• 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!

Question about God and Jesus

nPeace

Veteran Member
Okay. Good.
I hope you have your thinking cap on, because you will need it. ;)

You asked...
If God is all powerful. Why did Jesus have to die on the cross for us and go through so much pain? Why didn't God make our salvation happen a different way?

Do you think salvation is gained by God demonstrating his power... say for example, a snap of the fingers, and everyone gets life forever, or do you think more is involved?
If the latter, what do you think is involved in gaining salvation?
 

Hockeycowboy

Witness for Jehovah
Premium Member
Thank you for your lengthy reply!
I'll touch on this first....
So I'd answer your question, Yes, for this claim to be sustained, "original sin" needs to be specifically mentioned in the Garden story.

Isn't just reading about the rebellion good enough? Disobeying God....that wasn't / isn't sin?

Why should it specifically mention it? (As I showed, it's obvious, IMO.)
Does the account specifically tell us who was manipulating the snake?

The account doesn't mention that those creative "days" weren't literal days, either. But we know they were, because Jehovah told Adam, "in the *day* you eat from it, you will positively die".....yet Adam died hundreds of years later. (But Adam did eventually die.) Therefore, those "days" are not to be taken literally.


Just because a concept isn't specifically mentioned, that doesn't mean it isn't implied...
Rebellion against God is sin!

If you really don't think so....then please explain what is.

I'll address more of your points, later. I'm tired.

Take care of yourself, cousin!
 

blü 2

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Isn't just reading about the rebellion good enough? Disobeying God....that wasn't / isn't sin?
Two replies to that.

The main one is that since they were denied knowledge of good and evil, they were incapable of intending to do wrong, hence incapable of sin.

The secondary one is that God doesn't express it to Adam as a command but as a warning ─ don't eat it BECAUSE you'll die the same day, NOT, don't eat it BECAUSE I said so.
Why should it specifically mention it? (As I showed, it's obvious, IMO.)
But you know right from wrong, and they didn't.
Does the account specifically tell us who was manipulating the snake?
Not that I'm aware of. The snake is presumably in the Garden because he was one of the critters God had created. If that's right then it was Adam who named him whatever "snake" is in Biblical Hebrew.
The account doesn't mention that those creative "days" weren't literal days, either. But we know they were, because Jehovah told Adam, "in the *day* you eat from it, you will positively die".....
I think these views only exist outside the story. In the story, a day is a sidereal day and a warning that if you eat it you'll die some time in the next thousand years is (with respect) silly.

And as far as a quick search will reveal, the phrase "thousand years" appears only twice in the Tanakh: Psalms 90:4, which reads "For a thousand years in thy sight are but as yesterday when it is past, or as a watch in the night", and (irrelevantly, I'd say) in Ecclesiastes 6:6: "Even though he should live a thousand years twice told, yet enjoy no good". And in my respectful submission, "For a thousand years in thy sight are but as yesterday when it is past, or as a watch in the night" is not a specific equation of a thousand years with 24 hours, but a metaphor meaning something like Augustine's "anni tui omnes simul stant" ─ your years all exist at once ie your glance takes in the whole of time.

In the NT the pseudepigraph 2 Peter 3:8 has the only other relevant reference that I can find, "with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day." First, that is centuries too late for it to have influenced the authors of Genesis. Second, again it's a poetic image, not a literal equation.
Just because a concept isn't specifically mentioned, that doesn't mean it isn't implied... Rebellion against God is sin!
But as I've doubtless mentioned before, the Garden story never once mentions sin, original sin, the fall of man, death entering the world, spiritual death or the need for a redeemer, and God kicks Adam and Eve out for the reasons mentioned in Genesis 3:22-23, and no other reason is mentioned anywhere.

And when they ate the fruit, each of them was incapable of sin because they'd been denied knowledge of good and evil.
Take care of yourself, cousin!
Sweet dreams, old friend!
 

Frank Goad

Well-Known Member
Okay. Good.
I hope you have your thinking cap on, because you will need it. ;)

You asked...
If God is all powerful. Why did Jesus have to die on the cross for us and go through so much pain? Why didn't God make our salvation happen a different way?

