Son of God

[timtofly]

Did I say Adam, rather than God, transmitted the Fall? God transmitted the consequences of Adam's sin such that Eve's eyes were open spiritually or supernaturally, not biologically. And Adam "died" spiritually, not biologically that day. Further, since Adam died physically but had already been created as a biological human, his fallen mortality was not transmitted to him biologically.

Now post #38 is obfuscation on display.

Eve's eyes were not opened spiritually. Eve's eyes became spiritually blind.

Adam and Eve stopped being sons of God in all aspects of that term when Adam disobeyed God. Disobedience does not give us knowledge. You have Eve being awarded for disobedience. Certainly no knowledge comes from eating?

"And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons."

Seeing evil for the first time is not "being spiritually aware."

 

[timtofly]

It is sometimes hard to disprove a fallacy. If you make up something never challenged in scripture, can we prove from scripture it is not true? Nope.

Thus we should not proclaim or trust in what the Bible does not say, but rather proclaim and trust in what the Bible does say!

You can prove you were born in dead corruptible flesh. Both from Scripture and from real life experiences.

"If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us."

"Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned: (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law. Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come."

 

[Van]

Now post #38 is obfuscation on display.

Eve's eyes were not opened spiritually. Eve's eyes became spiritually blind.

Adam and Eve stopped being sons of God in all aspects of that term when Adam disobeyed God. Disobedience does not give us knowledge. You have Eve being awarded for disobedience. Certainly no knowledge comes from eating?

"And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons."

Seeing evil for the first time is not "being spiritually aware."

Did you see where her fallen condition was passed to her biologically? Neither did I. Does God's word refer to this as "her eyes were opened?" Yes.

 

[Van]

You can prove you were born in dead corruptible flesh. Both from Scripture and from real life experiences.

"If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us."

"Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned: (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law. Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come."

You can run but you cannot hide. The issue is not that we were made sinners, but rather are we made spiritually sinners or biologically. None of your verses address that issue.

And please to not try to hide in the vague usage of "flesh" to claim the idea is biological, rather than fleshly desires or worldly desires of our human spirit.

 

[timtofly]

Did you see where her fallen condition was passed to her biologically? Neither did I. Does God's word refer to this as "her eyes were opened?" Yes.

No one is saying the penalty was passed to the woman biologically. But you are going to have to explain what you mean by "biologically".

Adam declared in the name he gave her, that death would be passed on to all.

"And Adam called his wife's name Eve; because she was the mother of all living."

"Living" is referring to all her descendants. Sin is not passed on biologically. The state of being dead corruptible flesh is passed on biologically from Eve's womb through Seth. Seth is the first biological offspring born in a dead state.

You can run but you cannot hide. The issue is not that we were made sinners, but rather are we made spiritually sinners or biologically. None of your verses address that issue.

And please to not try to hide in the vague usage of "flesh" to claim the idea is biological, rather than fleshly desires or worldly desires of our human spirit.

Really? Because "flesh" is not just a figurative term.

Flesh: the soft substance consisting of muscle and fat that is found between the skin and bones of an animal or a human.

 

[The Archangel]

This spiritual transmission is obvious because the fall was transmitted to Eve spiritually and not biologically.

Did I say Adam, rather than God, transmitted the Fall? God transmitted the consequences of Adam's sin such that Eve's eyes were open spiritually or supernaturally, not biologically. And Adam "died" spiritually, not biologically that day. Further, since Adam died physically but had already been created as a biological human, his fallen mortality was not transmitted to him biologically.

Adam and Eve's eyes were both opened at the same time, or to the same effect. Eve sinned, then Adam and as a result of their sin both of their eyes were opened. At that point they knew they were naked (meaning, they felt shame, a consequence of sin). Because they knew they were physically naked the effect of their sin cannot be reduced to the spiritual alone.

Also, as far as physical death goes, the phrase told Adam in Genesis 2:17 is in Hebrew the phrase is (literally) "dying you shall die." It is an idiom that expresses a judicial sentence, not an immediate outcome. Like today's death penalty, the sentence is given, but not carried-out immediately. By their eating of the fruit the took on to themselves the already-announced punishment of physical death. Even though the sentence was not carried -out that day, the judgment was already rendered.

