 40 years while their feet never swelled and their clothes never wore out (Deuteronomy 29:5), we see a glimpse of what God can do. The fruit or leaves of the Tree of Life were not required for the Israelites in this case.

Also, keep in mind that the Bible gives no hints that they had to eat of this tree until after sin. After they sinned in Genesis 3, God sentenced them to die as per Genesis 2:17 (Genesis 3:19), and this was in part why they were forbidden to take from the Tree of Life. But consider God’s statement here:

Then the Lord God said, “Behold, the man has become like one of Us, knowing good and evil; and now, he might stretch out his hand, and take also from the tree of life, and eat, and live forever” (Genesis 3:22)
This seems to imply that Adam and Eve could have eaten from the Tree of Life after they sinned to live forever. Had they been permitted to eat from the Tree of Life, then they would have been forced to live eternally in a sin-cursed world. But God had a better plan in place—one of redemption in Jesus Christ with a new heavens and new earth that would not be cursed.
 

Skywalker

Well-Known Member
Once again, we know that did not happen.

Are you trying to claim that your God does not exist?

God did not want Adam and Eve to walk away from Him even more. God does not want to be separated from His creation. God desires a relationship with his creation like a parent wants to know their kids. Questions about the Tree of Life

God is the only Savior (Psalm 62:6; John 14:6 ), and through Him is the only way to live forever. Thus, God stopped them from trying to attain eternal life in a sin-cursed world. God demonstrated His grace in refusing to allow mankind to live eternally in a world filled with sorrow and suffering. Instead, He has provided the way for us to enjoy eternal life in a place where there is no more death, sorrow, pain, or Curse (Revelation 21:3-4; 22:3).
 

Skywalker

Well-Known Member
Ooh!! Quick Bible question for you. He mentions that the "Law of God" was in the Ark of the Covenant. What Laws were those? Please quote them for me.

The Ten Commandments were in the Ark of the Covenant. Was the Book of the Law (Torah) ever kept inside the Ark of the Covenant?

The rabbis debate the meaning of the verse in Bava Batra 14b. מִצַּד is a rare combination, but it certainly means "beside" in Jos. 3:16, Jos. 12:9, Ruth 2:14, 1 Sam. 20:25. I see no instances where it can unequivocally be asserted to mean "in," "inside," or "within." Had Moshe intended to say that it was placed "inside" the Ark, why wouldn't he have written ב or בקרב instead?

For example, using the same verb that is found in Deut. 31:26 (a conjugation of the verb שׂוּם, meaning "to put" or "to place"), Isaiah writes (Isa. 63:11),

...Where is He who put His Holy Spirit within him?

The prophet uses the prepositional phrase בְּקִרְבּוֹ (bekirbo). The context makes it clear that God puts or places His Holy Spirit inside an individual.

Another example is Deut. 10:2 where we find, again, the same verb, but this time, Moshe uses the prepositional prefix ב.

And I will write on the tables the words that were on the first tables which you broke, and you shall put them in the Ark.

Here, God commands Moshe to put the tables (which have the Ten Commandments written upon them) in the Ark, which is translated from the Hebrew phrase בָּאָרוֹן (ba'aron).

So, the tablets are placed בָּאָרוֹן, "in the Ark." Why not write the same for the Torah scroll if indeed it was located "in the Ark"? There's simply nothing which explicitly confirms that it was indeed located in the Ark. Again, the prepositional phrase מִצַּד is never used in a context meaning "inside" or "in."
 

Skywalker

Well-Known Member
I don’t practice a belief that humanity is inherently evil. No matter what “the Bible says.”

I'm not a follower of Augustine, I believe he taught lies mixed with truth, I believe what the Bible teaches about original sin. Original Sin: How Original Is It? Romans 5:12

Although the term original sin may have been employed by Augustine to refer to our collective human guilt and corruption, this does not mean that it was invented by him. There is an outline of the teaching of original sin in the Patristic theology of Irenaeus (AD 130–202), Basil (AD 329–379) and Ambrose (AD 340–397).9 Moreover, the Jewish people of the second temple period (530 BC–70 AD) “shared the view that human sin [was] derived from Adam (IV Ezra 3.7; Sifre Deut. 3:23).”10 Possibly the clearest text that refers to original sin resulting from Adam is found in 2 Esdras 3:21–22, 26.11

Mike Jagger Sings... “You'll never make a saint of me”

Of course, Augustine was not a genuine born-again Christian because he believed that water baptism is required for salvation (i.e., the false doctrine of Baptismal Regeneration). Augustine had churchianity, but he did not have Christianity. Trusting in water baptism for salvation is a false gospel of works.
 

Skywalker

Well-Known Member
A mythic tale, not a historic event. Nothing separates humanity from God. That’s not what the myth is about.

False teachings that we don't have a sin nature are based on liberal interpretations of original sin. Original Sin: How Original Is It? Romans 5:12

Karl Giberson, who once professed belief but is now a liberal critic,4rejects the doctrine of original sin as a consequence of his belief in evolution.5 In his book Saving the Original Sinner, he argues that Christians should also reject this doctrine:

Christianity emerged in a different time and must be prepared to evolve like everything else. . . . . In the Christian tradition, humanity’s problem is referred to as sin, blamed on Adam . . . such a viewpoint is no longer tenable, and we must learn to get along without it. There is no original sin and there was no original sinner.6
Because of his evolutionary view of humanity, Giberson has to redefine the meaning of sin. Rather than being disobedience to God’s law (1 John 3:4), he sees it as nothing more than wrongdoing.7 Sin, however, cannot simply be reduced to wrongdoing because the biblical understanding of sin is profoundly deep in its teaching on the condition of humanity (Genesis 8:21; Jeremiah 17:9; Matthew 12:34–35; Ephesians 2:1–3).
 