Do you think salvation is gained by God demonstrating his power... say for example, a snap of the fingers, and everyone gets life forever, or do you think more is involved?
If the latter, what do you think is involved in gaining salvation?

I think you must believe that jesus died for you.And confess it with your mouth.(romans10:9-10.)Turn from your sins.And be baptized.
 

pearl

Well-Known Member
God had to send His Son, ~ His Word into the World ~ To Save the world from it's sin. ~ So now every new person who is born has had their sins already forgiven. That is a relief right?

This is the most popular theory, redemption theology, but its not the only one. Another theology understands God's purpose in Jesus the reason for creation, and God's desire for solidarity with his creatures.
"As we have aleady established, the universal Christian
consciousness in this matter is extensively influenced
by a much-coarsened version of St. Anselm's theology
of atonement, the main lines of which we have considered
in another context. To many, many Christians, and especially
to those who only know the faith from a fair distance, it looks
as if the Cross is to be understood as part of a mechanism of
injured and restored right. It is the form, so it seems, in which
the infinitely offended righteousness of God was propitiated
again by means of an infinate expiation.
<Christ "did not die for the sins of the people as if God had needed a sacrificial offering or something like a scapegoat" - the archbishop said.> The Archbishop of Freiburg, Robert Zollitsch
 

nPeace

Veteran Member
I think you must believe that jesus died for you.And confess it with your mouth.(romans10:9-10.)Turn from your sins.And be baptized.
Okay. Cool Frank.
I think that is a very good answer.
I'll just dismiss the "jesus died for you" part. We just want the latter, for now, since we are dealing with, the idea of not sending Jesus to die.

So how can a person that has received a death sentence for a crime worthy of death, just say, "I am sorry. Please forgive me, and pardon my error." be given leniency?

Say the law of the land written in the books, and established, include death as a punishment for very serious crimes.
When a person commits those crimes, the prime minister pardons the person, and releases them, on the basis that they beg for mercy, and say they repent.

What are your thoughts on this government? What do you think of me? Do you think I should change or rewrite the law book?
 

Frank Goad

Well-Known Member
If you talking about the law of the land.Sometimes it happens just because that is how it works.If a prime minister forgave someone of stuff like this the law of the land would over turn them.
 
Last edited:

nPeace

Veteran Member
If you talking about the law of the land.Sometimes it happens just because that is how it works.If a prime minister forgave someone of stuff like this the law of the land would over turn them.
Okay, but you asked the question in the OP, so this is not about others. This is about you.
I'm asking what are your thoughts on this government? What do you think of me? Do you think I - the prime minister - should change or rewrite the law book?
 

rational experiences

Veteran Member
I live as an equal human life in equal atmospheric conditions

I observe scientists as a human to human.

Creation theists. Book writers. Preachers of the occult.

O earth one mass first exists as a human named God for science theories. The plan ET.

A self entity that created from its own body it's heavens. Stone is the entity sealed and holy.

Phenomena caused the ET condition.

No human in the thesis.

Human the storyteller.

Theists today own the same mind condition. I know everything was the Bible theist also. Scientists theorising as humans.

O earths products are nuclear reactive powerful.

Reactions caused to ground nature life sacrificed reasoning.

Taught by humans.

A question is asked why. For what reason would my equal human brothers harm us for? A human question.

The answer was Jesus a teaching advice.

By temple pyramid chosen sciences the same Egyptian old science theories. Advice to family humans because they could care less about life equality or human existence. As theists.

Proven in the mentality human to seek and be advised of such destructive information. Build it. Use it. Then attack life knowing how dangerous it is.

In full knowledge of all ideals as humans the reason why.

Jesus never saved life. Jesus was the reasoning answer why life got harmed. Survived as first origin life is natural.

Survive is not being saved. We were lucky to still exist.

How an answer is taught depends on its preacher.

The pre existing science advice ignored. Ice the newly born reforming state end of each year kept life stable.

Reason old heavens was burning reactive was changed by new condition. Being the state of ice. Science inferred but not owned by reaction scientist.

Water body had changed laws of pressure by ice. On God earth body.

The teaching saviour was the new born. Was never the man adult. Ice saved life by its presence.

A man human is just a man human. Is born lives and died. Might demonstrate phenomena as a human yet all humans die.

Ignored as the advice.
Ignored as the teaching O earth relativity.
 

Hockeycowboy

Witness for Jehovah
Premium Member
The main one is that since they were denied knowledge of good and evil, they were incapable of intending to do wrong, hence incapable of sin.

They were adults, with perfect reasoning. The only thing that they may have lacked, especially Eve being younger, was experience. And prior to the Serpent, there had never been anything for them to fear (or anything to mislead them)!
Are you saying that they were incapable of disobeying? That’s not how the account presents it...

The secondary one is that God doesn't express it to Adam as a command but as a warning ─ don't eat it BECAUSE you'll die the same day, NOT, don't eat it BECAUSE I said so.
Genesis 3:11
 

blü 2

Veteran Member
Premium Member
They were adults, with perfect reasoning. The only thing that they may have lacked, especially Eve being younger, was experience.
I feel rude interrupting you at this point BUT ... not until each had eaten the fruit is it said "then the eyes of both were opened and they knew that they were naked" (Genesis 3:7).

It's not asserted they were perfect in my edition. It is asserted that eating the fruit brought them out of a state of naivety, which as the name of the tree tells us was the lack of 'the knowledge of good and evil'. And thus this was the knowledge they expressly did not have until they'd eaten the fruit.
And prior to the Serpent, there had never been anything for them to fear (or anything to mislead them)!
But the snake didn't mislead them about anything. Everything the snake said was true.
Are you saying that they were incapable of disobeying? That’s not how the account presents it... Genesis 3:11
But they ate the fruit back in Genesis 3:7, so this is afterwards, when they've gained knowledge of good and evil.

Incidentally, doesn't it seem an excellent thing to you that humans can tell the difference between good and evil? Shouldn't we have statues of Eve everywhere symbolizing her contribution to humanity, even if only in story? (I ran a thread on that question not too long ago.)
 

Frank Goad

Well-Known Member
Okay, but you asked the question in the OP, so this is not about others. This is about you.
I'm asking what are your thoughts on this government? What do you think of me? Do you think I - the prime minister - should change or rewrite the law book?

I think the government is fine how it is.I have no problem with you.I think the books on the law are fine too.
 

nPeace

Veteran Member
I think the government is fine how it is.I have no problem with you.I think the books on the law are fine too.
I'm not sure you understand.
Are you trying, or are you not making an effort to think about this. I can't help you if you don't make the effort to help yourself.

Should God pardon the human race based on the fact that they repent... should they now be exempt from death? How can God do that, without breaking the law written in his "law book"? Should God rewrite his laws? What would doing so say about God's authority as ruler?
 

Frank Goad

Well-Known Member
I'm not sure you understand.
Are you trying, or are you not making an effort to think about this. I can't help you if you don't make the effort to help yourself.

Should God pardon the human race based on the fact that they repent... should they now be exempt from death? How can God do that, without breaking the law written in his "law book"? Should God rewrite his laws? What would doing so say about God's authority as ruler?

I guess I need a study group on this one.:(Because I am just not getting it.:(
 

nPeace

Veteran Member
I don't know how to answer questions.:(
Good so that means you know what you think. :D
Tell me what you think then.
Should God pardon the human race based on the fact that they repent... should they now be exempt from death? How can God do that, without breaking the law written in his "law book"? Should God rewrite his laws? What would doing so say about God's authority as ruler?
 

Hockeycowboy

Witness for Jehovah
Premium Member
I feel rude interrupting you at this point BUT ... not until each had eaten the fruit is it said "then the eyes of both were opened and they knew that they were naked" (Genesis 3:7).

It's not asserted they were perfect in my edition. It is asserted that eating the fruit brought them out of a state of naivety, which as the name of the tree tells us was the lack of 'the knowledge of good and evil'. And thus this was the knowledge they expressly did not have until they'd eaten the fruit.

They knew they were naked before they ate...it’s just that they were innocent.
(Really, the human body is divine, i.e., from God; they felt there was nothing wrong with their nakedness.)

After they rebelled however, they lost that innocence & developed a sense that there were some things that might be inappropriate....a sense of shame.