The great error in your theology here is to separate Adam's (and Eve's) body and soul. We are whole beings--body and soul. The announcement by God "Dying you shall die" is a physical (or "biological") statement.

I do not have the time to start teaching you basic theology. So, I'd encourage you to read anything by DA Carson, especially the book The God Who Is There. There are mp3s and videos available on the internet for free.

The Archangel

 

[The Archangel]

There is much theological error here....

Adam had God's permanent incorruptible physical body, then he disobeyed God, and physically died. Now like Satan telling Eve: "And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:" you can claim Adam did not physically die. I accept God's Word, Adam did die, that instant. Just as fast as becoming a son of God will happen at the Second Coming.

First... You misunderstand was is conveyed by "you shall surely die." The Hebrew is literally "Dying you shall die" and that phrase used often in the Old Testament to express a pre-determined judicial punishment. In courts today, a death sentences is given, it is not carried out immediately. In the same way, the sentence for disobedience was known to Adam and that sentence was given when he ate the fruit, but it was not carried out immediately.

No, what is evident is that Adam was in God's image. God broke His own Noahic Law. God did not take Cain's life for killing Abel. In fact Cain was still in God's image, body, soul, and spirit. He looked the same as all the sons of God. No one would have ever known he was a murderer, even though he was cursed from doing what Adam was cursed to do.

Second... "Image" means "representative." To bear God's image is to be His representative (like a governore to a King). HERE is a really good article on what "image" means, though you would need some serious Hebrew skills to wade through it.

Third... The statement "by man his blood shall be shed" is a law given by God to man (for the purpose of governance), it is not a law given for God to follow. Therefore, God does not "break" this law.

Fourth... "Image" is not something that goes away because of the fall. The image is marred, yes, but not absent. We know this because of Genesis 9, where the reason for capital punishment is that mankind--though now sinful--is still in the image of God. Also, stealing, murder, etc. is wrong not just because God says so, but because to steal from a fellow human is to steal from a representative of God--and that is tantamount to stealing from God Himself.

Of course after the Flood capital punishment was required. There were no more sons of God left living on earth. Only Adam's dead flesh now living under capital punishment. Which most reject today. People get away with murder and rehabilitated. Or people just kill each other and killed in the process, called war.

What you've written above is just... bizarre. And totally ignorant of the biblical text.

"And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, and after his image; and called his name Seth:"

Certainly Adam was physically dead in a corruptible body. He was separated spiritually from God. So Seth only got a soul from Adam that was eternal and since the soul is not genetic, all Seth got was a dead corruptible body. Seth would have to be born again into God's family via the Holy Spirit. Seth was just like you and me. Certainly your dead body is not God's permanent incorruptible physical body. You are a son by adoption not genetics. Until you receive God's permanent incorruptible physical body, you are not a son of God in a literal sense.

Seth being in Adam's image simply means that Seth is a descendant of Adam (ie. not Adam) who is a creation of God. It also shows that the Image and Likeness of God that humans were created to be (Image) and with (likeness) is still there, though marred by Adam's sin. It is a more a statement of the fallen order we now live in. The refrain in Genesis 5 that is spoken of everyone (except Enoch) is "and he died." So, we understand that all of us are fallen. That's all.

Adam had God's permanent incorruptible physical body, then he disobeyed God, and physically died.

Finally... Your statement is logically incoherent. If Adam had a "permanent, incorruptible body" then he could not have died, which he did. So, it's likely that much of your thinking here is based on a wrong starting point.

The Archangel

 

[timtofly]

There is much theological error here....



First... You misunderstand was is conveyed by "you shall surely die." The Hebrew is literally "Dying you shall die" and that phrase used often in the Old Testament to express a pre-determined judicial punishment. In courts today, a death sentences is given, it is not carried out immediately. In the same way, the sentence for disobedience was known to Adam and that sentence was given when he ate the fruit, but it was not carried out immediately.



Second... "Image" means "representative." To bear God's image is to be His representative (like a governore to a King). HERE is a really good article on what "image" means, though you would need some serious Hebrew skills to wade through it.

