The Bible does not use the word immortal to describe the human soul. This a Christian addition based on Greek ideals.
Theology assumes that there was no death before sin. That does not mean the theology is correct. Having no biblical record of death before Adam does not mean that physical death did not exist. Paleontology, the physical record written in the stones, says there was physical death and disease long before humanity arrived.
The theology is wrong. The Old Testament never claims no death before Adam. The New Testament scriptures used to make the claim must be interpreted by the already held belief to support the already held belief. Those passages do not actually state there was no death before Adam.
Yes, Christianity jumped to a conclusion and held on as if it was God given knowledge. That does not mean it is correct. The command by God to not eat of the tree is often interpreted to mean physical death. This is an assumption. The Hebrew text says something like “dying, you will die,” not “surely die.” To me, that implies second death, the death of the spirit/soul which takes place before physical death. Adam had the rest of his life to repent and save his soul from that sure death. This interpretation is biblically consistent with how God handled sin. The ability to sin and the ability to choose not to sin was always in God’s plan. If not God is not all knowing or all powerful.
How do you know it’s a misquote? If so then the bible is in error.
The way I understand this is that God gives us [loves, encourages, leads, urges, provokes and guides sinners] to Jesus and the only way we can directly approach God the Father in prayer is after we’ve accepted Jesus as Lord and Saviour. This is why Jesus says in another place that he will not lose any one that the Father has given Him.
The only way to be reconciled to God the Father is through Jesus Christ. I see no other way. Perhaps you have a different view?
Jo_Helen, Please remind us again of exactly why Jesus came to die on a cross? What is so significant about death?
Why will death be the last enemy to be vanquished?
Consider this - God is LIFE! So just how repugnant must death be to Him? Why does Isaiah and revelation make it quite clear that sin, pain , suffering, disease and DEATH will not form part of the new creation? What’s the point of all that if pain, suffering, disease and death is just the normal way of things through which life on earth must simply career along?
Is this how God does things in His normal way? Is God really all about this?
The problem with the theology of original sin is that it is based in the Greek philosophy of perfectionism, which insists that God is so perfect that He can not tolerate imperfection. God came to Adam and Eve after they sinned. God came to Cain after he murdered his brother. He did not kill them. He gave them the chance to reflect on their actions and the possibility of repentance. God does the same for us.
The Old Testament prophets do not insist God is repulsed by sin, pain, suffering, or death. He is disgusted with our acceptance of the evil that produces so much of those things (Ezekiel 8). God gave the Hebrews a thousand years of tolerance before He said no more. Then He gave them another rough 600 years before He punished them again. That does not describe a God who is repulsed by our stupidity.
Jesus had to die to fulfill covenant. Not the Mosaic covenant, but the one with Abraham (Genesis 15). God took responsibility for both sides. He had to die if either side failed to uphold their commitment. He knew that Abraham’s side would fail, therefore He knew He would have to become a human servant and die. He chose this way to redeem His people, to show them how much He was willing to commit. In doing so, He made a new covenant with all humanity. We can all inherit in that covenant because God already paid the price of redemption from our stupidity. He knows who we are.
Physical death was natural from the beginning. It will continue to the end. All things will come to an end, not just those humans who sin. The Bible does not dictate death started with the first sin. That is an assumption based again on Greek perfection theologies. However, the Bible does say our sins can kill our soul/spirit before we physically die. That is what started with Adam. If he had not eaten of either tree he would have died in the garden of old age.
God is Spirit. He breathed His spirit into humanity so that we could share that life during our physical life and afterwards. Our theologies distort that gift. It makes God hate us for who we are, who He let us be. It makes God reject us for something He should have prevented before it happened. Theology makes God ignorant of the obvious possibilities. Theology makes God’s actions evil. That is not Biblical and not good doctrine.
@Prode I am not a biblical scholar, but deep in my heart I feel that the way John 14:6 has (almost always) been interpreted is flat-out wrong: "Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: _no man cometh unto the Father, but by me. You state it as: being reconciled to God the Father. Presumably, NOT being reconciled means NOT meriting Heaven. In a previous post, I stated my reasons for my belief that my colleagues from China, Japan, and India, who have NOT professed Christ as their Savior are saved nonetheless. Three of my colleagues and I witnessed a ‘miracle’ that was quite convincing in this regard. I called it “The Miracle of the Panel Truck”. I can email you the text if you cannot locate it on pasts postings.
Of course I have not proof, but I cannot help but wonder if the many disciples who were involved with assembling the Gospel of John might have entered two different versions of what Jesus actually said. The second version being John 6:44–No one comes to Me except the Father draws them." I interpret this as Jesus stating that our Creator draws many humans to Jesus’ message and example, which is the surest way for us to mend our brokenness–but it does NOT exclude humans who have not heard of Jesus nor acknowledged him as Savior from being saved anyhow.
via con Dios,
Al Leo
These quotes do not conflict if there is only ONE GOD. Theology segregated His basic identity into three. That started with the Hellenization of the Jews and manifested in Christian Gnosticism and Arianism. These beliefs made God three separate individuals to match the Greek philosophy of a perfect God. Trinitarianism was a compromise because non-Jewish Christians thought the Greek philosophers were smarter than the Hebrew prophets. They could not comprehend a perfect God would would sully that perfection by touching imperfection. There had to be separation. So, they emphasized three, yet insisted that meant one.
