Paradise Cafe Discussions - A Place For Bible Research And Christian Encouragement

Death is part of life. Ask any native american. Nevertheless, the wages sin pays is death. By extension then, no sin/no death seems to be the other side of the same coin...and we only have one coin to spend. Unfortunately, we define life, death and sin in our own terms...and it may not reflect reality. It probably does not. We've gotten very few things "right" to date. It wouldn't surprise me that we're all "wrong" on this one too. The fact is, our judgment of "good" and "bad" has made us self-appointed "gods." Then we die...indicating that we are nothing of the kind. Yet we still do it...judge "good" and "bad"...continue to die...and never see the connection. You'd think that after 6000 years more would have grasped the concept. I can see why Jesus was so frustrated with his disciples.


gus

Now that you bring this up, I would have to say that the "death" that sin brings is not natural death. I would say it is death inflicted as punishment, i.e., execution.

I know there are some of us who think there is no difference between natural death and death as punishment. But I very much disagree.

I take my last statement back. After looking at Romans 5 again, I note that Paul sees natural death as the result of sin.

If that is the case, then I would have to say that sin, like death, is also natural.

This does not mean sin is good. Natural and good are not the same thing.

Don, I'd rearrange your statement to say that death is the natural result of sin. Not a punishment per se, but a consequence. "Punishment" would be including an interest rate on those wages. Of course, I have a different view of "sin" than most, as man lacks any demonstrated moral authority. What man defines as "sin," isn't. Sin (to me, at least) is simply what isn't workable or is unhealthy. If a person keeps violating his true, God-given nature (call it want you want, but man has an acquired "nature" that is terminal), he dies. The quest, if you will, is to unlearn about 99% of what we have learned, drop the piety, stop playing god, and be the human being YHWH intended. "Simplify, simplify, simplify" ought to be our motto. Complication kills.


gus

Yeah, this is a sticky wicket, because then why do animals, who do not sin, die? Is their death any different from ours?

Hey--didn't you say you were coming out to San Diego sometime soon?

It is a sticky wicket, isn't it? The soul that is sinning will die...and animals are souls only obeying their nature, "sinning" it seems, at will. They kill and are killed by each other and us...and die of bird flu and stuff. Notice that I didn't say that man's God-given nature was his original nature. This may put me on the most-despised "loon list;" but I really don't think Adam and Eve were the first homo sapiens "residing upon the earth." I think the species existed for hundreds of thousands of years and that the genesis account of creation was implementation of a spiritual endowment of one member of that species...and his offspring. My guess is that those not the offspring of Adam were wiped out in the flood. In my "creation drama," prior to Adam, all homo sapiens would have existed like the advanced animals they were, according to their instinct and by their superior wit and with a demonstrated ability to survive. It certainly explains a lot of behaviors we see today (not to mention Cain and Abel)...and why there is conflict between man's spiritual nature and his flesh...and why there is the possibility of bypassing everlasting death by fully partaking of the endowment sealed by the ransom. LOL...and it still justifies my thoughts of a God-given spiritual nature that is still largely denied. All this spiritual stuff occupies about a quarter-inch on a ten-foot-long time line. So much for simplicity!

I was in San Diego from 09-03 to 09-13; but I forgot to ask you for contact info. Once there, I was largely incommunicado. I should be there again in a couple of months. How far are you from Camp Pendleton?

gus

without law there is no sin, without black white has no meaning.

sin came into the world through violation of gods first law and death resulted from sin (breaking of Gods command)

" from every tree of the garden you may eat to satisfaction, but as for the tree of knowledge of good and bad you must not eat from it for in the day that you eat from it you will positively die" gen 2


Paul refers to the law and its effect in romans 7 : 9
" in fact i was once alive apart from the law; but when the commandment arrived sin came to life again but i died"
10 " and the commandment which was to life this i found to be death"

so is death not a result of the transgression of Gods commandments ?

" you will positively die" he said to them

having difficulty tuning in to what you mean Gus

elihu

You know what? I've thought about it further, and it seems to me that I was closer to the right answer in the first place: The death that Paul speaks of is NOT natural death, but something else. I would venture to say it is condemnation to death, the sentence of death.

