Why Is There A Need for A Hell Fire?

[JayRob]

Obedience was all there was to it...until man failed to obey.

According to the bible, man failed because he was tempted by a more advanced spiritual power.

Sin, then, complicated a whole lot of things (Gen 3).

If there would've been no temptation brought about by the allowance of the serpent in the garden, there possibly would have been no sin to begin with. I keep saying this, but it seems to keep going over your head.

The apostles (and the rest of us) still had to deal with sin in their lives AFTER receiving the Holy Ghost.

Is it because this serpent is still allowed to roam free and tempt humans like he tempted Adam? Think about it.

I don't understand what you are trying to say about abandonment or change in attitude having anything to do with what we are discussing here about the ability to overcome sin and the devil.

It's because you can't fathom the fact that your biblical god made an unjust move by allowing a more powerful and spiritually advanced entity access to two weaker vessels in Adam and Eve. He didn't even allow them the power of the holy spirit to assist them. You listed all the advantages the holy spirit grants one, but you failed to get your point across as to why these same powers weren't granted to Adam and Eve?

You asked me what the need is for the Holy Spirit and I spelled out several needs that we have according to the scripture - all of which were provided to Adam & Eve BEFORE they sinned...

Show verses proving that Adam and Eve were granted the holy spirit.

 

[JayRob]

I have answered these multiple times. You don't like the answers. The Scriptures don't change for any of us.

And your answers were seriously flawed. You claimed that Adam would've sinned regardless, but you don't know this. The fact of the matter is that Adam was intentionally allowed to be tempted by a MORE POWERFUL being, yet punished because he failed. That's not justice, that's an injustice.

And ... if there were no serpent entering the garden, how do you know that Adam would NOT have sinned? We don't, but God did. He also made provision for it.
Rev 13:8 And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.

So you're saying that folks were predestined to fail? That humans are robots whose future is already written in stone? That makes even less sense.
If the biblical god knew that Adam would sin, why tempt him in the first place? Why not, out of love, set up barriers to STOP the serpent from entering the garden in the first place as a form of PROTECTING Adam and Eve? None of this happened.

 

[JayRob]

If you want to post to me, then send me private messages. If you post in a public forum, it is a post to all subscribers.

I'm posting directly to you, but others are welcomed to read and chime in. You already know this. Now back to the subject at hand.

Since you did not post the scriptures that follow, I will. Notice the tense of things, please.

Ezek 28:12-19
12 "Son of man, weep for the king of Tyre. Give him this message from the Sovereign LORD: You were the perfection of wisdom and beauty. 13 You were in Eden, the garden of God. Your clothing was adorned with every precious stone — red carnelian, chrysolite, white moonstone, beryl, onyx, jasper, sapphire, turquoise, and emerald — all beautifully crafted for you and set in the finest gold. They were given to you on the day you were created. 14 I ordained and anointed you as the mighty angelic guardian. You had access to the holy mountain of God and walked among the stones of fire.

15 "You were blameless in all you did from the day you were created until the day evil was found in you. 16 Your great wealth filled you with violence, and you sinned. So I banished you from the mountain of God. I expelled you, O mighty guardian, from your place among the stones of fire. 17 Your heart was filled with pride because of all your beauty. You corrupted your wisdom for the sake of your splendor. So I threw you to the earth and exposed you to the curious gaze of kings. 18 You defiled your sanctuaries with your many sins and your dishonest trade. So I brought fire from within you, and it consumed you. I let it burn you to ashes on the ground in the sight of all who were watching. 19 All who knew you are appalled at your fate. You have come to a terrible end, and you are no more."​

If I read you right, you will want to blame God for making him so beautiful that it drove him to rebel.

My point was that Lucifer didn't have a more powerful entity tempting him to sin, but Adam did. Why allow Adam to be tempted by such a powerful being and expect him to overcome this being all by himself? THAT was my point.

You are right about one thing, the fight was rigged for Adam to win it and he took a dive.

Where did I say that the fight was rigged for Adam to win? Where are you getting this from because I said just the opposite. Adam never took a dive, because it was rigged for him to FAIL from the beginning. The above descriptions in Ezekiel 28 prove this. Adam had no chance to defeat this powerful being.

It seems that your mind is so closed and seared that you can't bring yourself or you refuse to bring your mind to even think that Adam was set up to fail. It's been shown and proven using the bible that he was clearly set up to fail.

Jesus came and rigged the rematch. The only question remaining for each of us is whether we will take a dive like Adam or raise our hands in victory with Christ.

What did this Jesus have that Adam DIDN'T have in the second rematch? He had THE HOLY SPIRIT as an aid to help him. You can try and deny this, but the scriptures are there and I've pointed them out to you time and again. It's up to you to fix your mind to objectively study them and come to the right conclusion that Adam WAS set up to fail.

It would be fair and honest of you to cease falsely blaming him and put the blame where it ultimately belongs.....on the biblical god for allowing this being to roam free to torment innocent humans.

 

[dacontinent]

I'm posting directly to you, but others are welcomed to read and chime in. You already know this. Now back to the subject at hand.

Nope. I didn't know this. I don't post directly to individuals in public forums. It is highly improper.

My point was that Lucifer didn't have a more powerful entity tempting him to sin, but Adam did. Why allow Adam to be tempted by such a powerful being and expect him to overcome this being all by himself? THAT was my point.

My point is that Adam was more powerful than Satan and I explained why. You don't agree and that is fine since you attest to being a non-believer.

Where did I say that the fight was rigged for Adam to win? Where are you getting this from because I said just the opposite. Adam never took a dive, because it was rigged for him to FAIL from the beginning. The above descriptions in Ezekiel 28 prove this. Adam had no chance to defeat this powerful being.

Sorry...you are correct. How it should have read was

You are right about one thing, the fight was rigged. It was rigged for Adam to win it and he took a dive.

It seems that your mind is so closed and seared that you can't bring yourself or you refuse to bring your mind to even think that Adam was set up to fail. It's been shown and proven using the bible that he was clearly set up to fail.

Closed and seared by what is in the Scriptures. It reinforces the truth that I and every other believer has been setup to win.

What did this Jesus have that Adam DIDN'T have in the second rematch? He had THE HOLY SPIRIT as an aid to help him. You can try and deny this, but the scriptures are there and I've pointed them out to you time and again. It's up to you to fix your mind to objectively study them and come to the right conclusion that Adam WAS set up to fail.

The Scripture says that before anything was formed here, the Holy Spirit was already here, preparing for the sinless Adam's arrival. You can try and deny this, but the Scriptures are there and I've pointed them out to you time and again. It's up to you to fix your mind to objectively study them and come to the light that Adam WAS set up to WIN!

It would be fair and honest of you to cease falsely blaming him and put the blame where it ultimately belongs.....on the biblical god for allowing this being to roam free to torment innocent humans.

It would be truthful for you to agree that humans have the choice to obey or disobey and enjoy the consequences of their own decisions.

 

[dacontinent]

According to the bible, man failed because he was tempted by a more advanced spiritual power.

According to the bible, he was given the fruit to eat by Eve and he ate it.

If there would've been no temptation brought about by the allowance of the serpent in the garden, there possibly would have been no sin to begin with. I keep saying this, but it seems to keep going over your head.

Somehow you feel this possible extrapolation makes you correct. Is that right?

Is it because this serpent is still allowed to roam free and tempt humans like he tempted Adam? Think about it.

It is because Satan is still free, going about like a roaring lion, seeking whom he may devour.

It's because you can't fathom the fact that your biblical god made an unjust move by allowing a more powerful and spiritually advanced entity access to two weaker vessels in Adam and Eve. He didn't even allow them the power of the holy spirit to assist them. You listed all the advantages the holy spirit grants one, but you failed to get your point across as to why these same powers weren't granted to Adam and Eve?

Already pointed and explained.

Show verses proving that Adam and Eve were granted the holy spirit.

Once again: Gen 2:21, Gen 3:8

 

[dacontinent]

And your answers were seriously flawed. You claimed that Adam would've sinned regardless, but you don't know this. The fact of the matter is that Adam was intentionally allowed to be tempted by a MORE POWERFUL being, yet punished because he failed. That's not justice, that's an injustice.

This thread is still active and easy to search. I don't think that you will find anything from me that says that Adam or Eve would have sinned had their been no serpent. What you will find is that I argued that they had the capacity to sin without any serpent - just like Lucifer sinned without any assistance: just like you identified in Ezekiel 28.

So you're saying that folks were predestined to fail? That humans are robots whose future is already written in stone? That makes even less sense.
If the biblical god knew that Adam would sin, why tempt him in the first place? Why not, out of love, set up barriers to STOP the serpent from entering the garden in the first place as a form of PROTECTING Adam and Eve? None of this happened.

Nope. I am saying that we are predestined to succeed but some will choose to fail.

Why not, out of love, obey and make the winning choices ... and if you should make the wrong choice, why not repent and accept the grace of complete redemption and restoration that is offered to you out of love (Jn 3:16-21)?

 

[dacontinent]

You don't know anything of the sort, you just think you do. The books were intentionally omitted for the primary purpose of hiding the divinity or lack thereof of the Jesus character and for other reasons such as the doctrine of reincarnation. History clearly shows this. The early Christians actually believed in reincarnation and when asked about it, Jesus didn't refute it.

Getting back to this ... let me help you.
First, there was the prophecy...

Mal 4:5-6
5 "Look, I am sending you the prophet Elijah before the great and dreadful day of the LORD arrives. 6 His preaching will turn the hearts of parents to their children, and the hearts of children to their parents. Otherwise I will come and strike the land with a curse."
​

Then the announcement...

Luke 1:11-17

11 Zechariah was in the sanctuary when an angel of the Lord appeared, standing to the right of the incense altar. 12 Zechariah was overwhelmed with fear. 13 But the angel said, "Don't be afraid, Zechariah! For God has heard your prayer, and your wife, Elizabeth, will bear you a son! And you are to name him John. 14 You will have great joy and gladness, and many will rejoice with you at his birth, 15 for he will be great in the eyes of the Lord. He must never touch wine or hard liquor, and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit, even before his birth. 16 And he will persuade many Israelites to turn to the Lord their God. 17 He will be a man with the spirit and power of Elijah, the prophet of old. He will precede the coming of the Lord, preparing the people for his arrival. He will turn the hearts of the fathers to their children, and he will change disobedient minds to accept godly wisdom."
​

Then, there is the fulfillment...

Matt 11:11-15

11 "I assure you, of all who have ever lived, none is greater than John the Baptist. Yet even the most insignificant person in the Kingdom of Heaven is greater than he is! 12 And from the time John the Baptist began preaching and baptizing until now, the Kingdom of Heaven has been forcefully advancing, and violent people attack it. 13 For before John came, all the teachings of the Scriptures looked forward to this present time. 14 And if you are willing to accept what I say, he is Elijah, the one the prophets said would come. 15 Anyone who is willing to hear should listen and understand! ​

Obviously, His disciples still did not understand.