[quote=“Jo_Helen_Cox, post:158, topic:5677”]
Trinitarianism was a compromise
[/quote] Jo, you clearly are better acquainted with ancient philosophy and theology than I am, and so I defer to your explanation of how the dogma of God as Trinity arose. Growing up as Catholic, I was supposed to accept it as a ‘glorious mystery’ and that was that. I must admit that the concept of Trinity does not personally move me closer to God, and I suspect that is the case with you, too. Unfortunately it seems to be an insurmountable barrier to a true ecumenical merger of Christianity with other major Faiths.
I feel fortunate that my life’s experiences have led me to a solid belief that God loves me personally and that I can see His presence in so many of my acquaintances–especially in my life’s companion. Thus I do not worry about nuances of theology or dogmas–of Gnosticism Pelagianism or Arianism. For this I consider myself lucky, but there is one problem: One’s life experiences are personal and can only poorly be transmitted to others by words. In another thread ( @DrebNay) Nathan sought help from responders to this Forum in finding some intellectual path to God. I only wished I could find words to transfer some of my good fortune to him. It doesn’t seem to work that way.
Al Leo
1 Like
I have grown tired of “glorious mysteries” that are never expected to be understood. I believe God wants us to know Him, not some supposed mystery. That is why I have been studying the ancient beliefs. I have found where many Christian theologies came from and they are not Hebrew. Without them, the mysteries are not so mysterious.
I am so glad to hear that you transitioned out of a religious system but did not dump God at the same time. There are too many who have.
I believe there is an intellectual path to God, but it must be coupled with a personal relationship with Him. It sounds like that is what you have done. Like science, pure intellectualism only describes creation. God is not creation, yet always with creation. If we accept that presence, He will show us wondrous things.
Jo, you hit the nail squarely on the head with that statement! It seems to me that God’s greatest gift to Humankind is the gift of intellect. It took at least 3 1/2 billion years of creation thru evolution to produce it on earth. While pure intellectualism may not lead us directly to God, it is inconceivable that we must 'dumb down’ to experience His presence.
Yes, I feel fortunate that I have found a way to spend a productive lifetime in science without, as you put it, "dumping God’. My early mentor at Pomona College (now deceased, but world famous in the area of Computer-Aided Drug Design) said he envied me, because I could balance my Christian Faith with my reliance on intellectual honesty. Too many of my colleagues, however, felt like Richard Dawkins–to remain intellectually honest one had to become an atheist. So sad to see such a talent in communication ability diverted to an unworthy cause.
Al Leo
1 Like
Acording to Jesus you are saved…in a specific way. That is simply stated, doesn’t require theological interpretation. I’m sad at so many digressions. So read the words. If you want your sins forgiven, you must forgive others. Check the words in your prayers. And on the day of judgment ,what you have done to the people at the bottom determines your judgment. Not to tough to understand . Not at all related to heliocentric astronomy, evolution , transubstantiation, or even your sex life. Just try a little kindness. Then get on with evolution discussion
Agreed. But I don’t understand how someone could come away from reading all of Scripture and say that the only thing salvation entails is forgiving others in order to be forgiven.
1 Like
Vengence is such a popular theme, in most countries of the world. Payback, revenge is a great movie theme because everyone wants it. forgiving others is not a trivial task. most people . . . are unwilling to do it. Unforgiving is essential to divorce and wars in general. not trivial.
my reason for speaking out is that so much wrong thinking - that infant baptism, a church wedding, regular church attendance, reciting the Nicene creed . . are keys to the favor of God. Rather it is to forgive wrongs - turn the other cheek. just reading what Jesus said, that’s all. We are measured mercy as we measure it to others.
I want to get on to interesting discussions of how evolution can best be understood, but understanding of the cosmos, how God works, it is science, not about “being saved”. that is much simpler to follow from the words of Jesus. only difficult to do.
Again in Matthew is the story of the King who gives mercy, forgives debts of a steward. As we receive mercy from God. The man goes out and throttles another man with a small debt. in this way the steward loses the mercy of God, by his own unmerciful actions.
Jesus also is clear that his vision is not about family values, this is not your mother’s or brother’s or grandpa’s vision, rather each person makes his own life choice and is accountable for his own choice. It is so clear, what would he say about your guilt for a great (20 generations) grandfather’s (adam) sin? it has no meaning. you by your choice to give or withhold mercy control your destiny.
