Featured Spiritual Life

No. I am not a Jehovah's Witness. But I am also not a pagan.

You are confused @Particular (or dishonest, I'll go with the former). I said that God makes us new creations in Christ rather than returns us to an original state as Adam. I know that you prefer to beleive that God makes us like Adam was in the Garden of Eden, but that is not the Bible. That is paganism. The Bible says specifically that God makes us new creations in Christ (your disagreement is with God, not me).

The difference between you and I is that believe that Jesus was right that man must be born again and born of the Spirit (John 3). I also believe that we are new creations in Christ (2 Corinthians 5), and that God puts His Spirit in us (Romans 8; Ezekiel 36).

Have you taken as much time to read Scripture as you have to study the theories of men?

 

No. I see Jesus as having a human nature. When read the Bible I see two "natures" - the "flesh" and the "spirit". I do not see where you find this "sin nature". What verse are you speaking of?

 

I do hold to biblical doctrines, to include that death entered the world through Adam's sin and spread to all men because all have sinned ("original sin") and that Jesus was born of Mary who was a virgin.

The issue is not these things but the ideas you have added to Scripture.

 

That which is born of flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Do not marvel, @Yeshua1 , that I believe men must be born again rather than restored to Adam's original state. I believe the Bible.

 

No. Jesus is without sin because Jesus is God. The virgin birth is significant (which if you have studied ANE belief you'd realize this) and it is definitely a proof of Christ's devinity (like other things in Scripture) but the idea that sin is passed on biologically is Greek paganism (and Gnostic), not Christian.

 

I know what you believe. I wish you believe the Bible more than other things, but that's OK. You know what is most important.

 

Sure. We are born as natural men (as Adam).

 

Sorry, I have to stick with Scriptures here.

 

@Yeshua1

Here is the issue:

Scripture is the "data". It is where we start and what affirms our views.

You say something that is not taught by Scripture. That is fine. It may very well be true.

BUT you have to explain your logic and reasoning (how you get from Scripture to your theories).

You have but you have done so via a formal logical fallacy.

Does this mean your conclusion is wrong? No. Does it mean your conclusion is extra-biblical and illogical? Yes.

From history we all know that you are going to ignore Scripture and ignore the fact that you have relied on faulty logic. We all know you are just going to say the same thing over and over again, offering Scripture that does not prove your point if we are lucky, and then say "correct?". That is what you have been doing for years and there is no indication that it will change.

But know that your view is something that is not actually taught by Scripture. It is something that you arrived at via a logical fallacy. While it may be true, it is actually not a view you should logically or biblically hold.

 

Thread is closed due to length. Please feel free to begin another thread to continue the discussion.