Matt 17:10-13
10 His disciples asked, "Why do the teachers of religious law insist that Elijah must return before the Messiah comes?" 11 Jesus replied, "Elijah is indeed coming first to set everything in order. 12 But I tell you, he has already come, but he wasn't recognized, and he was badly mistreated. And soon the Son of Man will also suffer at their hands." 13 Then the disciples realized he had been speaking of John the Baptist.​

Now, the latter passage occurs right after the Transfiguration, where Moses AND Elijah appear and converse with Jesus in view of Peter, James, and John. On the way back down the mountain, Jesus tell the three not to say what they have seen until after He has been resurrected. In response they ask their question in v.10. The revelation of the prophecy comes to them in v.13!

Since Peter, James, and John walked with Him and didn't understand until AFTER the Transfiguration, it is easy to fathom why you would not understand until now.

 

[JayRob]

My point is that Adam was more powerful than Satan and I explained why. You don't agree and that is fine since you attest to being a non-believer.

It matters not whether I'm a non-believer. The truth is more important. Your stating that Adam was more powerful than satan is totally false and you can't back it up with verses, so you just say it and expect one to take it at face value. Not here.

Sorry...you are correct. How it should have read was

Where are the verses showing Adam was more powerful than the serpent who WAS satan according to the bible?

Closed and seared by what is in the Scriptures. It reinforces the truth that I and every other believer has been setup to win.

In your own mind you've convinced yourself, but in due time, hopefully the untruths you've told yourself about the injustices done to Adam by the biblical god will finally sink in.

The Scripture says that before anything was formed here, the Holy Spirit was already here, preparing for the sinless Adam's arrival. You can try and deny this, but the Scriptures are there and I've pointed them out to you time and again. It's up to you to fix your mind to objectively study them and come to the light that Adam WAS set up to WIN!

You fabricate again. What scriptures have you shown me showing that Adam had the holy spirit? Please, I'm BEGGING you!

When did the holy spirit prepare for Adam's arrival? I know the biblical god did, but haven't read where the holy spirit was preparing for anything LOL!! Just making up stuff as you go along. SHOW the verses. I challenge you.

 

[dacontinent]

...What scriptures have you shown me showing that Adam had the holy spirit? Please, I'm BEGGING you!

When did the holy spirit prepare for Adam's arrival? I know the biblical god did, but haven't read where the holy spirit was preparing for anything LOL!! Just making up stuff as you go along. SHOW the verses. I challenge you.

No begging necessary at all. Go back and read the references that I have given you already. You know that they are in Gen 1-3. If you really want to know, just read and ask God to give you insight. You might just understand that the Holy Spirit is the Biblical God. If you just want to be contentious about it, then don't waste your time.

 

[JayRob]

According to the bible, he was given the fruit to eat by Eve and he ate it.

It still doesn't negate the fact that he had to take on a more powerful entity than himself. In case you don't know it, there was more to the story than just eating fruit.

Somehow you feel this possible extrapolation makes you correct. Is that right?

It matters not if it makes me correct. Fact of the matter is that without a temptation from the serpent (satan), who knows if there would've been any sin? You don't know.

It is because Satan is still free, going about like a roaring lion, seeking whom he may devour.

Whose allowing him to roam free? Your biblical god, that's who. If he wanted to get rid of sin the way it is, all he has to do is bind satan immediately.

Already pointed and explained.

Your explanation was seriously flawed and offered no concrete facts or proof that Adam was wiser and more advanced than the serpent.
I showed you Ezekiel 28 and how it depicted Lucifer's wisdom, might and power. You showed me nothing.

Once again: Gen 2:21, Gen 3:8

Are those supposed to be verses showing that Adam and Eve were granted the holy spirit? Let's see.

Genesis 2:21. And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;
--Where does it say anything about a holy spirit being given to Adam? Nowhere.

Genesis 3:8. And they heard the voice of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day: and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God amongst the trees of the garden.
--Where does it say anything about a holy spirit being given to Adam and Eve? Nowhere.

Neither verse has anything to do with a holy spirit.

 

[JayRob]

This thread is still active and easy to search. I don't think that you will find anything from me that says that Adam or Eve would have sinned had their been no serpent. What you will find is that I argued that they had the capacity to sin without any serpent - just like Lucifer sinned without any assistance: just like you identified in Ezekiel 28.

If Adam and Eve had the capacity to sin, then why didn't the biblical god simply allow them to sin of their own volition, without the aid of a powerful serpent? It seems as if he wanted them to sin, so he allowed this evil into their presence. Why did the biblical god allow the serpent to enter the garden?

Nope. I am saying that we are predestined to succeed but some will choose to fail.

Do you know what predestined means? Predestined means that certain ones are predetermined to succeed and some are predetermined to fail.

Why not, out of love, obey and make the winning choices ... and if you should make the wrong choice, why not repent and accept the grace of complete redemption and restoration that is offered to you out of love (Jn 3:16-21)?

First of all, if there was no serpent, there would be no need for repentance. If there was no temptation, there'd be no need for repentance.
One can ask the following: Out of love, why didn't the biblical god give Adam his holy spirit to help him against the serpent?

Again, you continue to put the sole blame on humans instead of honestly placing the blame on the one who allowed the match to be lit in the first place.
When one really understands the details of the Adam and Eve story, he has the right to ask, "why was this powerful serpent allowed free access to tempt a weaker Adam and Eve? What purpose was this temptation supposed to serve?

 

[JayRob]

Getting back to this ... let me help you.
First, there was the prophecy...