Yes, I couldn't agree more, Elihu. But the death you refer to cannot be natural death. Otherwise we would have to ascribe sin to other creatures, and we can't.

Yes! But I think the next verse is more on the point: "For sin, receiving an inducement through the commandment seduced me and killed me through it." Notice how the "death" Paul speaks of is not simply a person's croaking and pushing up the daisies. He is still literally alive, but he said that sin killed him.

So here is how I would interpret Romans 5:12-18:

[12]Therefore as sin came into the world through one man [that is, Adam was the first to sin and thus introduced sin into the world] and death through sin [that is, by sinning he also introduced the sentence of death into the world], and so death spread [that is, the condemnation spread] to all men because all men sinned [and therefore deserved the condemnation]--
[13] sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law.
[14] Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sins were not like the transgression of Adam [that is, even though there was no law, sin existed and therefore merited the condemnation, even if the sin was not the same as Adam's], who was a type of the one who was to come [Jesus].
[15]But the free gift [of being declared righteous] is not like the trespass. For if many died [many were condemned to death] through one man's trespass [because they followed his example], much more have the grace of God and the free gift in the grace of that one man Jesus Christ abounded for many.
[16] And the free gift is not like the effect of that one man's sin. For the judgment following one trespass brought condemnation [And that is the clincher!--Note that it says that a judgment of condemnation followed Adam's sin--That was the "death" that he received], but the free gift following many trespasses brings justification [i.e., life].
[17] If, because of one man's trespass, [the condemnation to] death reigned through that one man, much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness reign in life [and that means right now] through the one man Jesus Christ.
[18]Then as one man's trespass led to condemnation for all men [See? condemnation = death], so one man's act of righteousness leads to acquittal and life for all men [because, instead of following Adam, they follow Jesus].

Hi Gus

Re: "...I really don't think Adam and Eve were the first homo sapiens "residing upon the earth." I think the species existed for hundreds of thousands of years..."

Genesis 3:20...

"After this Adam called his wife’s name Eve, because she had to become the mother of everyone living."

What you think contradicts what YHWH word says,(imo).

(furthermore; If humans were created/existed before Adam and Eve, would the animals not already have names...there would be no (or probably less) need for Adam to name them; correct (grin). Jehovah instructed Adam to name the animalds...not re-name them...grin.)

Christian love

gogh

Hello there, just had a minute and wanted to jump in here with my view ;)

I agree with GUS ... there were people around before Adam and I feel that Cain also married one of these woman from the east and Pagan origen.

Eve being the mother of all the living is a reference to the chosen or anointed ones and has nothing to do with giving birth to the first individual ....
Giving names to the animals is a reference to receiving an inheritance and placement among GODs land ... the naming of a Head or tribe ( forfathers ) ..
this is something that I was going to post about but I decided not to ....
why do you think it also says that there was not one found suitible for Adam .... and why one had to be made or givin birth to from his flesh .. this denoting kinship... do you really think that GOD would let Adam procreate with the beasts GOD had made ?

Think about it ...

with love always, LC :heartbeat:

Hi Aurora

Genesis 1:27...

"..., in God’s image he created him; male and female he created them. Further, God blessed them and God said to them: “Be fruitful and become many and fill the earth and subdue it,..."

So...are you saying Adam and Eves offspring mixed with others that YHWH had created; in order to fulfill the directive to "fill the earth and subdue it"?

Christian love,

gogh

Re: "...there were people around before Adam..."

1 Timothy 2:5...

" For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, a man, Christ Jesus, who gave himself a corresponding ransom for all..."

Are you saying, Aurora, that our Master gave himself a corresponding ransom for those that were not created in God's image?

Might it be well to reflect on Jesus lineage, as well...

