Are we born with SIN?

[NickHassan]

Quote (Nick Hassan @ May 04 2006,07:18)

Hi  Malcolm, I agree that scripture sometimes seem to use spirit for soul, perhaps influenced by local cultural usage, but it may be me that needs more understanding. There is surely meant to be a difference would you agree? Heb 4.12 “For the word of God is alive and active and sharper than any two edged sword, and piecing as far as the division of soul and spirit…”

Hi malcolm,
My belief is that we are vessel soul, clothed in a tent of visible flesh, and spirit only is the flame of life.

Jesus was man. He was these things too. Scripture speaks of his body, his soul [Acts 2.27]and his spirit [Matt 27.50]. but his soul was his pre nascent being, a vessel too. He was made in the image of God.

We are made like Divine beings and we know the likeness is not in flesh as God is not of earth.

We know that God has qualities of heart and mind, and such are qualities we associate with soul.

[NickHassan]

Quote (malcolm ferris @ May 04 2006,05:46)

Quote (Nick Hassan @ May 04 2006,05:41) Quote (malcolm ferris @ May 04 2006,05:09) Quote Do you really think our minds also have a spirit or could this not have simpler meaning such as the essential motivation of our minds? No no – you are misunderstanding me there ROMANS 7:25 I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin. The spirit of the flesh, or carnal nature is the spirit that is dead and seeks to spread throughout our entire being. EPHESIANS 4:22-24 That ye put off concerning the former conversation the old man, which is corrupt according to the deceitful lusts; And be renewed in the spirit of your mind; And that ye put on the new man, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness. This spirit of our mind spoken of here then would be that by which we serve the law of God. Hi Malcolm, Was the spirit of Christ dead before he died? You tell me Nick According to you spirits don't have bodies. The scripture says the body without the spirit is dead. So according to your logic a disembodied spirit would be alive I guess.

Hi Malcolm,
Jesus walked on the water and the disciples thought they were seeing a ghost.
He said of Himself after his resurrection that

“spirits do not have flesh and bones as I have”

He also spoke of demonic spirits without bodies who went to dry places seeking rest before again entering a man.[Mt 12.43f] These have life in themselves too.

You suggest that the spirit of man[flesh] is evil, but it comes from the breath of God and gives us life and returns to God when we die[eccl].
Paul said in Romans 8.16 that
“the Spirit bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God”

How can it be evil?

[malcolm ferris]

Hi Nick

What is the soul of man? That is a good question isn't it?
Is the soul a body in its own right? A vessel? Can the soul be said to exist therefore apart from the body?
It would seem that the soul can exist without the body or spirit.
For this was what Jesus descended to Sheol to preach to.
Yet without a body the soul was in a state of imprisonment.
Upon liberation that soul was able to become embodied once again.
We learn from the writings of Paul that we have a body for the soul upon death, thanks to the work of grace that God accomplished in His son Jesus Christ.

I believe the soul is like a seed. It contains the life in a pattern, and in a potential. This seed when planted in certain conditions will produce a body that expresses that life.
The soul I believe is the nature of the spirit that it is OF.
As such that nature is only compatible with a certain type of life.
We see this in the natural creation:
dog life is compatible with dog life,
cat life with cat life and so forth.
So you cannot put dog life into a cat nature and produce life.
Genesis 1:11 expresses this law of the seed – that declares that it must contain the life that fits it.

Hybridization breaks that law, as we see in the example of a Mule. Half horse and half donkey.
It is possible to produce a Mule but the Mule has no continuing seed.
It cannot produce future generations of Mule. It has no life in itself even though it is alive.
A lot like many church organizations that have mixed the life of the Word with the teachings of man.

Quote

You suggest that the spirit of man[flesh] is evil, but it comes from the breath of God and gives us life and returns to God when we die[eccl]. Paul said in Romans 8.16 that “the Spirit bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God” How can it be evil?