Mal 4:5-6
5 "Look, I am sending you the prophet Elijah before the great and dreadful day of the LORD arrives. 6 His preaching will turn the hearts of parents to their children, and the hearts of children to their parents. Otherwise I will come and strike the land with a curse."
​

Then the announcement...

Luke 1:11-17

11 Zechariah was in the sanctuary when an angel of the Lord appeared, standing to the right of the incense altar. 12 Zechariah was overwhelmed with fear. 13 But the angel said, "Don't be afraid, Zechariah! For God has heard your prayer, and your wife, Elizabeth, will bear you a son! And you are to name him John. 14 You will have great joy and gladness, and many will rejoice with you at his birth, 15 for he will be great in the eyes of the Lord. He must never touch wine or hard liquor, and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit, even before his birth. 16 And he will persuade many Israelites to turn to the Lord their God. 17 He will be a man with the spirit and power of Elijah, the prophet of old. He will precede the coming of the Lord, preparing the people for his arrival. He will turn the hearts of the fathers to their children, and he will change disobedient minds to accept godly wisdom."
​

Then, there is the fulfillment...

Matt 11:11-15

11 "I assure you, of all who have ever lived, none is greater than John the Baptist. Yet even the most insignificant person in the Kingdom of Heaven is greater than he is! 12 And from the time John the Baptist began preaching and baptizing until now, the Kingdom of Heaven has been forcefully advancing, and violent people attack it. 13 For before John came, all the teachings of the Scriptures looked forward to this present time. 14 And if you are willing to accept what I say, he is Elijah, the one the prophets said would come. 15 Anyone who is willing to hear should listen and understand! ​

Obviously, His disciples still did not understand.

Matt 17:10-13
10 His disciples asked, "Why do the teachers of religious law insist that Elijah must return before the Messiah comes?" 11 Jesus replied, "Elijah is indeed coming first to set everything in order. 12 But I tell you, he has already come, but he wasn't recognized, and he was badly mistreated. And soon the Son of Man will also suffer at their hands." 13 Then the disciples realized he had been speaking of John the Baptist.​

Now, the latter passage occurs right after the Transfiguration, where Moses AND Elijah appear and converse with Jesus in view of Peter, James, and John. On the way back down the mountain, Jesus tell the three not to say what they have seen until after He has been resurrected. In response they ask their question in v.10. The revelation of the prophecy comes to them in v.13!

Since Peter, James, and John walked with Him and didn't understand until AFTER the Transfiguration, it is easy to fathom why you would not understand until now.

You just showed an example of reincarnation where John the Baptist was the reincarnation of Elijah. Now, I think it's you who don't know why some of the books of the bible were omitted. You just unwittingly gave an example of why they were.

Here are other biblical examples of reincarnation:

--Malachi 1:2-3 and Romans 9:11-13 both state that God loved Jacob, but hated Esau even before they were born. These verses are highly suggestive of the pre-existence of Esau, a necessary tenet associated with reincarnation.

--Job 1:20-21

Then Job arose and tore his robe and shaved his head and he fell to the ground and worshipped. And he said, "Naked I came from my mother’s womb, and naked I shall return there. The Lord gave and the Lord has taken away. Blessed be the name of the Lord."
Job says here that he will return to be born again in a womb indicating that he expects to reincarnate.
In Job 19 Job speaks even plainer of having flesh again after his flesh has rotted away.

--"And as he was passing by, he saw a man blind from birth. And his disciples asked him, 'Rabbi, who has sinned, this man or his parents, that he should be born blind?" Jesus answered, 'Neither has this man sinned, nor his parents, but the works of God were to be made manifest in him.'" (John 9:1)

The disciples ask the Lord if the man himself could have committed the sin that led to his blindness. Given the fact that the man has been blind from birth, we are confronted with a provocative question. When could he have made such transgressions as to make him blind at birth? The only conceivable answer is in some prenatal state. The question as posed by the disciples explicitly presupposes prenatal existence. It will also be noted that Christ says nothing to dispel or correct the presupposition.

 

[JayRob]

No begging necessary at all. Go back and read the references that I have given you already. You know that they are in Gen 1-3. If you really want to know, just read and ask God to give you insight. You might just understand that the Holy Spirit is the Biblical God. If you just want to be contentious about it, then don't waste your time.

Give specific verses. If you can't, just say so. I'll understand.

 

[dacontinent]

Give specific verses. If you can't, just say so. I'll understand.

I already have and you already looked right past them ... again. This is circular and pointless.

 

[dacontinent]

You just showed an example of reincarnation where John the Baptist was the reincarnation of Elijah...

Here are other biblical examples of reincarnation:

--Malachi 1:2-3 and Romans 9:11-13 both state that God loved Jacob, but hated Esau even before they were born...

--Job 1:20-21

Then Job arose and tore his robe and shaved his head and he fell to the ground and worshipped. And he said, "Naked I came from my mother’s womb, and naked I shall return there. The Lord gave and the Lord has taken away. Blessed be the name of the Lord."
...
--"And as he was passing by, he saw a man blind from birth. And his disciples asked him, 'Rabbi, who has sinned, this man or his parents, that he should be born blind?" Jesus answered, 'Neither has this man sinned, nor his parents, but the works of God were to be made manifest in him.'" (John 9:1)

The disciples ask the Lord if the man himself could have committed the sin that led to his blindness. Given the fact that the man has been blind from birth, we are confronted with a provocative question. When could he have made such transgressions as to make him blind at birth? The only conceivable answer is in some prenatal state. The question as posed by the disciples explicitly presupposes prenatal existence. It will also be noted that Christ says nothing to dispel or correct the presupposition.

• Obviously you did not read the Hebrew text for Job.
• The passages in Malachi, Romans, and John say nothing about anyone being born (carnate) before that time. In fact, Malachi offers a timeframe at all, while Romans depict the position AFTER being in Rebecca's womb. In order for a being to be REincarnated, it would have to have been CARNATED previously. This was part of the discussion in the previous thread about soul vs. spirit (Adam & Eve et. al.) that I cannot find in the archives of this forum where you had a completely different position on Adam & Eve being spiritual.
  The persuasion toward the pre-existence of soul comes largely from Jeremiah 1:5. It says nothing about being CARNATED prior to being place in the mother's womb. We already know that bodies are not required in order to sin.

 

[dacontinent]

If Adam and Eve had the capacity to sin, then why didn't the biblical god simply allow them to sin of their own volition, without the aid of a powerful serpent? It seems as if he wanted them to sin, so he allowed this evil into their presence. Why did the biblical god allow the serpent to enter the garden?

Seems ... does that make JayRob the arbiter? I have given Scripture on God's position on this. You are still stuck on seems. You continue to spout conjecture as truth.

Do you know what predestined means? Predestined means that certain ones are predetermined to succeed and some are predetermined to fail.

Thankfully, I DO know what both terms mean. Alas, predestination and predetermination ARE NOT the same. Go back and try again, please. Start by looking into the etymology of the terms.

First of all, if there was no serpent, there would be no need for repentance. If there was no temptation, there'd be no need for repentance.
One can ask the following: Out of love, why didn't the biblical god give Adam his holy spirit to help him against the serpent?

1. You have yet to prove that there would be no sin without the serpent.
2. There is no sin in being tempted. Sin occurs when one YIELDS to the temptation. There is no need to repent for being tempted.

The latter argument is circular. I have helped you all that I can there.

Again, you continue to put the sole blame on humans instead of honestly placing the blame on the one who allowed the match to be lit in the first place.
When one really understands the details of the Adam and Eve story, he has the right to ask, "why was this powerful serpent allowed free access to tempt a weaker Adam and Eve? What purpose was this temptation supposed to serve?

Obviously you have something to add to the Adam & Eve story that does not appear in the Scripture. The readers of your posts continue to await that enlightenment, though I have asked for it repeatedly.

For the record (one more time), the serpent was cast down to earth where Adam was given the ability to dominate him. Since Adam possessed the ability to dominate the serpent, the serpent could not have been stronger than Adam. However, Adam chose not to dominate the serpent.

Finally, temptation comes to us for us to demonstrate whether we trust the Word of God over everything else that comes against it. THAT is the purpose of temptation.

 

[JayRob]

I already have and you already looked right past them ... again. This is circular and pointless.

If you would have, I would know. You gave verses but they had nothing to do with Adam having any holy spirit and this is only circular due to avoidance of ACCURATELY answering simple, yet honest questions.

Here are the verses you gave and neither portray Adam as having a holy spirit.

Genesis 2:21. And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;
--Where does it say anything about a holy spirit being given to Adam? Nowhere. It talks about ribs.

Genesis 3:8. And they heard the voice of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day: and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God amongst the trees of the garden.
--Where does it say anything about a holy spirit being given to Adam and Eve? Nowhere. It talks about the biblical god walking in the garden after the fact.

Neither verse has anything to do with a holy spirit.

 

[JayRob]

[*]Obviously you did not read the Hebrew text for Job.

How can Job return to his mother's womb, so why would Job mention returning again to his mother's womb? That's not a very strong example, but it still brings up questions as to how Job can re-enter his mother's womb a second time.

[*]The passages in Malachi 1.

You're right, it should've been Malachi 4:5. See, I will send you the prophet Elijah before that great and dreadful day of the Lord comes." Elijah died hundreds of years ago, so how can Elijah be sent back again except only by being reincarnated?
Here are several verses supporting Malachi:

And in Matthew, Jesus maintains that the one known then as John the Baptist was in fact the same man who had lived centuries earlier as Elijah... "This is the one... There has not risen anyone greater than John the Baptist... And if you are willing to accept it, he is the Elijah who was to come. He who has EARS, let him HEAR." - Matthew 11:11-15.
--Jesus says, "he who has ears to hear, let him hear". Do you have ears to hear?

"To be sure, Elijah comes and will restore all things, But I tell you, Elijah has already come, and they did not RECOGNIZE him, but have done to him everything they wished. In the same way the Son of Man is going to suffer at their hands." Then the disciples understood that he was talking to them about John the Baptist." - Matthew 17:11
--Jesus said that Elijah had ALREADY come but THEY DID NOT RECOGNIZE HIM. I repeat, Jesus stated that Elijah had already come, but they did not recognize him as being John the Baptist. That's reincarnation.

"The angel said to [John the Baptist's father] "... He [John} will go...in the SPIRIT and power of Elijah...to make ready a people prepared for the Lord." -Luke 1:17
--The angel was announcing the reincarnation of Elijah who was perhaps the greatest prophet mentioned in the Old Testament.
This is why it was such a momentous event. Elijah was coming back again.

[John] confessed freely...They asked him, "Who are you? Are you Elijah?" He said, "I am not." "Are you the prophet?" He answered "No." -John 1:21
-He didn't know who he was... He didn't remember being Elijah... But the scripture clearly states he was...

When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, "Who do people say the Son of Man is?" They replied, "Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah, and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets." -Matthew 16:14
00How can the son of man be accused of being those men except that the disciples believed in reincarnation? They had no problem with reincarnation. It's as plain as day. They thought Jesus was one of the men that had already lived. That's a direct description of reincarnation. You just described it in your own post.