"Furthermore, Jesus himself, when he commenced [his work], was about thirty years old, being the son, as the opinion was,
of Joseph,
[son] of He´li,
[son] of Mat´that,
[son] of Le´vi,
[son] of Mel´chi,
[son] of Jan´na·i,
[son] of Joseph,
[son] of Mat·ta·thi´as,
[son] of A´mos,
[son] of Na´hum,
[son] of Es´li,
[son] of Nag´ga·i,
[son] of Ma´ath,
[son] of Mat·ta·thi´as,
[son] of Sem´e·in,
[son] of Jo´sech,
[son] of Jo´da,
[son] of Jo·an´an,
[son] of Rhe´sa,
[son] of Ze·rub´ba·bel,
[son] of She·al´ti·el,
[son] of Ne´ri,
[son] of Mel´chi,
[son] of Ad´di,
[son] of Co´sam,
[son] of El·ma´dam,
[son] of Er,
[son] of Jesus,
[son] of E·li·e´zer,
[son] of Jo´rim,
[son] of Mat´that,
[son] of Le´vi,
[son] of Sym´e·on,
[son] of Judas,
[son] of Joseph,
[son] of Jo´nam,
[son] of E·li´a·kim,
[son] of Me´le·a,
[son] of Men´na,
[son] of Mat´ta·tha,
[son] of Nathan,
[son] of David,
[son] of Jes´se,
[son] of O´bed,
[son] of Bo´az,
[son] of Sal´mon,
[son] of Nah´shon,
[son] of Am·min´a·dab,
[son] of Ar´ni,
[son] of Hez´ron,
[son] of Pe´rez,
[son] of Judah,
[son] of Jacob,
[son] of Isaac,
[son] of Abraham,
[son] of Te´rah,
[son] of Na´hor,
[son] of Se´rug,
[son] of Re´u,
[son] of Pe´leg,
[son] of E´ber,
[son] of She´lah,
[son] of Ca·i´nan,
[son] of Ar·pach´shad,
[son] of Shem,
[son] of Noah,
[son] of La´mech,
[son] of Me·thu´se·lah,
[son] of E´noch,
[son] of Ja´red,
[son] of Ma·ha´la·le·el,
[son] of Ca·i´nan,
[son] of E´nosh,
[son] of Seth,
[son] of Adam,
[son] of God.

Christian love,

gogh

Well, Bro Gogh...I understood that my supposition might get me torched. Nevertheless, I see Eve's "motherhood" as a spiritual motherhood...a new breed of spiritually-endowed humans, different from the other hominids that would have existed prior to Adam; but have since died off (at least I think they have...although today's behavior patterns cause me to wonder).

Really, all I'm trying to do here is figure out how Jehovah could have invented a creature so at odds with himself. Fleshly - with all that goes along with being fleshly...hormones and instincts and desires and enough testosterone to float a navy and, like all animals, a "prime directive" of perpetuating the species - while at the same time a need to suppress all natural desire until it's "appropriate." Unless, of course, a semi-intelligent beast pre-existed Adam and, like all other animals, procreated as needed and according to instinct.

Jehovah don't make no mistakes and I don't think He deals in irony, so it is left to me to reconcile this seeming paradox. Of course, Jehovah could have created everything in 24 hr days with only the appearance that He strung it out for thousands or millions or billions of years; but I'd have to ask "why?" What difference does it make? I see people who, without any discipline, assume a rather beastly posture. It's apparently some kind of common denominator of the species...what we do automatically if there's no reason to take a "high road." Where does it come from if it's not "nature"...and what purpose does that nature serve?

Then again, I could be wrong...and probably am.

gus

Gosh...thanks, Aurora! I hadn't even thought of that!

Now I'm even more convinced.

gus

In His Image ... spirit that is ... the qualities of GOD.

After being cast out they did need to fulfill the comandment , but all that they would receive back for their hard work were thorns and thistles ( wicket rulers and leaders ) .... not men with the love of GOD and in His image.

The lineage that was true only came from Eve ( mother of all spiritually living ) and not from an outsider.

It was Adam and Eve's male children ( Sons of GOD ) who married outside of the true faith and mingled with the daughters of Men .

JMHO, LC :heartbeat: