|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,913 Year: 4,170/9,624 Month: 1,041/974 Week: 368/286 Day: 11/13 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Are we prisoners of sin | |||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3487 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
quote:Actually the word sin does not come from the Hebrew word. It was the English word chosen to best represent the meaning of the Hebrew and Greek words. The word sin comes from the OE word synn. Etymology of sin O.E. synn "moral wrongdoing, offense against God, misdeed," from P.Gmc. *sundjo (cf. O.S. sundia, O.Fris. sende, M.Du. sonde, Ger. Snde "sin, transgression, trespass, offense"), probably ult. "true" (cf. Goth. sonjis, O.N. sannr "true"), from PIE *es-ont-, prp. of base *es- "to be" (see is). The semantic development is via notion of "to be truly the one (who is guilty)," as in O.N. phrase ver sannr at "be found guilty of," and the use of the phrase "it is being" in Hittite confessional formula. The same process probably yielded the L. word sons (gen. sontis) "guilty, criminal" from prp. of sum, esse "to be, that which is." Some etymologists believe the Gmc. word was an early borrowing directly from the L. genitive. Sin-eater is attested from 1686. To live in sin "cohabit without marriage" is from 1838. Ice hockey slang sin bin "penalty box" is attested from 1950. Some NT authors provide their understanding of what sin is.
James 17
Anyone, then, who knows the good he ought to do and doesn't do it, sins. Romans 14:23
But the man who has doubts is condemned if he eats, because his eating is not from faith; and everything that does not come from faith is sin. 1 John 3:4
Everyone who sins breaks the law; in fact, sin is lawlessness. 1 John 5:17
Notice this author says that not all sin leads to death.All unrighteousness is sin, and there is sin that does not lead to death. So a Christian commits a sinful act if he breaks any secular laws and any laws of his religion. A nonreligious person only commits a wrong when he breaks a secular law. So a nonreligious single woman who gets pregnant and is not married is not doing anything illegal. A religious single woman who gets pregnant and is not married is committing a sin, if her religion deems it wrong to have sex outside of marriage. Sin is a very old term kept alive by the religious and not used by the nonreligious. The nonreligious are only accountable to the laws of the land, not the laws of a religion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3487 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
quote:Actually Christian teaching added something that wasn't Biblical. Jesus was not a sacrifice to forgive all sins. That is Paul's teaching, not Jesus. Jesus taught repentance. That's all that is needed. Yes you do need to take all scripture into account to get the big picture, that's why I pointed out that per the OT God did not require sacrifices. Even if you want to hang onto sacrifices, the sacrificial system did not cover intentional sins. Even before Jesus was born the Jews argued about the sacrificial system. Reformers wanted to do away with the burden of a costly system. Paul tried a different approach. Ultimately the sacrificial system didn't end until the destruction of the Temple.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Peg Member (Idle past 4959 days) Posts: 2703 From: melbourne, australia Joined: |
purpledawn writes: Actually the word sin does not come from the Hebrew word. It was the English word chosen to best represent the meaning of the Hebrew and Greek words. The word sin comes from the OE word synn. thank you for the clarity on that'It was the english word chosen to best represent...' thats a much better way of saying it that i'll have to remember. purpledawn writes: Sin is a very old term kept alive by the religious and not used by the nonreligious. The nonreligious are only accountable to the laws of the land, not the laws of a religion. if we were speaking ancient hebrew we would not be so confused...it would simply be an error toward law
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3487 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
quote:You're adding again. The story does not tell you that they had a strong sense of right and wrong. They hid themselves only after they ate from the tree with the knowledge of good and evil because then they knew what was right and wrong. quote:There are animals that teach their young. Humans do have survival instincts, but laws of a society must be taught.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Cedre Member (Idle past 1520 days) Posts: 350 From: Russia Joined: |
Dear onifre your questions are valid and I have answered them below:
It seems incorrect to say that Adam "was without sin for a time" since he had no other laws he could not break except for eating from the tree. It seems like he had nothing else to commit a "sin" with. (1) How could Adam be "without sin" when sin itself does not exist? The bible isn't clear about other sins that the first couple could have committed, but maybe due to their perfect sinless nature and lack of knowledge when it came to issues of wrong and right they were less prone to commit the other sins. Let's go through the Ten Commandments to determine which sins the couple could unknowingly commit: Exo 20:3 Thou shalt have no other gods before me. Exo 20:4 Thou shalt not make unto thee a graven image, nor any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.Exo 20:5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself unto them, nor serve them, for I Jehovah thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, upon the third and upon the fourth generation of them that hate me,