[said] "No one who has left home or brothers or sisters or mother or father or children or land for me and the Gospel will fail to receive a hundred times as much in this present age-homes, brothers, sisters, mothers, children, and fields...and in the age to come, eternal life." -Mark 10:29-30 (Side note: what is ETERNAL LIFE? Living means Breathing, life is breath, so eternal life must mean that the body and soul will one day retain the spirit forever... Never again to be divided.)

--"Outside of the doctrine of reincarnation it's difficult to imagine how such a promise could be fulfilled. In one lifetime, one can have only a single set of parents, and no one seriously proposes that each of the seventy original disciples, who actually left their homes and families, ever received as compensation a hundred wives, a hundred fields, and so on. Either this statement of Jesus' occurred when he was waxing so poetic as to allow a falsehood to pass his lips, or he was making a promise that only many reincarnations could fulfill."

Romans 9:11-13.

You're right, Romans 9 mentions nothing about reincarnation. If you can comprehend what's NOT in those verses, how could you not comprehend what's NOT in the the verses you presented to me in Genesis 2:21 and 3:8 about those verses mentioning the holy spirit being in Adam? Not one time did you see the term holy or spirit or both in either verse.
It seems that you see or read what you want to read, just as long as it goes along with your way of thinking.

This was part of the discussion in the previous thread about soul vs. spirit (Adam & Eve et. al.) that I cannot find in the archives of this forum where you had a completely different position on Adam & Eve being spiritual.

How convenient for you not to be able to find those archives? LOL!! It's because they're not there and never were.

The persuasion toward the pre-existence of soul comes largely from Jeremiah 1:5. It says nothing about being CARNATED prior to being place in the mother's womb. We already know that bodies are not required in order to sin.

That's more along the lines of predestination, not reincarnation and it presents little evidence when compared to the verses already mentioned.

 

[JayRob]

Seems ... does that make JayRob the arbiter? I have given Scripture on God's position on this. You are still stuck on seems. You continue to spout conjecture as truth.

You're doing the exact same thing because you have no evidence proving that Adam would've ever sinned if the serpent had not been allowed to tempt him.

Thankfully, I DO know what both terms mean. Alas, predestination and predetermination ARE NOT the same. Go back and try again, please. Start by looking into the etymology of the terms.

I mentioned earlier that predestination means that some were predetermined to fail. I'll give you one example from the bible. The Pharoah of Egypt. He was put in place just for that time and his heart was INTENTIONALLY hardened so he could not repent even if he wanted to.
Romans 9:17-18. For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth. 18 Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.

[*]You have yet to prove that there would be no sin without the serpent.

I never said that I did. On the other hand, you've never shown there would BE sin if there was no serpent.

[*]There is no sin in being tempted. Sin occurs when one YIELDS to the temptation. There is no need to repent for being tempted.

The biblical god allowed the tempation to be born in the first place. He opened the gate for the serpent to enter. He used the serpent as a tool to tempt man to sin. He's just as guilty as the serpent because he was guilty of entrapment.

As mentioned in Revelation 13:8, regarding the Lamb slain before the foundation of the world, the biblical god KNEW that Adam would sin. How did he know? Perhaps because he KNEW Adam was the weaker vessel. He had to have known in order for his plan to have been put in place before the world began.

In addition to the above, the sin of injustice was allowing Adam to be tempted, knowing all along that he was the weaker vessel, without the aid of the holy spirit to help him.

The latter argument is circular. I have helped you all that I can there.

Note: Your verses in Genesis present not a shred of evidence indicating that there was a holy spirit granted to them, but you have helped me to realize that you can't show verses in the bible where Adam had the holy spirit.

Obviously you have something to add to the Adam & Eve story that does not appear in the Scripture. The readers of your posts continue to await that enlightenment, though I have asked for it repeatedly.

So now you're the judge and jury of what the readers are thinking now? If I were you, I'd be soliciting for outside assistance too. LOL!!

For the record (one more time), the serpent was cast down to earth where Adam was given the ability to dominate him. Since Adam possessed the ability to dominate the serpent, the serpent could not have been stronger than Adam. However, Adam chose not to dominate the serpent.

Where was Adam given MORE spiritual power than the Lucifer mentioned in Ezekiel 28? You keep throwing out these statements with not a shred of verses to support them. Just because you say it, doesn't make it come true.
I know you would present supporting verses if you could, but up to now, it's obvious that you can't.
Nowhere in the bible does it show that Adam was more powerful than the Lucifer mentioned in Ezekiel 28. He was made of dirt and formed in the shape of the biblical god, but he didn't have the spiritual power to go along with the physical abilities he had been given.
The 2nd Adam, who was said to be Jesus, did have the spiritual power to defeat the serpent.

Finally, temptation comes to us for us to demonstrate whether we trust the Word of God over everything else that comes against it. THAT is the purpose of temptation.

So was the biblical god so insecure and jealous that Adam wouldn't love him above other beings, to the point that he had to test him by allowing the serpent to entrap him? Is that what you're saying? That sounds like what a jealous and carnal husband does to a wife or vice versa and it sounds like some of what the jealous Greek gods would do to their creation.

 

[Tpop33]

Wow, I cant believe this is still going on!! I don't get it, the reason I mean for continuing this argument or discussion.

DA and RB you two are both professed Christians
Jay, from what I've read you used to be a Christian, believer, or at one point had some professed belief in a god.

Realize this, none of you are going to convince the other about your belief or point of view.