Third... The statement "by man his blood shall be shed" is a law given by God to man (for the purpose of governance), it is not a law given for God to follow. Therefore, God does not "break" this law.

Fourth... "Image" is not something that goes away because of the fall. The image is marred, yes, but not absent. We know this because of Genesis 9, where the reason for capital punishment is that mankind--though now sinful--is still in the image of God. Also, stealing, murder, etc. is wrong not just because God says so, but because to steal from a fellow human is to steal from a representative of God--and that is tantamount to stealing from God Himself.



What you've written above is just... bizarre. And totally ignorant of the biblical text.



Seth being in Adam's image simply means that Seth is a descendant of Adam (ie. not Adam) who is a creation of God. It also shows that the Image and Likeness of God that humans were created to be (Image) and with (likeness) is still there, though marred by Adam's sin. It is a more a statement of the fallen order we now live in. The refrain in Genesis 5 that is spoken of everyone (except Enoch) is "and he died." So, we understand that all of us are fallen. That's all.



Finally... Your statement is logically incoherent. If Adam had a "permanent, incorruptible body" then he could not have died, which he did. So, it's likely that much of your thinking here is based on a wrong starting point.

The Archangel

I fully understand the theology you are advocating, and you can call me wrong, but you are following man's theological opinion and not God's Word.

I am not here to change human opinion taught for thousands of years. I am here to point out it is wrong.

God can certainly kill a permanent incorruptible physical body. Nature nor eating a certain fruit did not naturally kill Adam. Adam's disobedience against God placed Adam in a state of being temporal, corruption, and dead flesh. The judgment was instant, the sentence will last 6,000 years.

Certainly "dying you shall die" has been in force in Seth and all of Seth's offspring. They were all dead, living out a life long death sentence in dead decaying flesh. Seth passed that on as Adam's dead image.

We are not in God's image. We are not sons of God. We do not have a permanent incorruptible physical body covered by a spirit of light. We are not what Jesus showed to Peter, James, and John on the mount of Transfiguration. We as born into the family of God have every right to be a son of God, just not literally in Adam's dead image. After physical death, we can enjoy the permanent incorruptible physical body. At the Second Coming we will enjoy putting on the spirit around the permanent incorruptible physical body.

 

[The Archangel]

I fully understand the theology you are advocating, and you can call me wrong, but you are following man's theological opinion and not God's Word.

I am not here to change human opinion taught for thousands of years. I am here to point out it is wrong.

Ah... so you think yourself a prophet of new things... Scary.

In what way am I following "man's theological opinion?"

God can certainly kill a permanent incorruptible physical body. Nature nor eating a certain fruit did not naturally kill Adam. Adam's disobedience against God placed Adam in a state of being temporal, corruption, and dead flesh. The judgment was instant, the sentence will last 6,000 years.

Bizarre.

Certainly "dying you shall die" has been in force in Seth and all of Seth's offspring. They were all dead, living out a life long death sentence in dead decaying flesh. Seth passed that on as Adam's dead image.

We are not in God's image. We are not sons of God. We do not have a permanent incorruptible physical body covered by a spirit of light. We are not what Jesus showed to Peter, James, and John on the mount of Transfiguration. We as born into the family of God have every right to be a son of God, just not literally in Adam's dead image. After physical death, we can enjoy the permanent incorruptible physical body. At the Second Coming we will enjoy putting on the spirit around the permanent incorruptible physical body.

Paul would disagree... In Acts 17:29 he refers to humans as "offspring of God;" in 1 Corinthians 11:7 he refers to man as "the image and glory of God."

Frankly, I'm not sure where your theology comes from. Did you assemble this "theology" yourself or where you taught this errant theology by someone else? Your "theology" is devoid of any biblical theology, or hermeneutical practice, and as such is far outside anything resembling orthodoxy.

The Archangel

 

[Van]

No one is saying the penalty was passed to the woman biologically. But you are going to have to explain what you mean by "biologically".

Adam declared in the name he gave her, that death would be passed on to all.

"And Adam called his wife's name Eve; because she was the mother of all living."

"Living" is referring to all her descendants. Sin is not passed on biologically. The state of being dead corruptible flesh is passed on biologically from Eve's womb through Seth. Seth is the first biological offspring born in a dead state.



Really? Because "flesh" is not just a figurative term.

Flesh: the soft substance consisting of muscle and fat that is found between the skin and bones of an animal or a human.

I am done with your sideshow, off topic obfuscation.

 

[Van]

Adam and Eve's eyes were both opened at the same time, or to the same effect. Eve sinned, then Adam and as a result of their sin both of their eyes were opened. At that point they knew they were naked (meaning, they felt shame, a consequence of sin). Because they knew they were physically naked the effect of their sin cannot be reduced to the spiritual alone.

Also, as far as physical death goes, the phrase told Adam in Genesis 2:17 is in Hebrew the phrase is (literally) "dying you shall die." It is an idiom that expresses a judicial sentence, not an immediate outcome. Like today's death penalty, the sentence is given, but not carried-out immediately. By their eating of the fruit the took on to themselves the already-announced punishment of physical death. Even though the sentence was not carried -out that day, the judgment was already rendered.

The great error in your theology here is to separate Adam's (and Eve's) body and soul. We are whole beings--body and soul. The announcement by God "Dying you shall die" is a physical (or "biological") statement.

I do not have the time to start teaching you basic theology. So, I'd encourage you to read anything by DA Carson, especially the book The God Who Is There. There are mp3s and videos available on the internet for free.

The Archangel

Adam and Eve received the curse of the Fall spiritually. No one questions that. The Fall was not the result of Eve's sin, but only by the sin of Adam.

Knowing that you are naked and being ashamed does not require biology but just revelation. They had obtained the knowledge by eating the fruit.

Whether or not Adam and Eve were mortal before the fall is a subject for another thread.

Lets see, if you say both biologically and spiritually you are not making a great error, but if you point to the fact scripture teaches spiritual transmission of the Fall, why you are engaging in "great error." Got it...

Who would listen to your copy and paste Calvinism? You cannot keep your stories straight. First grammar, then context, then claiming all those others like Dan Wallace are wrong. Again, got it...

 

[The Archangel]

Adam and Eve received the curse of the Fall spiritually. No one questions that. The Fall was not the result of Eve's sin, but only by the sin of Adam.

Knowing that you are naked and being ashamed does not require biology but just revelation. They had obtained the knowledge by eating the fruit.

Whether or not Adam and Eve were mortal before the fall is a subject for another thread.

Lets see, if you say both biologically and spiritually you are not making a great error, but if you point to the fact scripture teaches spiritual transmission of the Fall, why you are engaging in "great error." Got it...

Who would listen to your copy and paste Calvinism? You cannot keep your stories straight. First grammar, then context, then claiming all those others like Dan Wallace are wrong. Again, got it...

Ad hominem.... So... since I'm a Calvinist, I can't be right. OK. That's dumb. Also, I'm not claiming Wallace is wrong. You, however, have yet to show how or why he may be right--because you have no way to do so. You can only say, "My guy says," but you can't interact with it or expand upon it.

The Archangel

 

[timtofly]

Whether or not Adam and Eve were mortal before the fall is a subject for another thread.

Adam being a son of God prior to disobedience is another thread? The title of this thread is "Son of God".

Adam immediately stopped being a son of God by disobedience. Adam physically and spiritually was pronounced dead instantly because of disobedience.

Having a chunk of fruit in one's mouth is only a side affect. Eating and digesting that fruit is not the point.

Romans 5:10

"For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life."

 

[Van]

Ad hominem.... So... since I'm a Calvinist, I can't be right. OK. That's dumb. Also, I'm not claiming Wallace is wrong. You, however, have yet to show how or why he may be right--because you have no way to do so. You can only say, "My guy says," but you can't interact with it or expand upon it.