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Peg Member (Idle past 4959 days) Posts: 2703 From: melbourne, australia Joined: |
purpledawn writes: Actually Christian teaching added something that wasn't Biblical. Jesus was not a sacrifice to forgive all sins. That is Paul's teaching, not Jesus. Jesus taught repentance. That's all that is needed. Paul and other christian writers used the OT Messianic prophecies and attributed their fullfilment to Jesus... they didnt invent anything new, they applied the existing prophecies to Jesus. some examples are found in Acts 8:26-40 where it reports that when the Ethiopian eunuch said that he did not know the identity of the Servant of Isaiah’s prophecy in Is 53:7-8, Philip pointed out that it was pointing to Jesus. At Isaiah 53:4-6 we read "...But he was being pierced for our transgression; he was being crushed for our errors. The chastisement meant for our peace was upon him, and because of his wounds there has been a healing for us...' Math 8:16But after it became evening, people brought him many demon-possessed persons; and he expelled the spirits with a word, and he cured all who were faring badly; 17that there might be fulfilled what was spoken through Isaiah the prophet, saying: "He himself took our sicknesses and carried our diseases." 1Peter 2:21In fact, to this [course] YOU were called, because even Christ suffered for YOU, leaving YOU a model for YOU to follow his steps closely. 22He committed no sin, nor was deception found in his mouth. 23When he was being reviled, he did not go reviling in return. When he was suffering, he did not go threatening, but kept on committing himself to the one who judges righteously. 24He himself bore our sins in his own body upon the stake, in order that we might be done with sins and live to righteousness. And "by his stripes YOU were healed." here Mathew and Peter were quoting from Isaiah 53 and applying the messianic prophecy to Jesus. So they were not adding anything to scripture, they were showing how Jesus fulfilled existing scripture.
purpledawn writes: Yes you do need to take all scripture into account to get the big picture, that's why I pointed out that per the OT God did not require sacrifices. Even if you want to hang onto sacrifices, the sacrificial system did not cover intentional sins. im not sure how you come to that conclusion??? the whole jewish system was based on sacrificial blood. The high priest role was to offer the sacrifices on the alter.Even Mary (jesus mother) presented her sin offering at the temple as per the mosaic law. purpledawn writes: Even before Jesus was born the Jews argued about the sacrificial system. Reformers wanted to do away with the burden of a costly system. Paul tried a different approach. Ultimately the sacrificial system didn't end until the destruction of the Temple. thats right, it did end with the destruction of the temple. But it ended for Christians before that time. The apostle Paul considered this very question about sacrifices and provided this answer in Galatians 3:19-24, "Why, then, the Law? It was added to make transgressions manifest, until the seed should arrive to whom the promise had been made ... Consequently the Law has become our tutor leading to Christ." The animal sacrifices under the Mosaic Law typified a greater sacrifice that the Messiah would give as mentioned in Isaiah 53. This is why the system of scrifice ended when jesus died on the stake. Edited by Peg, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Peg Member (Idle past 4959 days) Posts: 2703 From: melbourne, australia Joined: |
purpledawn writes: You're adding again. The story does not tell you that they had a strong sense of right and wrong. They hid themselves only after they ate from the tree with the knowledge of good and evil because then they knew what was right and wrong. no, im not adding.Gen 3:8-11 shows how they hid themselves in the garden because they were afraid. God then askes them if they had eaten from the fruit of the tree and the man points to his wife and blamed her. So this shows that the man had a conscience that told them they had done wrong. If they did not know they had done wrong then they would not have hid from God, nor would they have been afraid. They knew beforehand because their conscience told them so.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3487 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
Saved not by being a blood sacrifice to atone for sins. Saved by calling the people who are sinning to repent. Since God did not command sacrifices, Jesus cannot be a sacrificial offering to atone for sin.
quote:All have sinned. Yes everyone makes mistakes and needs to repent. What is difficult about that? Romans 3:10 is a line from a centuries old song (Psalms). So the concept that no one can do good, no one is righteous is pulled out of context from centuries old songs which are written about the people's feelings in a specific time frame concerning the wicked not everyone. The songs are also not God speaking. See Message 89 Jesus said the righteous, not those that think they are righteous.