JR if you were truly a believer once then you know that Christians operate off of faith, regardless of your feelings about the subject now, that's where Christians draw from and from reading your posts you know what faith is. You know how strong this belief of faith can be, even for non Christians or out right Atheists, some type of faith, even if it is in ones self can be tremendous (Christian's be open minded and don't think that you have cornered the market on faith). Doctors talk about "faith" as a healing power, but not necessarily religious faith.

DA and RB to continue this discussion is like beating a person over the head with the Bible and trying to make theme understand something they are not ready for, can not understand, or just choose to have other beliefs. Luke 9:5 "And whosoever will not receive you, when ye go out of that city, shake off the very dust from your feet for a testimony against them." Yes I'm taking it partly out of context, but you get the point.

This discussion as enlightening as it has been, is not healthy, and neither one will win.

But since I know this discussion will continue, then let me point out something;

Adams' fall was due to eating fruit from the Tree of Knowledge given to him by Eve.
Eve's fall was due to eating from the Tree of Knowledge, as it's written through the "beguiling" of the serpent.
God gave them both a directive, what not to do, and they disobeyed Him. How many times did our mother say not to eat a certain thing, because it would make us sick or spoil our appetite and we did it anyway (and yes I know I'm being too literal with the scripture, but I want to stick with a certain analogy)?

Too many people focus on what if the serpent had or had not been there, well here's another one for you. what if Adam had not eaten the fruit given to him from Eve?
See my point there are too many what if's, it's like saying well you came in to a million dollars and you took one course of action, and your life went one way, but what if you had taken another course of action then your life would have gone another way?

So as the question is raised, of if there had been no serpent will there still be sin? The answer is.... we don't know and it doesn't matter at this point. It (sin) is here now, and we have to deal with it.

 

[dacontinent]

Tpop33,

Great post! You point is well-taken.

For the record, I am not trying to win any arguement with JayRob. I just do want to leave him out here spouting inflammatory conjecture about the scripture as though it is fact only to have some casual observer accept that and run with it. My position is to defend - defend - defend the gospel.

If the archives were available, you would find that I have started very few threads in this forum - fewer than 5, and I have been a subscriber for nearly 10 years. The reason is that the Word asserts itself.

I really don't know what JayRob believes. I have asked him to quantify it previously, but I don't recall him ever doing that; I don't recall him sharing a frame of reference of his exposure when he says he was a believer. Consequently, I have no way of arriving at any feel for what he was or was not taught.

As I have stated on several occasions, my hope is that I can in some way help to expose JayRob (and others who read these posts) to the Light of the Word that would cause him to turn and worship Christ as Savior.

Incidentally, had Adam not eaten of the tree, his responsibility would have been to offer sacrifice for Eve and subdue the serpent as he had already been given charge ... which is exactly what Jesus did. However, we know that Adam did not take that action.

Sin IS here now, and Jesus has dealt with it. The question now is whether we will accept the deal that He has given to us.

Thanks for your insight.

 

[JayRob]

Wow, I cant believe this is still going on!! I don't get it, the reason I mean for continuing this argument or discussion.

DA and RB you two are both professed Christians
Jay, from what I've read you used to be a Christian, believer, or at one point had some professed belief in a god.

Realize this, none of you are going to convince the other about your belief or point of view.

Who says one is trying to convince the other? It's a discussion. Why would you want the discussion to abruptly end? I'm a bit confused about that.

DA and RB to continue this discussion is like beating a person over the head with the Bible and trying to make theme understand something they are not ready for, can not understand, or just choose to have other beliefs. Luke 9:5 "And whosoever will not receive you, when ye go out of that city, shake off the very dust from your feet for a testimony against them." Yes I'm taking it partly out of context, but you get the point.

I don't feel like anyone's beating anyone over the head. You have the right to feel the way you do, but your personal feelings or emotions shouldn't be the cause for wanting to discontinue stimulating debate on a public forum. This is how people learn and grow, whether they're religious or non-religious.
Your quoting the above verse makes little sense due to the fact that if people never debate or discuss issues, no one can grow in intellect or grow as a person.

If Obama would've told the Republicans that "I bow out of the debates, I wipe the dust off of my feet from discussing anything with you anymore, he wouldn't be President right now."
There's nothing wrong with respectful debating. If for some reason you seem to have a personal problem with this, you really don't have to involve yourself with reading these posts, but there HAS to be a reason why you chose to voice an opinion on this matter at this point and time.

It seems that you think that dacon may not be faring to well in this debate (said jokingly) or either I'm opening up questions to some who may be asking the similar questions here. Maybe that's your motive for wanting it to cease, maybe not, but I feel that you do have an ulterior motive. Perhaps you can clear that up.

This discussion as enlightening as it has been, is not healthy, and neither one will win.

You say it's enlightening, then you turn around and say it's not healthy? Who is it not healthy for? Christians? Non-believers? Is that why you want it to end? I can assure you that as far as I know, I'm in good health, physically, mentally and spiritually. Debating on a forum is not going to cause me to fall apart. LOL!!

But since I know this discussion will continue, then let me point out something;

It's not healthy, yet you're going to add more to it? Oh, ok. I knew there was an ulterior motive.

Adams' fall was due to eating fruit from the Tree of Knowledge given to him by Eve.
Eve's fall was due to eating from the Tree of Knowledge, as it's written through the "beguiling" of the serpent.
God gave them both a directive, what not to do, and they disobeyed Him. How many times did our mother say not to eat a certain thing, because it would make us sick or spoil our appetite and we did it anyway (and yes I know I'm being too literal with the scripture, but I want to stick with a certain analogy)?

You're leaving out more details that you don't seem to be aware of as it pertains to the garden of Eden. Adam eating from a tree? A piece of fruit being eaten caused man's downfall? That's not all there is to. Missing books of the bible add more to this subject as does Ezekiel 28.