So if Jesus would not sanction “original sin” who invented this? St. Augustine gets credit for saying if your child dies unbaptized he goes hell. It is a good slogan to build a city of god, make sure that your grand children get baptized. Over centuries this is seen as a bit harsh, so Limbo was invented (1300). Unbaptized who die go to Limbo, not hell. Only in the 21 st Century is Limbo decommissioned. No longer necessary. They, the innocents who died, can rely on the mercy of God, maybe get into heaven without need of Limbo. Another doctrinal change over 1700 years.
there are other stories that acknowledge evil in the world, like Pandora’s box.
But what Jesus calls evil, in Matthew, are exactly the instincts that would drive successful biological evolution: murder, deception, promiscuity.
None of these things are necessarily positive drivers of evolution, just as I would also say that while forgiveness of others shows the heart of Christ, it is not the sole determinate of salvation, as you stated. In much the same way, you have to put gas in your car to make it go, but it takes more than gas to run.
Murder is in no way of benefit to the community, deception also is negative (though I am uncertain as to why it would be considered a factor), and while you could argue that promiscuity may lead to more offspring, even that is unlikely, as a stable home may lead to a higher survival rate of healthy offspring.
Be that as it may, salvation and our relationship with God is not related or dependent on evolution, and has no concern with evolution or the mechanism of creation. Whether evolution is factual or not is unrelated to our relationship with Jesus, though it may impact how we come to either know God or how we are driven away.
3 Likes
There are several items here.
- “is that all?” Forgivenes doesn’t seem like much of a problem? As I read the parable in Matthew (18: 21-35), the closest current issue that it applies to, here and now is people asking for forgiveness in the form of amnesty for illegal aliens. I find the language from Matthew so close that I would expect people who reading the passage to clamor for amnesty. Organized Christian groups shouting that Jesus would require us to offer mercy . . . seem to be outnumbered and outgunned by NRA. They are afraid to take the side of poor, dirty, brown people who may include rapists and drug dealers, to demand amnesty. “ is that all” that is required of the passage?” As I read it, “It is much” that the passage requires of us today. Is it target for the acceptance of God at the last judgement? Seems to fit exactly.
- Camouflage is the most common deception from evolution. Fish are white on the bottom and dark on top to evade predators. Big fish eat little fish, if they can find them. Anemones trick fish to swim in and become dinner. On the terrestrial side it is the same story, either you have greater strength, or deception for survival. That is what we resort to in war where morality is suspended. Murder, body count is what they do in war. Deception classics are the Trojan Horse and Gen 34:13-29 .
- Finally, compassion also comes from our evolutionary roots. Females, given the opportunity to choose mates, will choose compassionate males. The male keen to win battles and copulate, may not have gentleness for offspring. May kill offspring. I am not sure how far down the evolutionary chain this compassion can be found.
so I agree that morality, what we should be doing, is independent of our understanding of creation and evolution. I agree that the demands of Jesus exceed what we practice, publicly propose. I got into this discussion trying to accommodate evolution and genesis, how we understand good and evil.
Thanks for expanding that, I can see where you are coming from. Deception in my mind was associated with a willful desire rather than a physical attribute.
One thing that always strikes me is that to the individual organism, life is really just about making it another day, feeding hunger, finding satisfaction (not sure how that works with worms, but my cat seems satisfied when her kittens are happy) and evolution does not really enter into it until we step back and look at the community of organisms as a whole. With sin, we certainly see not only individual sin but corporate sin where the nation of Israel was found wanting.
“original” sin presents newly created Eve in dialogue with a snake. And Eve has never made an ethical/moral choice because she has not yet tasted of the knowledge of good and evil. No background, no training. no sense that a talking snake is very unusual. After eating the apple she has a discussion with Adam. He does not challenge the talking snake giving advice. He also makes a decision without knowledge of good and evil, without context. The punishment of GOD exceeds all experience. They and their children are cursed into the forseeable future.
In contrast King David, guided by prophet, siblings and parents as well as normal sunday school, notices a girl preening outside the castle…Brings the girl in, empregnates her, and to avoid having her stoned for adultery, arranges to have her husband killed. That covers most of the evil descriptions that we have. There is public exposure where a prophet would have him , a me for all generations, but he says he is sorry, and only the first child dies. The next child is Solomon, one of the most famous of all times, born to a couple who just broke all the rules
Seems like God has undergone a great change in how he treats humans?
Or a merciful God could not have gone thru with Original Sin as we teach it, pass it one. Punishment of an unwitting innocent that extends for thousands of years. Such a characterization of God is demeaning, insulting, I cannot accept it. Why do not the higher level clerics explode/expose the story as a story only. Throughout the bible, the MOST common phrase is " His mercy endures forever". Original sin says" his punishment endures forever". please tell me you don’t believe that.
I think we agree, and my view of Adam is in most agreement with the archetypical model. Perhaps there was a particular individual identified as Adam, perhaps there was not. Either way, I am in need of mercy and grace, and it has been provided abundantly.
This topic was automatically closed 6 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.