Evidence for God from Science

I've always wondered about our sin nature and what that term truly means. Are we BORN sinful because of our genetic links to Adam and HIS sin? Are we also guilty of ADAM's sin, or of merely our own? Or are we merely born with the INABILITY to NOT sin - meaning everyone WILL inevitably sin soon after being born? And what of Jesus, also fully man - if you say we were BORN in sin due to our genetic linkage to Adam (and thus also guilty due to HIS sin), what does that say about Jesus, also FULLY man (yes, and FULLY God) and also a Son of Adam? The following links offers some extremely fascinating insights and challenges surrounding this issue:

http://michaelsheiser.com/TheNakedBible ... follow-up/

http://michaelsheiser.com/TheNakedBible ... -theology/

I think we are born imperfect (for reason of being creation)...meaning not having the potential to be completely good, like God. Sin, therefore comes natural to us. We do not inherit Adam's sin.

Sin cannot be natural to us. That would be self-contradictory, because then we would be saying it is our "nature" to be "unnatural." Further, if it were human nature to sin, then Christ would not have had a human nature (since He did not sin), or else, of course, Christ did sin.

Better to say that sin is contrary to human nature, but we do precisely because our nature is fallen or corrupted. I'm of the view that we are not guilty of Adam's sin but rather Adam fell when he sinned and he passed on that corrupted nature to his children. As a traducian, but the way, that's an easy claim for me to make. In any case, the effect is that since our natures are corrupted, then it is only a matter of time until we do, in fact, sin. That is not due to any logical necessity but merely a practical reality. Our corrupt nature doesn't force us to sin; but because our natures are corrupted, we tend to act so. We are not condemned because of what we are but rather because of what we do. I sin, and therefore I am separated from God. It is precisely on these grounds that I see no problem with infant salvation. Though they have a fallen, corrupted nature, which they inherited from their parents, they have not yet sinned. Therefore, they are innocent, and if they die, they are raised in that same innocence. That is also why the believer in Christ dies and is raised innocent, for though we have sinned and are guilty, being identified with Christ, we are raised in His innocence.

All that is to say that I flatly deny Augustine's doctrine of original sin (which is one reason I am not a Calvinist). This is also the means by which I affirm Christ's sinlessness even as I affirm His humanity, and it is by the same means that I affirm that we will be sinless in the next life; for just as Christ was more truly human than we are (since we are actually LESS human when we sin, insofar as we are acting in a nonhuman way out of a subhuman nature), we will be even more human when we are raised according to His image. Having perfected, restored natures, we will no longer sin, because it will be contrary to our natures. We won't sin anymore than rocks eat.

[genetic fallacy]I have no idea what Heiser's position is. I don't really care as what I have read from him has been, in my view, very, very, very wrong, and, frankly, no one ought to given him the benefit of reading his work.[/genetic fallacy]

the effect is that since our natures are corrupted, then it is only a matter of time until we do, in fact, sin. That is not due to any logical necessity but merely a practical reality. Our corrupt nature doesn't force us to sin; but because our natures are corrupted, we tend to act so. We are not condemned because of what we are but rather because of what we do.

Exactly. And that is precisely what Heiser asserts.

Don't know what Jac's problem is with Heiser. He has claimed that Heiser is a polytheist, which anyone very familiar with him knows that is totally false (and I've previously posted links that clearly refute that accusation. But always attack the person when you don't agree with various aspects of their theological understandings, eh? I doubt very much Jac will find anyone that totally lines up with those he ascribes to, either.

Yes Jac, I suppose I chose the wrong wording, I actually meant what you said here.

" Our corrupt nature doesn't force us to sin; but because our natures are corrupted, we tend to act so."

Philip wrote:I've always wondered about our sin nature and what that term truly means. Are we BORN sinful because of our genetic links to Adam and HIS sin? Are we also guilty of ADAM's sin, or of merely our own? Or are we merely born with the INABILITY to NOT sin - meaning everyone WILL inevitably sin soon after being born? And what of Jesus, also fully man - if you say we were BORN in sin due to our genetic linkage to Adam (and thus also guilty due to HIS sin), what does that say about Jesus, also FULLY man (yes, and FULLY God) and also a Son of Adam? The following links offers some extremely fascinating insights and challenges surrounding this issue:

http://michaelsheiser.com/TheNakedBible ... follow-up/

http://michaelsheiser.com/TheNakedBible ... -theology/

We inherited Adam's desire or propensity to Sin because we are born mortal ( Adam was a special creation by God and all others (including Eve who was from Adam)were born/of Adam).
Adam's sin was that he wanted to be like God, how many times do we want to be like God? far too many...
We rebel against God every time we decide that we will do it "ourselves", that we don't need God, that we are all we need.
A baby is born and you can see that even then, there is a rebellion in him/her.

Jac3510 wrote:Sin cannot be natural to us. That would be self-contradictory, because then we would be saying it is our "nature" to be "unnatural." Further, if it were human nature to sin, then Christ would not have had a human nature (since He did not sin), or else, of course, Christ did sin.

Better to say that sin is contrary to human nature, but we do precisely because our nature is fallen or corrupted. I'm of the view that we are not guilty of Adam's sin but rather Adam fell when he sinned and he passed on that corrupted nature to his children. As a tradition, but the way, that's an easy claim for me to make. In any case, the effect is that since our natures are corrupted, then it is only a matter of time until we do, in fact, sin. That is not due to any logical necessity but merely a practical reality. Our corrupt nature doesn't force us to sin; but because our natures are corrupted, we tend to act so. We are not condemned because of what we are but rather because of what we do. I sin, and therefore I am separated from God. It is precisely on these grounds that I see no problem with infant salvation. Though they have a fallen, corrupted nature, which they inherited from their parents, they have not yet sinned. Therefore, they are innocent, and if they die, they are raised in that same innocence. That is also why the believer in Christ dies and is raised innocent, for though we have sinned and are guilty, being identified with Christ, we are raised in His innocence.

All that is to say that I flatly deny Augustine's doctrine of original sin...

I have no idea what Heiser's position is. I don't really care as what I have read from him has been, in my view, very, very, very wrong, and, frankly, no one ought to given him the benefit of reading his work.[/genetic fallacy]

How refreshing to hear this! Well said!

The next Q I have is what nature did our Savior take on? Hebrews 2:14-17?

Philip wrote:I've always wondered about our sin nature and what that term truly means. Are we BORN sinful because of our genetic links to Adam and HIS sin? Are we also guilty of ADAM's sin, or of merely our own? Or are we merely born with the INABILITY to NOT sin - meaning everyone WILL inevitably sin soon after being born? And what of Jesus, also fully man - if you say we were BORN in sin due to our genetic linkage to Adam (and thus also guilty due to HIS sin), what does that say about Jesus, also FULLY man (yes, and FULLY God) and also a Son of Adam? The following links offers some extremely fascinating insights and challenges surrounding this issue:

http://michaelsheiser.com/TheNakedBible ... follow-up/

http://michaelsheiser.com/TheNakedBible ... -theology/

These are good questions you ask.
Father does not punish us for what others do. The sin of Adam was something he did that was physical…something that could be passed on to their children. If two parents had HIV…they would pass that on. Adam and Eve did something that could be passed on that makes us age, and die. It is also something that has made our nature do bad things. (sin.)
The key to this is in genesis…in the Garden. Three creatures were there. Adam, the women, and Satan. Take note: All the trees in the Bible are symbolic. Who made the two trees in the Garden real trees? Why would these not also be symbolic? Jesus said, “I am the tree of life.” If that is true, who is the other tree? Does Father ever make anything bad? The scriptures show he does not…why do people think Father would make a tree of good, and evil…a tree that that would cause death? There is only one in all the scriptures who is the father of evil…Satan. Would it not be reasonable to believe this evil tree is symbolic of Satan?
We know Satan did something?
The clue is in Genesis 3:15. God is talking to Satan about what he did with his seed. The word seed in this scripture is English for the Greek word that was used, ZERA. Zera means offspring. It also means SPERMA…where we get the word sperm.
Go to genesis 5...the First child of Adam shown is Seth. The name Seth means replacement (for Able who Cain murdered.) Why is Cain not listed as Adams child?

Domenic wrote:

Philip wrote:I've always wondered about our sin nature and what that term truly means. Are we BORN sinful because of our genetic links to Adam and HIS sin? Are we also guilty of ADAM's sin, or of merely our own? Or are we merely born with the INABILITY to NOT sin - meaning everyone WILL inevitably sin soon after being born? And what of Jesus, also fully man - if you say we were BORN in sin due to our genetic linkage to Adam (and thus also guilty due to HIS sin), what does that say about Jesus, also FULLY man (yes, and FULLY God) and also a Son of Adam? The following links offers some extremely fascinating insights and challenges surrounding this issue:

http://michaelsheiser.com/TheNakedBible ... follow-up/

http://michaelsheiser.com/TheNakedBible ... -theology/

These are good questions you ask.
Father does not punish us for what others do. The sin of Adam was something he did that was physical…something that could be passed on to their children. If two parents had HIV…they would pass that on. Adam and Eve did something that could be passed on that makes us age, and die. It is also something that has made our nature do bad things. (sin.)
The key to this is in genesis…in the Garden. Three creatures were there. Adam, the women, and Satan. Take note: All the trees in the Bible are symbolic. Who made the two trees in the Garden real trees? Why would these not also be symbolic? Jesus said, “I am the tree of life.” If that is true, who is the other tree? Does Father ever make anything bad? The scriptures show he does not…why do people think Father would make a tree of good, and evil…a tree that that would cause death? There is only one in all the scriptures who is the father of evil…Satan. Would it not be reasonable to believe this evil tree is symbolic of Satan?
We know Satan did something?
The clue is in Genesis 3:15. God is talking to Satan about what he did with his seed. The word seed in this scripture is English for the Greek word that was used, ZERA. Zera means offspring. It also means SPERMA…where we get the word sperm.
Go to genesis 5...the First child of Adam shown is Seth. The name Seth means replacement (for Able who Cain murdered.) Why is Cain not listed as Adams child?

RickD wrote:

Domenic wrote:

Philip wrote:I've always wondered about our sin nature and what that term truly means. Are we BORN sinful because of our genetic links to Adam and HIS sin? Are we also guilty of ADAM's sin, or of merely our own? Or are we merely born with the INABILITY to NOT sin - meaning everyone WILL inevitably sin soon after being born? And what of Jesus, also fully man - if you say we were BORN in sin due to our genetic linkage to Adam (and thus also guilty due to HIS sin), what does that say about Jesus, also FULLY man (yes, and FULLY God) and also a Son of Adam? The following links offers some extremely fascinating insights and challenges surrounding this issue:

http://michaelsheiser.com/TheNakedBible ... follow-up/

http://michaelsheiser.com/TheNakedBible ... -theology/

These are good questions you ask.
Father does not punish us for what others do. The sin of Adam was something he did that was physical…something that could be passed on to their children. If two parents had HIV…they would pass that on. Adam and Eve did something that could be passed on that makes us age, and die. It is also something that has made our nature do bad things. (sin.)
The key to this is in genesis…in the Garden. Three creatures were there. Adam, the women, and Satan. Take note: All the trees in the Bible are symbolic. Who made the two trees in the Garden real trees? Why would these not also be symbolic? Jesus said, “I am the tree of life.” If that is true, who is the other tree? Does Father ever make anything bad? The scriptures show he does not…why do people think Father would make a tree of good, and evil…a tree that that would cause death? There is only one in all the scriptures who is the father of evil…Satan. Would it not be reasonable to believe this evil tree is symbolic of Satan?
We know Satan did something?
The clue is in Genesis 3:15. God is talking to Satan about what he did with his seed. The word seed in this scripture is English for the Greek word that was used, ZERA. Zera means offspring. It also means SPERMA…where we get the word sperm.
Go to genesis 5...the First child of Adam shown is Seth. The name Seth means replacement (for Able who Cain murdered.) Why is Cain not listed as Adams child?

I see you have not been told what is going on?

The text you used was about enmity between the seeds, and bruising and death occurring between the two,

if you are postulating reproduction, then this seed could not have survived and would not have been born. And besides women don't have seeds, this was talking about the birth of Christ and Him crushing the serpent's head.

Yes Genesis 3:15 is talking about Jesus, who is the HE in the scripture. The hate between the women's seed, and Satan is Eve.
Yes women do not have seed...but the seed was not from Adam, it was from Satan. After the Birth of Cain, Adam named the women Eve. It means the giver of all life. Why was Adam not the giver of all life? Because he was not the father of Cain.

So what you're saying Dom is that there is "two" races of humans?

One stemming from Adam, and the other one straight out of the omen files?

Domenic wrote:Yes Genesis 3:15 is talking about Jesus, who is the HE in the scripture. The hate between the women's seed, and Satan is Eve.
Yes women do not have seed...but the seed was not from Adam, it was from Satan. After the Birth of Cain, Adam named the women Eve. It means the giver of all life. Why was Adam not the giver of all life? Because he was not the father of Cain.

Posting this just to counter the idea:

Genesis 4:1 and http://michaelsheiser.com/PaleoBabble/2 ... restrials/

1over137 wrote:

Domenic wrote:Yes Genesis 3:15 is talking about Jesus, who is the HE in the scripture. The hate between the women's seed, and Satan is Eve.
Yes women do not have seed...but the seed was not from Adam, it was from Satan. After the Birth of Cain, Adam named the women Eve. It means the giver of all life. Why was Adam not the giver of all life? Because he was not the father of Cain.

Posting this just to counter the idea:

Genesis 4:1 and http://michaelsheiser.com/PaleoBabble/2 ... restrials/

Posted this just to counter the counter;
Satan's Children - Stargods
www.stargods.org/SatansChildren.htm Cached
The Bible also tell us that these tribes were Nephilim tribes. In Egypt the historical evidence shows that they interbred and worshiped the Nephilim as gods.