The Archangel

Did I say Calvinists cannot be right? Nope so yet another deliberate falsehood. Here is what I actually said:
"Who would listen to your copy and paste Calvinism? You cannot keep your stories straight. First grammar, then context, then claiming all those others like Dan Wallace are wrong. Again, got it..."
Next, he wants to say taint so, then have me prove otherwise. And then any evidence offered would be rejected. Thus a time waster.
Did I not interact with Archangel's false claim para cannot be translated correctly and grammatically as "sent from" in Romans 5:1. Yes, thus when I presented published translations using the same translation choice, that was not interacting. When I said his contextual argument

 

[Van]

Adam being a son of God prior to disobedience is another thread? The title of this thread is "Son of God".

Adam immediately stopped being a son of God by disobedience. Adam physically and spiritually was pronounced dead instantly because of disobedience.

Having a chunk of fruit in one's mouth is only a side affect. Eating and digesting that fruit is not the point.

Romans 5:10

"For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life."

Note how this poster cannot even acknowledge the "another thread" issue was whether of not Adam was created mortal. Nope is presents non-stop falsehood. Adam and every born anew believers are children or sons of God because God created them. Logos was not created.

 

[The Archangel]

Did I say Calvinists cannot be right? Nope so yet another deliberate falsehood. Here is what I actually said:

"Who would listen to your copy and paste Calvinism? You cannot keep your stories straight. First grammar, then context, then claiming all those others like Dan Wallace are wrong. Again, got it..."​

Next, he wants to say taint so, then have me prove otherwise. And then any evidence offered would be rejected. Thus a time waster.

The issue here has nothing to do with Calvinism. So, to claim I'm giving "copy-and-paste Calvinism" is to dismiss what I've said as being wrong simply because I happen to be a Calvinist. It is a way of not having to deal with the claims. It's an element of the Red Herring fallacy.

Did I not interact with Archangel's false claim para cannot be translated correctly and grammatically as "sent from" in Romans 5:1. Yes, thus when I presented published translations using the same translation choice, that was not interacting. When I said his contextual argument

No, you didn't. We never discussed Romans 5:1. Our discussion was about John 1:14. Even so, I posted these posts--Here and here-- to demonstrate why you weren't right. You did not interact with those posts at all. You presented "published translations" but that is all you did. All you're doing is saying "My guy says." Like I've said before you cannot say how or why he says what he says. You can only show that he says.

The Archangel

 

[Van]

The issue here has nothing to do with Calvinism. So, to claim I'm giving "copy-and-paste Calvinism" is to dismiss what I've said as being wrong simply because I happen to be a Calvinist. It is a way of not having to deal with the claims. It's an element of the Red Herring fallacy.

No, you didn't. We never discussed Romans 5:1. Our discussion was about John 1:14. Even so, I posted these posts--Here and here-- to demonstrate why you weren't right. You did not interact with those posts at all. You presented "published translations" but that is all you did. All you're doing is saying "My guy says." Like I've said before you cannot say how or why he says what he says. You can only show that he says.

The Archangel

Deleted

 

[Van]

Deleted

 

[timtofly]

Note how this poster cannot even acknowledge the "another thread" issue was whether of not Adam was created mortal. Nope is presents non-stop falsehood. Adam and every born anew believers are children or sons of God because God created them. Logos was not created.

Then you agree that Jesus was physically there and physically spoke the words, let there be light, in Genesis 1. Jesus was never created. Just formed from Adam, who was never created, just formed from dust. It was the dust created by Jesus, God, and the Holy Spirit working together as one, called Lord.

What is wrong with the Lord, creating 3 persons of the Trinity at the same time as heaven and earth?

 

[Van]

Then you agree that Jesus was physically there and physically spoke the words, let there be light, in Genesis 1. Jesus was never created. Just formed from Adam, who was never created, just formed from dust. It was the dust created by Jesus, God, and the Holy Spirit working together as one, called Lord.

What is wrong with the Lord, creating 3 persons of the Trinity at the same time as heaven and earth?

I have read John 1:1-3!

Here is what this post is supposed to be addressing:

Note how this poster cannot even acknowledge the "another thread" issue was whether of not Adam was created mortal. Nope is presents non-stop falsehood. Adam and every born anew believers are children or sons of God because God created them. Logos was not created.​

None of the three Persons of the Trinity were "created" as they are eternal in the divine sense, as with no beginning.