But the snake didn't mislead them about anything. Everything the snake said was true.

No. The very first thing he said, was misleading: “Did God really say that you can’t eat from any tree of the garden?”
Wrong...But Eve corrected him.

Then he told her, “You certainly will not die.”
They died.

After they ate & Jehovah God confronted them, Eve herself plainly said, “the serpent deceived me.”



But they ate the fruit back in Genesis 3:7, so this is afterwards, when they've gained knowledge of good and evil.

Incidentally, doesn't it seem an excellent thing to you that humans can tell the difference between good and evil? Shouldn't we have statues of Eve everywhere symbolizing her contribution to humanity, even if only in story? (I ran a thread on that question not too long ago.)

How does ‘after gaining knowledge of right and wrong’ have any bearing on their disobedience? Even the youngest of children, as soon as they learn what “do not ...” means, know they’re going against their parents’ decrees / commands when they disobey them.

And yes, I showed you (earlier) from the context, in fact just a few verses later, that it was a command.

RE: A & E being perfect at the start, but then losing that perfection through their disobedience..... I think from what the account states about the longevity of their immediate generations of offspring, living for centuries, testifies to that.
Plus, the fact that Adam & Eve were only given one law that was prohibitive....the others, to ‘name the animals,’ ‘procreate and fill the Earth,’ & to ‘cultivate the Garden,’ were pleasurable and satisfying. This indicates that they didn’t need much guidance. There were no directives on “don’t be mean to the animals.” Or “Adam, don’t hit your wife.” There was simply no need —- they were perfect, and knew how to act, i.e., knew what was appropriate.

Deuteronomy 32:4

It’s up to you to accept it or not. As for me, I doubt I’ll go by ‘your edition’ too much, my friend.

Take care.
 

alypius

Active Member
If God is all powerful.Why did Jesus have to die on the cross for us and go through so much pain?:confused:Why didn't God make our salvation happen a different way?

In a world where so many humans suffer, would it be fitting for salvation to be achieved by Jesus without sacrifice?
 

blü 2

Veteran Member
Premium Member
They knew they were naked before they ate...it’s just that they were innocent.
First, that's not what the text says, or suggests. Second. if they were innocent then God has no argument with them,
(Really, the human body is divine, i.e., from God; they felt there was nothing wrong with their nakedness.)
I'd say they never had any reason to think about being naked; certainly they had no capacity to think it was right or wrong.
After they rebelled however
There's no point at which a being deprived of the knowledge of good and evil can be said to rebel.
they lost that innocence
They only lost their innocence, their ignorance of good and evil, AFTER they'd each eaten the fruit.
& developed a sense that there were some things that might be inappropriate....a sense of shame.
That's part of the reason why I think the actual meaning of the Garden story is to account for the infancy of humankind to fill the narrative gap between their creation by God and the beginning of Hebrew folk history. And why the eating of the fruit represents the adolescence of humankind and the oncoming of sexual awareness and thus the (native) sense of modesty.
No. The very first thing he said, was misleading: “Did God really say that you can’t eat from any tree of the garden?”
Wrong...But Eve corrected him.
And pointed out that it wasn't a command but a warning ─ "lest you die [the same day]".
Then he told her, “You certainly will not die.”
They died.
They didn't die the same day, and thus they didn't die as God had warned. Eve spoke the truth and the snake spoke the truth.

Instead they died (in the story) hundreds of years down the track.

As they were always going to. There's no suggestion anywhere in the story that Adam and Eve were going to live forever. On the exact contrary, they were kicked out of the Garden to prevent them from doing exactly that (Genesis 3:22-23) AND for no other reason.
After they ate & Jehovah God confronted them, Eve herself plainly said, “the serpent deceived me.”
"Beguiled" in my RSV, but close enough. But of course she was mistaken, since the snake at no point says anything that isn't true.
How does ‘after gaining knowledge of right and wrong’ have any bearing on their disobedience?
For disobedience to be wrong, you have to have knowledge of right and wrong, and of course neither of Eve or Adam had that till AFTER they'd eaten the fruit. So at the time they ate the fruit, each was incapable of sin, since each was incapable of intention to do wrong.
 
Top