The context is sin nature though. It seems that evolution is a far more likely and cogent explanation for our inclination to sin than the garden myth.
Not sure about “judgment” but many children to the third and fourth generation inherited punishment” and were “condemned” for their parents sins until late biblical times.
What do you think about when you masturbate? And please don’t answer that, it’s rhetorical. But the point is most people fantasize (lust?) when masturbating which might seemingly conflict with what Jesus said.
It seems there are medical benefits today and there were some evolutionary benefits to masturbation. It’s considered healthy by the medical community. Many Christians disagree and paint it as sin.
God meets us where we are but in discussing ideas, we still have to call a sin sin. This is like the marriage thing. Marry if you need to. Otherwise don’t. I think that was more a product of Paul’s end time views than his missionary exuberance.
Sorry – I am finding myself unable to connect the dots between those two posts. Hold my hand while you walk me through it, because I’m terryfied by the non sequitur.
It was fully in the context of people sinning while not being fully knowledgeable about it, being deceived, and contrary to your opinion. Likewise Jeremiah 17:9 and Psalm 19:12.
Yep. It kind of means the opposite of what it says. To say the flesh is weak means the biological drives are strong.
I do not. We are not more than animals because of some nonphysical hocus pocus. We are more than animals because of the mind built from language and the inheritance of abstract ideas we have from God, such as love and justice.
Correct. The physical drives are not sinful. They are important for our physical well being and survival. But the mind and heart should be stronger in the human being so that these physical instincts are not pursued contrary to love and justice.
Romans 7:15 I do not understand my own actions. For I do not do what I want, but I do the very thing I hate. 16 Now if I do what I do not want, I agree that the law is good. 17 So then it is no longer I that do it, but sin which dwells within me. 18 For I know that nothing good dwells within me, that is, in my flesh. I can will what is right, but I cannot do it. 19 For I do not do the good I want, but the evil I do not want is what I do. 20 Now if I do what I do not want, it is no longer I that do it, but sin which dwells within me.
There is nothing in the Greek about any “sinful nature” that is an insertion of theology into the text. Even the King James Bible is not so bold as to rewrite the text in such a manner. I certainly do not see any such meaning in the text. What I see is an explanation of how the self-destructive habits of sin demolish our freedom of will. We are not born with such habits. They are product of our own choices.
I can accept that at least some Jews believed in the inheritance of Ancestral Sin. Ezekiel 18 would not have delivered the rebuke of God if there would be no such ideas among Jews. I am not sure how much the idea of inheritance was pushed to the sin of Adam and how much to the sins of fathers and grandfathers - punishment until the third or fourth generation.
It seems that those Jews had mental difficulties with combining the ideas of personal responsibility and ‘punishment until third or fourth generation’. If we can accept the assumption that Ezekiel told messages from God, then God told His opinion about the matter. What God says matters more than all our interpretations.
Agreed. The drive is not sinful. My point is that the drives incline us towards actions deemed sinful. It seems we have to fight that nature at times. In a sense, the deck is stacked against us in certain regards. I see that as an inclination to sin.
Perhaps it is my English that is causing you difficulty.
The Talmud readings that I quoted make it clear that the rabbis who spoke them taught that:
Zohama (Inherited Ancestral Sin/Filth/Slime/Pollution/etc.) existed in all humanity from Adam and Eve until Moses led the Israelites out of Egypt to Sinai;
Israel’s zohama ceased when Yahweh gave them the law at Sinai; that
"Guardian Angels* “stood at Sinai and received the Torah” for all future Converts To Judaism; BUT …
The Rabbis of 1st Century C.E. Israel taught the Jews of 1st Century C.E. Israel that the Zohama that existed from the Fall of Adam and Eve continued to pollute all non-Jews who didn’t convert to Judaism, and that.
If anyone wanted to be free of Zohama, they had to be a Jew or accept “the Law of Moses”, i.e. convert to Judaism.
Chronology and “the Location in Time and Space” of anyone has been relevant in God’s words to and through Jeremiah and Ezekiel.
Jeremiah’s message was to the Jews of Israel, among whom there was no Zohama.
Ezekiel’s message was to the Jews of Babylon among whom there was no Zohama.
There would have been no Zohama among the common Jews and Hellenized Jews of 1st Century Israel who read Jeremiah and Ezekiel’s prophecies.
But as the Gospel was carried out of Israel into the non-Jewish world, Jeremiah and Ezekiel’s words were also being taken into a non-Jewish world. Adapting Jewish prophecies to Jews to non-Jewish audiences was and continues to be a challenge for anyone who believes in Inherited Ancestral Sin.
Pelagians and Semi-Pelagians, i.e. those who vehemently deny Inherited Ancestral Sin [now called “Original Sin”] compound the challenge.
I have learned that there is little to no benefit in trying to talk to a Pelagian, if you’re not a Pelagian.
IMO, Baptism makes no sense if you don’t believe in Inherited Ancestral Sin or its modern equivalent, Original Sin. Water, blessed or unblessed, flowing or in a bowl, infant or adult, can’t wash away anything but dirt and stains.
Having a name does not make it true or correct. otr even legitimate. it just identifies it.
So Zohoma was a thing. So is flat earth and YEC. You are quick enough to dismiss or ridicule them.
Or whether that view might persist or not.
Perhaps you would like a detailed discussion of Baptism? (It would not qualify as a legitimate topic fr this forum as it has little or nothing to do with science)
Suffice it to say it is not a miracle cure or an insurance policy aginst Hell and damnation.
I believe in the crucified, resurrected, and ascended Jesus of Nazareth.
As for what Jesus’ “opinion” was when he was alive and teaching and preaching in Israel? Factually, I do not know; however, my tentative guess is that he–being a Jew and, therefore without Zohama from conception, and sinless throughout his life on earth–focused on serving and addressing Jews. The few recorded instances of his interactions with non-Jews tell me that he recognized and praised the faith of theistic non-Jews. If, during his life on earth, his disciples had gone out and shared Jesus’ Gospel with non-Jews, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, or others would have said so, no?
However, once his “assignment” in this world was ended on the cross, then–I believe, without evidence to do so–he told his followers: now it’s your turn, get out there and get to work.
Now, ask me what I would say to someone who wanted a life-changing experience in, through, and with Jesus.
@jstump , thank you for this book. I’m looking forward to reading it. Did you know Peter Kreeft at Boston University? I just read that that is where you went! Thanks!
