• 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!

He was a murderer from the beginning.

LightofTruth

Well-Known Member
Just because Adam and Eve were made of dust; made of flesh; did not place sin in their flesh. As I have said, you are saying God must have placed sin in their flesh, for God is their Creator. And I don't think you believe that. But that is what you are saying.

Good-Ole-Rebel

It was God's plan from the beginning to have His son be the savior of man. But what is Jesus to save us from? He saves us from death. And if he is to save us from death he must also save us from sin.
If man was created so good as to not sin then he would have had the right to eat of the tree of life and live forever. But that was not God's plan. His plan involved a man who would sin and bring death to all other man after him in order that His son could be the savior of all man.

Adam was therefore the perfect man for God to create. He created him to be sinful in order that God's perfect plan could be accomplished.
 

Good-Ole-Rebel

Well-Known Member
Are you saying that Adam and Eve's flesh changed after they ate?

The Scripture talks about man's flesh as being sinful. If Adam's flesh was not sinful flesh before he ate then his flesh went from being not sinful to sinful. That means his flesh changed. However, the Scripture never teaches anything like that. In fact. Paul says, with reference to Adam, that there is "one kind of flesh of man".

What the Scripture does say as the result of their eating, is that their eyes were opened to know good and evil. They now knew what they had done was evil (wrong) and that the gods (angels) were good (right).

If Eve's flesh was not sinful then she would not have desired something that was sinful. But the fact is, she did desire something sinful. That shows that her flesh was sinful flesh.

The wages of sin is death and death is the last enemy to be destroyed. Therefore, when death is destroyed, so is sin destroyed. And since sin begins in the lust of the flesh, the flesh must need to be changed in order for death to be destroyed. That's why Paul teaches that we must be changed and made immortal spiritual bodies so that death can be conquered. The spiritual, immortal body, therefore has no lust which would lead to sin and therefore cause death.

I am saying there was no sin in Adam and Eves flesh prior to when they ate the fruit.

Well, yes, Adam's flesh changed. Before, it was perfect. After eating the fruit it was sinful. Your use of (1 Cor. 15:39) doesn't work. It is not used to contrast sinful and perfect flesh. It is used to show the distinction between the flesh of man, animals, fish, and birds.

There was nothing sinful in recognizing that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes. That was all true. Her desire to have it to make one wise is due to the deception of satan. (Gen. 3:4-5) "...Ye shall not surely die:...your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil." And God was very clear that it would be the act of eating the fruit that bore the sin in man. (Gen. 2:17)

The fruit itself was not sinful. Eve could desire it all day long, but that was not sinful. She probably desired the fruit of the other trees also. No sin there.

Yes the wages of sin is death. That shows Adam and Eve had no sin until they ate.

The 'spiritual body' you speak of will still be a body of flesh and bone. (Luke 24:39)

Good-Ole-Rebel.
 

Good-Ole-Rebel

Well-Known Member
It was God's plan from the beginning to have His son be the savior of man. But what is Jesus to save us from? He saves us from death. And if he is to save us from death he must also save us from sin.
If man was created so good as to not sin then he would have had the right to eat of the tree of life and live forever. But that was not God's plan. His plan involved a man who would sin and bring death to all other man after him in order that His son could be the savior of all man.

Adam was therefore the perfect man for God to create. He created him to be sinful in order that God's perfect plan could be accomplished.

I am not second guessing God's plan. I am second guessing your assertion that Adam and Eve had sin in them prior to when they ate the fruit.

Good-Ole-Rebel
 

sooda

Veteran Member
Are you saying that Adam and Eve's flesh changed after they ate?

The Scripture talks about man's flesh as being sinful. If Adam's flesh was not sinful flesh before he ate then his flesh went from being not sinful to sinful. That means his flesh changed. However, the Scripture never teaches anything like that. In fact. Paul says, with reference to Adam, that there is "one kind of flesh of man".

What the Scripture does say as the result of their eating, is that their eyes were opened to know good and evil. They now knew what they had done was evil (wrong) and that the gods (angels) were good (right).

If Eve's flesh was not sinful then she would not have desired something that was sinful. But the fact is, she did desire something sinful. That shows that her flesh was sinful flesh.

The wages of sin is death and death is the last enemy to be destroyed. Therefore, when death is destroyed, so is sin destroyed. And since sin begins in the lust of the flesh, the flesh must need to be changed in order for death to be destroyed. That's why Paul teaches that we must be changed and made immortal spiritual bodies so that death can be conquered. The spiritual, immortal body, therefore has no lust which would lead to sin and therefore cause death.

From Mesopotamia to Egypt to the Indus Valley the snake was worshiped for its wisdom, fertility and rebirth long before Adam and Eve.
 

LightofTruth

Well-Known Member
I am saying there was no sin in Adam and Eves flesh prior to when they ate the fruit.

Well, yes, Adam's flesh changed. Before, it was perfect. After eating the fruit it was sinful. Your use of (1 Cor. 15:39) doesn't work. It is not used to contrast sinful and perfect flesh. It is used to show the distinction between the flesh of man, animals, fish, and birds.

There was nothing sinful in recognizing that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes. That was all true. Her desire to have it to make one wise is due to the deception of satan. (Gen. 3:4-5) "...Ye shall not surely die:...your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil." And God was very clear that it would be the act of eating the fruit that bore the sin in man. (Gen. 2:17)

The fruit itself was not sinful. Eve could desire it all day long, but that was not sinful. She probably desired the fruit of the other trees also. No sin there.

Yes the wages of sin is death. That shows Adam and Eve had no sin until they ate.

The 'spiritual body' you speak of will still be a body of flesh and bone. (Luke 24:39)

Good-Ole-Rebel.
So, in order for your argument to stand, you must admit that Adam's flesh had changed after he ate the fruit.
Ok, so if Adam's flesh had changed so that everyone who is a son of Adam would have sinful flesh how is it that Jesus, a son of Adam would not have the same flesh as the rest of us?
 

Good-Ole-Rebel

Well-Known Member
So, in order for your argument to stand, you must admit that Adam's flesh had changed after he ate the fruit.
Ok, so if Adam's flesh had changed so that everyone who is a son of Adam would have sinful flesh how is it that Jesus, a son of Adam would not have the same flesh as the rest of us?

The answer is too obvious. You really want to ask something else. That's fine.

The Virgin Birth of Christ is the answer.

Good-Ole-Rebel
 

Good-Ole-Rebel

Well-Known Member
Are you saying that Mary didn't have sinful flesh like all the rest of humanity?

No, I'm saying the Virgin Birth is what insured there would be no sin in the body prepared for Christ. Mary was the product of a man/woman relation. Sin is passed through the man. This is why the human race didn't fall in Eve, even though she ate of the fruit and fell first.

Good-Ole-Rebel
 

LightofTruth

Well-Known Member
No, I'm saying the Virgin Birth is what insured there would be no sin in the body prepared for Christ. Mary was the product of a man/woman relation. Sin is passed through the man. This is why the human race didn't fall in Eve, even though she ate of the fruit and fell first.

Good-Ole-Rebel
Where does the Scripture tell us sin is passed through the man?

We are talking about sinful flesh, not sin as transgression. Human beings are born with sinful flesh and sinful flesh has been condemned to die because of Adam's sin.

If Jesus did not partake of that same sinful flesh then death would not have dominion over him like it does for the rest of us. But Scripture tells us that death did have dominion over him. That means that his flesh was the same flesh as we all share.
 

Good-Ole-Rebel

Well-Known Member
Where does the Scripture tell us sin is passed through the man?

We are talking about sinful flesh, not sin as transgression. Human beings are born with sinful flesh and sinful flesh has been condemned to die because of Adam's sin.

If Jesus did not partake of that same sinful flesh then death would not have dominion over him like it does for the rest of us. But Scripture tells us that death did have dominion over him. That means that his flesh was the same flesh as we all share.

(Rom. 5:12) "...by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned."

Though Eve ate first, sinned first, the human race did not fall in Eve. It fell when Adam ate. Sin is passed on through the man, not the woman. This is the whole purpose of the Virgin Birth.

No. Adam and Eve were not made of sinful flesh and Jesus did not partake of sinful flesh. Since Adam, yes. Humans are born with sin. But not Adam or Eve.

Jesus flesh was human flesh, but without sin.

I don't know the Scripture you are alluding to concerning death having dominion over Jesus. Death never had dominion over Jesus.

Good-Ole-Rebel
 

LightofTruth

Well-Known Member
(Rom. 5:12) "...by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned."

Though Eve ate first, sinned first, the human race did not fall in Eve. It fell when Adam ate. Sin is passed on through the man, not the woman. This is the whole purpose of the Virgin Birth.

No. Adam and Eve were not made of sinful flesh and Jesus did not partake of sinful flesh. Since Adam, yes. Humans are born with sin. But not Adam or Eve.

Jesus flesh was human flesh, but without sin.

I don't know the Scripture you are alluding to concerning death having dominion over Jesus. Death never had dominion over Jesus.

Good-Ole-Rebel
Rom 6:9 We know that Christ, being raised from the dead, will never die again; death no longer has dominion over him.

What is passed by the man is sinful flesh. Eve was created from the flesh of Adam, so her flesh was the same flesh as his. And everyone that has come from them is of the same flesh as them.

Jesus is a son of Adam, Abraham and David. If he was not of the same flesh as Adam, Abraham and David, how could he possibly be called their son?

There is no such thing as human flesh which is not sinful flesh. Because all human flesh is the same.

And that's why the writer of Hebrews tells us that Jesus had partaken of the SAME flesh as all the rest. Heb 2:14
 
Last edited:

Good-Ole-Rebel

Well-Known Member
Rom 6:9 We know that Christ, being raised from the dead, will never die again; death no longer has dominion over him.

What is passed by the man is sinful flesh. Eve was created from the flesh of Adam, so her flesh was the same flesh as his. And everyone that has come from them is of the same flesh as them.

Jesus is a son of Adam, Abraham and David. If he was not of the same flesh as Adam, Abraham and David, how could he possibly be called their son?

There is no such thing as human flesh which is not sinful flesh. Because all human flesh is the same.

And that's why the writer of Hebrews tells us that Jesus had partaken of the SAME flesh as all the rest. Heb 2:14

Dominion, in that Christ wilfully submitted to it. Christ had to wilfully give up His Spirit, else He wouldn't have died. (John 10:17-18) (Luke 23:46) Not dominion, in that death ever would hold Him.

When Eve was created Adam was not yet fallen. No sin in either Adam or Eve's flesh. Yes, since the fall, everyone born of Adam and Eve is a sinner.

Jesus was of the same flesh as Adam, just without sin. Just like Adam had before he sinned. Thus He is still of the human race, of Adam.

Well, that is what we are discussing. Was there sin in Adam before the fall? There was not. To say so, makes God creating a sinful person.

Concerning (Heb. 2:14), yes Jesus partook of flesh and blood. But flesh and blood without any sin. If there had been any sin in Christ, He could not be a Substitute.

Good-Ole-Rebel
 

Desert Snake

Veteran Member
Dominion, in that Christ wilfully submitted to it. Christ had to wilfully give up His Spirit, else He wouldn't have died. (John 10:17-18) (Luke 23:46) Not dominion, in that death ever would hold Him.

When Eve was created Adam was not yet fallen. No sin in either Adam or Eve's flesh. Yes, since the fall, everyone born of Adam and Eve is a sinner.

Jesus was of the same flesh as Adam, just without sin. Just like Adam had before he sinned. Thus He is still of the human race, of Adam.

Well, that is what we are discussing. Was there sin in Adam before the fall? There was not. To say so, makes God creating a sinful person.

Concerning (Heb. 2:14), yes Jesus partook of flesh and blood. But flesh and blood without any sin. If there had been any sin in Christ, He could not be a Substitute.

Good-Ole-Rebel
Jesus isn't a ben -adam.

Matthew 22:37-46

[Jesus says outright that He isn't a ben-adam, in these verses.

Ironically, if you interpret Jesus to be the 'son of man', it actually means He isn't a ben-adam, also. Because it means 'as a son of man, yet not'. In that context.

That is why one could, note I say could, interpret Jesus to be the 'son of man', although not as a ben-adam, hence if actually meaning a ben-adam, would contradict
Matthew 22:37-46,
[And other verses
 

Desert Snake

Veteran Member
So, in order for your argument to stand, you must admit that Adam's flesh had changed after he ate the fruit.
Ok, so if Adam's flesh had changed so that everyone who is a son of Adam would have sinful flesh how is it that Jesus, a son of Adam would not have the same flesh as the rest of us?
Jesus isn't a ben-adam.

Jesus says this outright in

Matthew 22:37-46

[
'Son of man' if taken to mean Jesus, actually contextually means not a ben-adam, either. It means 'one such as a son of man ', it's a description if in that context.

That is why it doesn't contradict
Matthew 22:37-46, and other verses.

It's fairly common to interpret 'son of man' as referring to Jesus. Pretty standard.

Either way, Jesus clearly says He isn't a ben -adam.
 

LightofTruth

Well-Known Member
Jesus isn't a ben-adam.

Jesus says this outright in

Matthew 22:37-46

[
'Son of man' if taken to mean Jesus, actually contextually means not a ben-adam, either. It means 'one such as a son of man ', it's a description if in that context.

That is why it doesn't contradict
Matthew 22:37-46, and other verses.

It's fairly common to interpret 'son of man' as referring to Jesus. Pretty standard.

Either way, Jesus clearly says He isn't a ben -adam.
Matthew says Jesus is a son of Abraham and David and his genealogy goes back to Adam. Jesus does not deny to be a son of David in Matt 22:37-46. Your interpretation is incorrect. David was a prophet and spoke of how his own son would be made his Lord when Jesus was resurrected to sit at the right hand of God.
 
Top