passing it on...
-
Prodigal Son
- Senior Member
- Posts: 709
- Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2004 5:49 pm
- Christian: No
passing it on...
does sin really get passed on from person to person. do we taint all our future generations by who we've been?
New Creation
2 Corinthians 5:7
2 Corinthians 5:7
-
bizzt
- Prestigious Senior Member
- Posts: 1654
- Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 12:11 pm
- Christian: No
- Location: Calgary
Re: passing it on...
It is Possible. There are many Generational Curses for example my Wife has a Generational Curse of Anger. You need to break the Curse before it goes onto the next Generation of your Family. If I for example spend my time with people that constantly Sin or Swear etc... Eventually you will do the same thing!Prodigal Son wrote:does sin really get passed on from person to person. do we taint all our future generations by who we've been?
In Christ
-
Felgar
- Esteemed Senior Member
- Posts: 1143
- Joined: Tue Nov 09, 2004 9:24 am
- Christian: No
- Location: Calgary, Canada
The concept of generational curses in the Bible is a warning against wickedness in general. God is saying that when a parent lives a life of sin, it will have a severe negative impact on his/her children. We see this so often - children who suffer because of the aweful choices of their parents.
There's a big BUT though; God will bless anyone who turns to Him, regardless of their family. God affirms this by speaking directly in Ezekiel 18. In that passage, God makes note of a Jewish saying that 'The fathers eat sour grapes, and the children's teeth are set on edge' which basically meant that the children will pay for their father's sin. This is contrary to God's merciful nature and He sets the record straight, specifically stating "you will no longer quote this proverb in Isreal." He goes on to explain that "The righteousness of the righteous man will be credited to him, and the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against him."
So yes, our actions do affect ourselves and even our children. But no, there's no sin that will condemn the child of a wicked parent.
There's a big BUT though; God will bless anyone who turns to Him, regardless of their family. God affirms this by speaking directly in Ezekiel 18. In that passage, God makes note of a Jewish saying that 'The fathers eat sour grapes, and the children's teeth are set on edge' which basically meant that the children will pay for their father's sin. This is contrary to God's merciful nature and He sets the record straight, specifically stating "you will no longer quote this proverb in Isreal." He goes on to explain that "The righteousness of the righteous man will be credited to him, and the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against him."
So yes, our actions do affect ourselves and even our children. But no, there's no sin that will condemn the child of a wicked parent.
-
bizzt
- Prestigious Senior Member
- Posts: 1654
- Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 12:11 pm
- Christian: No
- Location: Calgary
What about the line Of Joseph (Jesus's Adopted Dad)??Forge wrote:But that's an example of learned behavior, not a genorational curse.
I'm thinking he means more "Your father sinned, now your whole line shalt be punished" type of thing.
Now, I don't think that happens. It wouldn't be fair, would it?
-
Prodigal Son
- Senior Member
- Posts: 709
- Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2004 5:49 pm
- Christian: No
-
kateliz
- Advanced Senior Member
- Posts: 811
- Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 2:07 am
- Christian: Yes
- Sex: Female
- Creation Position: Young-Earth Creationist
- Location: Minnetonka, Minnesota, US
No, no, no! In the OT generational sins were declared. Later in the OT it was prophesized that one day it would no longer be that way. The prophesy was fulfilled when Jesus came. There are no more generational sins in that sense, only the behavioral and genetic!
And bizzt, was in the world are you talking about with Joseph???
And bizzt, was in the world are you talking about with Joseph???
An easy Google Search will help you with this one Kate!-
kateliz
- Advanced Senior Member
- Posts: 811
- Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 2:07 am
- Christian: Yes
- Sex: Female
- Creation Position: Young-Earth Creationist
- Location: Minnetonka, Minnesota, US
You lie! Searches are never easy, and Google didn't seem to have what I was looking for, (and I am not going to try different searches or go through a couple pages for you!) Just tell me about it yourself, huh? 
Unless... do you mean Adam's generational sin of... sin? Don't think so.
Get off your lazy butt, (here I'm being hypocritical!
) and just tell me yourself! 
Unless... do you mean Adam's generational sin of... sin? Don't think so.
Get off your lazy butt, (here I'm being hypocritical!
) and just tell me yourself! -
LittleShepherd
- Established Member
- Posts: 198
- Joined: Fri Apr 08, 2005 10:47 pm
- Christian: No
- Location: Georgia, USA
The curse that Joseph fell under was as follows -- There will never be a fulfillment of the Davidic Covenant that a son would be king forever from the line of David in the line of Coniah.
There are two takes on the genealogies in Luke and Matthew. The first, and most common, is that the genealogy in Matthew was through Joseph, via Coniah, and the one in Luke was through Mary, via Nathan. A little loophole would have made this explanation work -- namely that Mary had no brothers and was therefore the heir even though she was female. We know Mary had no brothers because Jesus proclaimed John her son, and she went to live with him after Jesus' crucifixion. The mother only lived with a son if she had no father or brothers to live with. This also means that Joseph was dead before Jesus was crucified -- that would explain why he was never mentioned again after the short accounts of Jesus' childhood.
The other, less common explanation is that both lines were biologically related to Joseph. One was his father, of course, and the other could have been another male relative, such as an uncle -- if the uncle had no kids, a nephew could be appointed heir. This view is less popular, and is based on a different reading of the Jewish words "ANDRA" and "ANHR," both of which can mean husband...or not.
The first explanation seems more airtight, providing Jesus a biological link through his mother Mary, and a royal link through Joseph.
The second explanation doesn't seem so airtight, but doesn't provide any difficulties. As Joseph's adoptive son, Jesus could then claim the best of both worlds due to Joseph holding multiple inheritences. He still wouldn't have had biological ties to Coniah, and that's what's important.
There are two takes on the genealogies in Luke and Matthew. The first, and most common, is that the genealogy in Matthew was through Joseph, via Coniah, and the one in Luke was through Mary, via Nathan. A little loophole would have made this explanation work -- namely that Mary had no brothers and was therefore the heir even though she was female. We know Mary had no brothers because Jesus proclaimed John her son, and she went to live with him after Jesus' crucifixion. The mother only lived with a son if she had no father or brothers to live with. This also means that Joseph was dead before Jesus was crucified -- that would explain why he was never mentioned again after the short accounts of Jesus' childhood.
The other, less common explanation is that both lines were biologically related to Joseph. One was his father, of course, and the other could have been another male relative, such as an uncle -- if the uncle had no kids, a nephew could be appointed heir. This view is less popular, and is based on a different reading of the Jewish words "ANDRA" and "ANHR," both of which can mean husband...or not.
The first explanation seems more airtight, providing Jesus a biological link through his mother Mary, and a royal link through Joseph.
The second explanation doesn't seem so airtight, but doesn't provide any difficulties. As Joseph's adoptive son, Jesus could then claim the best of both worlds due to Joseph holding multiple inheritences. He still wouldn't have had biological ties to Coniah, and that's what's important.
-
kateliz
- Advanced Senior Member
- Posts: 811
- Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 2:07 am
- Christian: Yes
- Sex: Female
- Creation Position: Young-Earth Creationist
- Location: Minnetonka, Minnesota, US
Thank you very much, o knowledgable one! You have an answer to everything, don't you? I knew of all that you stated, (except for this idea of a curse,) but couldn't give names and specifics like you did! Do you just pull all of this from your head, or do you do a little research?
But the line could be continued in Him legally and so the Davidic Covenant would be fulfilled, right? I do not believe there would be a single prophecy in the Bible that wouldn't get fulfilled, and never something so important!!! Doesn't it say several times in the NT that Jesus fulfilled this? Why then is everyone saying there's a curse on David's line that'd go through Joseph because it's unfulfilled? And if, as so many people including myself believe, Mary and Joseph had such a similar ancestory, couldn't the line continue down through her to Jesus? Or would it have to be through men only?
But the line could be continued in Him legally and so the Davidic Covenant would be fulfilled, right? I do not believe there would be a single prophecy in the Bible that wouldn't get fulfilled, and never something so important!!! Doesn't it say several times in the NT that Jesus fulfilled this? Why then is everyone saying there's a curse on David's line that'd go through Joseph because it's unfulfilled? And if, as so many people including myself believe, Mary and Joseph had such a similar ancestory, couldn't the line continue down through her to Jesus? Or would it have to be through men only?