Genesis tells us God breathed on Adam (the breath of life) and he became a living soul. He did not become a soul, but the soul became animated, by the spirit of life. Yes Adam received life from God – the Holy Spirit. But after Adam and Eve, the manner in which human beings came into the world was altered.
I find no statement that says – 'And God breathed into Eve….' or 'and God breathed into Abel…'
True the spirit comes from God who gave it

ROMANS 11:8
(According as it is written, God hath given them the spirit of slumber, eyes that they should not see, and ears that they should not hear;) unto this day.

II THESSALONIANS 2:10-11
And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.
And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:

What did they fail to receive that they might be saved? The Holy Spirit!
What did they get instead? A spirit of delusion.

The spirit of man is not flesh, the flesh is of the earth and therefore cursed. I believe the spirit we are born with is allowed of God but not OF God.
In other words not the Holy Spirit. For if we are born initially of the Holy Spirit then you have a whole lot of issues to contend with in the bible.
For one there is the scripture in 1 John that says that if we are born of God we do not sin for His (God's) seed remains in us and we cannot sin.

That spirit that we receive upon birth has a propensity towards the senses and the motivations of our body of flesh, through the inputs and channels of our mind. Such that our reasoning, imagination, memory, affections and conscience are heavily influenced by the senses of see, hear, feel, taste and smell.

When we receive the spirit of God by the rebirth, our soul is enlivened to the pattern of life it was originally intended to reflect. We begin to produce that life of a true son of God. We are restored back to the original pattern and purpose.
Yet the body is still under the curse, and we still have the outer natural man with its nature to contend with.

That is the way I see it.

[NickHassan]

Hi Malcolm,
Ps 4913f
“This is the way of those who are foolish and those after them that approve their words. As sheep they are appointed for sheol;death shall be their shepherd and the upright shall rule over them in the morning, and their from shall be for sheol to consume so that they have no habitation. But God will redde my soul from the power of sheol, for He will receive me'
Interesting.
“

[Cubes]

Quote (Ramblinrose @ April 11 2006,15:39)

Quote Matt 1:18  Now the birth of Jesus Christ was as follows: After His mother Mary was betrothed to Joseph, before they came together (4905), she was found with child of the Holy Spirit. before they came together, is not a reference to sexual relations but is in regard to their living together. 4905 sunercomai sunerchomai soon-er’-khom-ahee from 4862 and 2064; TDNT-2:684,257; v AV-come together 18, go with 4, come with 2, resort 2, come 2, come with + 2258 1, company with 1, accompany 1, assemble with 1; 32 1) to come together 1a) to assemble 1b) of conjugal cohabitation 2) to go (depart) or come with one, to accompany one Quote Matt 1:24  Then Joseph, being aroused from sleep, did as the angel of the Lord commanded him and took to him his wife, 25  and did not know her ** till she had brought forth her  firstborn Son. And he called His name JESUS. Quote ** quote from the Dead Sea Scrolls a new translation.  translated and with commentary.  michael wise, martin abegg, jr., & edward cook . pg 65. (harpersanfrancisco copyright 1996) “who lies with a pregnant woman when her monthly period ceases or lies with a man as one lies with a woman: these are the ones who violate the way”  a few of these words are guesses but the meaning is clear. It would appear that one did not have sexual relations with ones wife when they were with child.  It is plausible that Joseph took a vow of abstinence until the child was born.

Hi RR,

Hope you are well.  

I read your post and must say that it does seem possible that Mary could be a kin of Elisabeth and so from the Aaronic lineage, that is if we take it at face value that they are kin and therefore relatives.  It clearly states somewhere that Elisabeth is of the daughters of Aaron.  She was married to a Levite, so that leaves out the possibility that she was married to a man of Judah (as Mary), and that Mary is more of an in-law relation to her.  Also, I seem to recall that Aaron himself was married to a daughter of Judah so here we begin to see the “Royal Priesthood” emerging, and King David I recall was a King who also dressed (danced) in priestly garment.  Our Lord Jesus of course embodies both offices as King and Highpriest after the order of Melchizedek as we know.  So that's on the back burner as I mull over your post and consider the possibility of your being right.  

But as t8 said in another thread, there are [appear] too many holes in the vessel and I'd like to examine one or two right now, if I may.

The point of your quote above is not clear to me so please clarify:  
1.  are you saying that before they lived to gether or got married the angel visited Mary?  

2.  they then got married and went on to have a normal marital relationship leading to conception?

3.  after which Joseph no longer “knew” his wife until after the child's birth?

If so then it seems to me that all these patches have had to be applied just to get away from the fact that God caused his handmaiden to be supernaturally impregnated.  

I have said before that personally it doesn't matter to me when or where Jesus was begotten, in heaven or on earth at his advent, all I know is that he is the son of God and Messiah sent to be the savior of the world.  

But now, when his sonship comes into question, I begin to pay a little more attention because that is what embodies everything and upon which everything hangs!  

So, the news is that he was conceived by Joseph rather than by the holy spirit of God?

[NickHassan]

Hi cubes,
Lovely work. Joseph was a not a rogue who had no decency.
Scripture upholds him against such a view.
Jesus was conceived in Mary.
God was physical Father to Jesus by His Spirit, and Mary was his physical mother.

Believe it or not some who cannot accept these truths have suggested all the verses about the virgin conception were added to the bible. To justify their stance then they cast doubt on the work of the Holy Spirit through men. Is that not blasphemy?

[Cubes]

Hi Nick,

It is a fearful thing indeed if God says he conceived a child by his spirit and men say he didn't.

The natural rendering of those two passages (Matt 1 and Luke 1) conveys the message that Mary was conceived by the holy spirit and that Joseph had nothing to do with it. Moreover Mary's own testimony collaborates that of Joseph's and together they collaborate Angel Gabriel's.

[Ramblinrose]

Hi Cubes,

I am glad to see that the subject has at least created a small amount of interest for you and has not just been discarded.

I would first like to ask if you have read all of the following article which covers much of what you are asking.  

Virgin Birth – Fact or Fiction, True or False

I agree that this article will not cover all aspects of peoples questions but it gives a good base to start the discussion.

If you have not read the article could I please ask for you to do this first, but if you have just let me know.

Thank you

[Ramblinrose]

Cubes

Maybe we should move this discussion to the 'Conception – Was Jesus Conceived?' topic.  Your call.  

[Cubes]

Hi RR,

Thanks for responding. I started to read the article weeks ago and was bogged down my its length so chickened out, but I shall endeavor to read it and then we can take up the topic in the Conception thread.

[Proclaimer]

To Ramblinrose.

I think it wise to take each scripture and read it for what it is. That way the picture starts to build from a foundation based in scripture. If we consider ourselves as students learning truth, then surely this is a good way to learn.

But it appears that you want to paint the picture first by pointing people to large writings that paint a picture, then by association and context, the verses appear to say what you want them to say by reason of the understanding the writing has planted into the reader. This is how cults, denominations, and teachings of men & demon work. This method of course can be used to convey truth too, but it is open to being abused by false teachers.

Once the picture is painted, each scripture is then more able to be seen in the light of the picture, even if the picture is false. This can be done with any doctrine you want people to believe. However I do realise that a person with firm faith can read such writings and not be swayed by every wind of doctrine and perhaps even glean useful things too.

But I think that if you have something to say, then say it from your own mouth and it will be tested. But pasting links to me is like going to a city and instead of preaching a message, you try to point people to a book that somebody else wrote.

If you paste links because you do not fully understand what you teach (but the writing says it better), then you should be careful by reason of your lack of understanding. Lest you become responsible for pointing people away from the path without realising it.

But if you do it because you do not have the time to post your own understanding in full and therefore point people to where you understanding is articulated, then fair enough I suppose.

Can I suggest that a more effective approach in getting your message across would be to take each scripture one at a time. Little steps are easy and not burdensome and eventually end up as one giant step that can accomplish a lot. This way the scripture paints the picture. I think no student of scripture should be afraid of this approach.

If you are interested in looking at each scripture closely that paints the picture you are conveying, and with a teachable heart, we could start a new discussion or put it into an already existing and appropriate discussion for all to participate.

What do you say?

[Ramblinrose]

t8

I tend to be more wary of those that rip versus from their context and run with them.  I feel the big picture stops this happening.  The verse must reflect the understanding of all that is being written.  This must then be in alignment with the OT and prophecy.

I don't agree with not using links from articles on the internet.  Many people have much insight to offer and much can be learned.  Am I to understand that I should not link this site to anything I would write to others as you have many articles that could be leading others astray?  

What of links that you have read where you find much of the article very enlightening but some points you do not agree with, should the whole article be disgarded?   Lies can be mixed with truth, that is the way of the evil one.

The internet is simply an easily accessible platform for people to offer material.  You could go to the library or buy books but that does not mean that the content of these books is truth.

This is simply a discussion board to offer different points of view and material in regard to different topics.  Nobody has to believe anthing they are told here.  It is up to each individual to study out each matter themselves and I would hope that that is what they are doing.

God Bless

[Proclaimer]

True that.

But if we are serious about being a follower of our messiah, we would surely test ALL things.

By giving someone a picture in which to frame all scripture doesn't necessarily test the picture itself. As we are well aware many cults and denominations use the same scriptures to support their differing views.

One way to test our own doctrine is to start with each scripture that supports your view and take an honest look at all of it's possible meanings. Then take the next one and so on.

When we have looked at all or the main scriptures that are used, we can then see better as to what pictures are possible and it will become clear as to whether the picture that you frame the scriptures into is the only explanation, a possible explanation along with others, or no explanation at all.

From here we can use other scriptures and cultural understandings to further define the study to narrow down the choices.

Otherwise how can you or I say that we test all things? How can you or I know that our understanding is the correct one, if we do not test them.

If you are interested I can start up a discussion where each post can only quote 1 supporting scripture, and then we will look at all the possible meanings of each scripture and move onto the next one. After we have a collection of scriptures and we have exhausted their possible meanings, we can then apply context using traditions and the culture of the day, while using other scriptures to support the wider context.

Are you interested?

[Ramblinrose]

t8

I don't wish to take you up on your offer, at this time anyway.

I am currently in a discussion with cubes using an article for the basis of our discussion. It seems to be working quite well for both of us at this stage and I need to focus my attention there.

Thank you.

[Proclaimer]

Ok no problem.

I remind you to always check your doctrine and if a scripture doesn't match your picture/context, then let it challenge your doctrine, rather than adding a few words to make it fit.

Being challenged to what we believe can save us from deception.

Simple stuff I know, but how many actually do it?

[MrBob]

Romans 5:12
Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned.

Genesis 8:21 (KJV)
. . . for the imagination of man' heart is evil from his youth. . .

There is another verse that mentions would not punish those in the womb (something like that). I tried looking for it, but I can't find it.

Anyway, it appears from scripture that people are not condemned from birth, but usually at an early age. As pointed out in Rom. 5:12, the people had to sin themselves. If condemnation was inherited through Adam, then Jesus was a null sacrifice.

[NickHassan]

Hi Mr Bob,
Does it not also say sin is conceived in us from following our evil desires?

[MrBob]

Yes, but it's the following of the desires that gets us in trouble. The key is to have God give you the strength to resist.

One managed to champion that.

[Cubes]

Quote (MrBob @ July 17 2006,07:23)

Romans 5:12 Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned. Genesis 8:21 (KJV) . . . for the imagination of man' heart is evil from his youth. . . There is another verse that mentions would not punish those in the womb (something like that). I tried looking for it, but I can't find it. Anyway, it appears from scripture that people are not condemned from birth, but usually at an early age. As pointed out in Rom. 5:12, the people had to sin themselves. If condemnation was inherited through Adam, then Jesus was a null sacrifice.

Hi MrBob:

You are saying the same thing I am saying but I differentiate between the first and second death.

There are two judgments and sentences:  The first and second death

The first death which relates to the first Adam is temporal for the redeemed.  Almost all humans are affected by it so I don't believe it was the primary purpose for which Christ came.

The second death and condemnation has eternal consequences and is the primary purpose for which Christ was sent to save the world.

I agree that noone is condemned to the second death for just being born but would actually have to earn it as you point out.

[NickHassan]

Hi cubes,
Godlessness is sin. All who are not in Christ are godless.

[Author]

Posts