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
False teachings that we don't have a sin nature are based on liberal interpretations of original sin. Original Sin: How Original Is It? Romans 5:12
Jesus was liberal. Was he “false?” Augustine first taught about our “sin nature.” Pelagius and others disagreed with him. God did not condemn us with a nature that is separate from God. God graced us with a nature that is inherently of God. We condemn ourselves.
 

Skywalker

Well-Known Member
The Bible doesn’t teach original sin.

The fall had consequences on creation. Genesis 3:18 Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field;

Original Sin: How Original Is It? Romans 5:12

Romans 5:12–21
The controversy over the doctrine of original sin is found in the Apostle Paul’s statement in Romans 5:12:

Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned.12
In Romans 5:1–11, Paul describes the reconciling work of God’s love in Jesus on behalf of sinners. This leads Paul to contrast (διὰ τοῦτο, dia touto, “therefore”) the work of Adam and Jesus. Paul opens up his discussion in verse 12 by stating that “through one man sin entered the world,” which of course is an allusion to Adam’s disobedience in Genesis 3. However, Paul does not stop there, as he adds that the entrance of sin brought death into the world. The punishment that God promised in Genesis 2:17 was fulfilled, and death came into the world.13 This leads to Paul’s focus in Romans 5:12–21: the reign of death. The power of death came through Adam’s sin, and that power affects all people: “thus death spread to all men.” This, as Paul states, is “because all sinned.” It must be recognized that these words “because all sinned” (ἐφ᾽ ᾧ πάντες ἥμαρτον, eph’ ho pantes hemarton) are “fiercely contested and difficult to understand.”14 This does not mean, however, they are impossible to understand. If we will allow Paul’s theology to stand as a whole, we will see how they function in his argument in this passage.

Like Giberson,15 theistic evolutionist Dr. Denis Alexander believes Romans 5:12 does not speak of sin as being inherited from Adam but rather coming through our own individual acts of sin. He argues:

The error arose from a mistranslation of the Greek construction eph’ ho (i) (ἐφ᾽ ᾧ) as ‘in whom’ rather than its correct meaning in this context of ‘because.’ So Augustine read the last phrase to mean that sin was transmitted from Adam to ‘all men,’ whereas Paul’s meaning is quite different, as NIV has it. . . . So Paul is saying here that spiritual death spread to all people on account of their own sinning. Once Romans 5:12 is correctly translated it does then bring its teaching into line with the rest of Scripture, which is insistent that each person is responsible for his or her own sin. It is not guilt that is inherited from Adam but a propensity to sin, so that as a matter of fact everyone does in a sense repeat the sin of Adam.
 

Skywalker

Well-Known Member
Jesus was liberal. Was he “false?” Augustine first taught about our “sin nature.” Pelagius and others disagreed with him. God did not condemn us with a nature that is separate from God. God graced us with a nature that is inherently of God. We condemn ourselves.

Jesus was not a communist. To understand the Bible you have to read the full context of the verses. The more you read the Bible, you notice things that you didn't notice before. Does the Bible support Communism? | GotQuestions.org

Question: "Does the Bible support Communism?"

Answer:
Communism, a branch of socialism, is an experimental social system based on a set of ideals that, at first glance, seem to agree with some biblical principles. On closer examination, however, little evidence can be found that the Bible truly supports or endorses communism. There is a difference between communism in theory and communism in practice, and the Bible verses that seem to comply with communist ideals are in fact contradicted by the practices of a communist government.

There is a surprising sentence in a description of the church in Acts 2that has led many people to wonder whether the Bible supports communism, and has led some people to defend strongly the idea that communism is actually biblical. The passage reads, “All the believers were together and had everything in common. Selling their possessions and goods, they gave to anyone as he had need” (Acts 2:44-45). This statement seems to imply that communism (which has, at its heart, a desire to eliminate poverty by “spreading the wealth around”) is found here in the earliest of Christian churches. However, there is a crucial difference between the church in Acts 2 and a communist society that must be understood.

In the Acts 2 church, the people were giving to each other out of their own good will to those who had a need, and they were giving freely, without regulation of how much they were to give. In other words, they shared what they had out of a shared love for one another and a common goal—living for Christ and glorifying God. In a communist society, people give because a system of government forces them to give. They don’t have a choice in the matter as to how much they give or to whom they give. This, therefore, does not reflect on who they are; it says nothing about their identity or character. Under communism, the cheerful, generous giver and the stingy man are both required to give exactly the same amount – namely, everything they earn.
 

Skywalker

Well-Known Member
Jesus was liberal. Was he “false?” Augustine first taught about our “sin nature.” Pelagius and others disagreed with him. God did not condemn us with a nature that is separate from God. God graced us with a nature that is inherently of God. We condemn ourselves.

Jesus wasn't a liberal. Liberal means there's no punishment, no responsibility, no boundaries, whatever is convenient for you. Liberalism of today is different from FDR type liberalism.
 
Top