quote:Not sure what you point is with these. 1 Kings 8:46-51 is part of Solomon's prayer to God. He asked that God forgive them when the people repent and have their conquerors show them mercy. Solomon is only talking about the Hebrews, not the whole world. Ecc 7:20 is also not God talking. The author is giving his perception of his world. Ezekiel 18:4 is a correction of 18:1-3 IOW, God is saying the only the person who commits the sin will suffer the consequences or punishment. Read further from verse 5 on God explains his point. Also notice that the wicked man has a chance to turn away. (18:21-22)
But if a wicked man turns away from all the sins he has committed and keeps all my decrees and does what is just and right, he will surely live: he will not die. None of the offenses he has committed will be remembered against him. ... Reading further you will see that if the righteous man turns from his righteousness and commits sin then he will suffer for those sins and all his righteousness is forgotten. BTW, this chapter in Ezekiel also is the reason Jesus is not a sacrifice for our sins. Another person cannot pay for our sins. The one who sins is the one who pays. If your point is that physical death is always the consequence of sin, this chapter counters that thought. If a wicked man has time to repent and become righteous, then all sins do not carry the penalty of death. So they aren't really talking about a literal physical death for every sin and Paul wasn't either. Try reading whole paragraphs, chapters, books and don't rely so much on one line. So what point are you making in relation to the topic?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3487 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
I explained that. By 3:8 they had already eaten from the tree of knowledge so now they knew they had done wrong. The story does not show they knew right from wrong before they ate from the tree.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18350 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
Peg writes: The way that I see the story, be it literal, allegorical, or symbolic, is that before the snake incident, humans were not aware of the definition of evil except in terms of disobedience. So this shows that the man had a conscience that told them they had done wrong. If they did not know they had done wrong then they would not have hid from God, nor would they have been afraid. They knew beforehand because their conscience told them so. The conscience arose from being willfully disobedient.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Peg Member (Idle past 4959 days) Posts: 2703 From: melbourne, australia Joined: |
purpledawn writes: Saved not by being a blood sacrifice to atone for sins. Saved by calling the people who are sinning to repent. Since God did not command sacrifices, Jesus cannot be a sacrificial offering to atone for sin. im curious how you can get around it... If God did not command sacrifices, why do see it commanded in the Mosaic Law?
quote:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Peg Member (Idle past 4959 days) Posts: 2703 From: melbourne, australia Joined: |
purpledawn writes: I explained that. By 3:8 they had already eaten from the tree of knowledge so now they knew they had done wrong. The story does not show they knew right from wrong before they ate from the tree. Im not sure where you're going with this. Previously, they relied on God for knowledge of right and wrong but afterward they relied on themselves for that knowledge which is why they suddenly decided that nudity was bad. anyway, if you'd like to elaborate on what point you're trying to make, that would be appreciated.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Cedre Member (Idle past 1520 days) Posts: 350 From: Russia Joined: |
The bible is called the word of God, and all of it, all, not portions, but all of scripture, from Genesis 1 to Revelations 22 is God's Word. All of it is useful for teaching and helping people and for correcting them and showing them how to live.- 2Ti 3:16. When the prophets spoke and wrote they did so under the inspiration of the holy ghost.
2Ti 3:16 "Everything in the Scriptures is God's Word..." So for you to try and dictate with your natural mind that a particular verse is uninspired and for that reason doesn't retain the truth or not at least all of the truth is, is ungodly. But as Christians we consider the entire bible to be God breathed and God inspired and not just portions of it. Every verse that I have presented is inclusive nobody is left out, all have sinned, all are sinners, no one is righteous, no one does good. This are verses referring to the entire human population, if they weren't they would have read something to these effect; only some have sinned not everyone has sinned for there are righteous man who haven't sin and what have you. But you are at liberty to interpret the bible as you wish, but like I already have pointed out, your interpretation is exactly your interpretation,uninspired of the Holy Ghost. Only the Holy Ghost can reveal biblical truths and no natural man can unravel God's word using his own understanding. And the bible does teach that Jesus is the ultimate sacrifice for sin. If you read all of it and not just some that chime with your ideas.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Cedre Member (Idle past 1520 days) Posts: 350 From: Russia Joined: |
The way that I see the story, be it literal, allegorical, or symbolic, is that before the snake incident, humans were not aware of the definition of evil except in terms of disobedience. The conscience arose from being willfully disobedient.Phat I would agree with Peg when she says that God was the source of what is good and what is evil before Adam and Eve ate the fruit. He would have corrected them, but as I have also pointed out above they were less likely to commit sin due to their innocent childlike nature. But I will agree with you that human's were not aware of the definition of evil except in terms of disobedience.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Peg Member (Idle past 4959 days) Posts: 2703 From: melbourne, australia Joined: |
hi Phat,
Phat writes: The way that I see the story, be it literal, allegorical, or symbolic, is that before the snake incident, humans were not aware of the definition of evil except in terms of disobedience. that could be partly true in that they had never experienced the effects of sin because neither of them had previously engaged in sin...so their conscience had never known it. They did however know that eating from the tree would lead to death. That can be seen by eves conversation with the serpent. She knew that she wasnt allowed to eat from it and that they would die if they did. We have never lived without sin and its effects so it's hard to imagine what their experience was.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024