Too many people focus on what if the serpent had or had not been there, well here's another one for you. what if Adam had not eaten the fruit given to him from Eve?
See my point there are too many what if's, it's like saying well you came in to a million dollars and you took one course of action, and your life went one way, but what if you had taken another course of action then your life would have gone another way?

It seems that the average fundamental Christian don't want ask the question as to why the serpent (Lucifer) was allowed in the garden in the first place.
Why is that? If you want to add to the discussion, I'd think you'd want to be as honest and objective as possible.
I'll ask you, and you may or may not answer: "why was the serpent allowed in the garden in the first place, to tempt weaker vessels?" Perhaps you can give an objective answer because I'm very curious as to why it occurred.

So as the question is raised, of if there had been no serpent will there still be sin? The answer is.... we don't know and it doesn't matter at this point. It (sin) is here now, and we have to deal with it.

To ask why the serpent was allowed to enter is more than a fair question. Why? Because if the biblical god is TRULY a loving, just, god of fairness, I'd want to know why he allowed weaker, less wise beings to be tempted by a powerful being like Lucifer. He had to know that they would fail. In fact, certain verse verify this.

If a person is trying to convince one to give his life over to the biblical god unconditionally, shouldn't he want to know who he's giving his life and allegiance to before he does it? Absolutely. So yes, the question is very important.
Perhaps you can answer it if you so desire.

 

[JayRob]

Tpop33,
Great post! You point is well-taken.

I don't think it was that great of a post because it was totally biased and subjective.
I have no idea what he's afraid of. Perhaps he was trying to rescue you from questions you were drowning in because you couldn't answer them.

For the record, I am not trying to win any arguement with JayRob.

Could you if you really tried? LOL!!

I just do want to leave him out here spouting inflammatory conjecture about the scripture as though it is fact only to have some casual observer accept that and run with it. My position is to defend - defend - defend the gospel.

So you think I'm trying to destroy the gospel or bible? I thought you knew better than that. My point is to enlighten and get people to study their bible IN ADDITION to external proven documentation with an objective attitude.

If the bible is the truth, it will stand on it's own merits, but as has been shown, otentimes it doesn't.
That's just the absolute truth. If a casual reader reads and studies, he should read and study from both sides of the equation, not just one side, no matter what side it is. It's the truth that matters. I'm glad I found that out, albeit years later.

If I happen to disprove certain aspects of the bible, it's because the bible's foundation is lacking in that particular area. It's not because I'm trying to mislead folks or discredit the bible. If it's not the truth, it discredits itself.

If the archives were available, you would find that I have started very few threads in this forum - fewer than 5, and I have been a subscriber for nearly 10 years. The reason is that the Word asserts itself.

Are you afraid that folks will start studying for themselves? I welcome folks to READ THE BIBLE because there are bits and pieces of truth in it's pages. I also encourage them to not let the bible be their ONLY method of studying and learning because many parts of the bible is just not accurate nor truthful.
There are historical inconsistencies, unscientific statements, copied/plagiarized writings, overwhelming violence within it's covers, paternalistic, wreaks with unfulfilled prophecies and other inconsistencies.

If I only relied on the bible, while shutting out scientific findings, historical artifacts/writings, archaeological findings, geological findings, etc., I wouldn't know what I know today. I'd still be thinking that the bible was infallible, the most accurate book and the oldest historical book. I've come to find out that it's none of those things. In short, I was shortchanged intellectually for years and years until I became a more objective researcher and observer.
,

I really don't know what JayRob believes. I have asked him to quantify it previously, but I don't recall him ever doing that; I don't recall him sharing a frame of reference of his exposure when he says he was a believer. Consequently, I have no way of arriving at any feel for what he was or was not taught.

I've explained such on more than one occasion. I've given sources and reasons for why I believe the way I do. That's not a secret. Just review past posts for that information.
I mentioned that I'm not an atheist neither am I a believer in the biblical god, and for valid reasons that I just mentioned.
What's wrong with showing others that there's a world of knowledge beyond religions, not just the Christian religion? What's wrong with encouraging others to pursue that knowledge with an open and objective mind? Nothing. I think it's commendable.

As I have stated on several occasions, my hope is that I can in some way help to expose JayRob (and others who read these posts) to the Light of the Word that would cause him to turn and worship Christ as Savior.

That's just it, you only want to expose them to the bible, no matter how many errors and inconsistencies found in it. Is that being honest and objective? Is that being truthful? No and no.

I've admitted that the bible has some truth in it, but I'm also honest and astute enough to admit that it also has it's share of mistakes, plagiarisms, unfulfilled prophecies and inconsistencies.

Incidentally, had Adam not eaten of the tree, his responsibility would have been to offer sacrifice for Eve and subdue the serpent as he had already been given charge ... which is exactly what Jesus did. However, we know that Adam did not take that action.

This is merely a story in a book that has never been substantiated nor verified. It's simply based on faith, but faith does not equate to sure truth. Faith is hoping that what one believes is the truth. If that truth can't be proven as fact, how can it be proven as truth? Only in religion can this be made possible.
Where's the external biblical evidence proving there ever was a garden of Eden? You don't have any, so you must accept the writings about it merely by faith, by thought in your mind. That's where the evidence ends.

Sin IS here now, and Jesus has dealt with it. The question now is whether we will accept the deal that He has given to us.

How can you prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that there ever was a garden of Eden? You can't. From now on, just say the story "allegedly" occurred in an alleged garden of Eden. The story is just that, a story with nothing to verify it.

Thanks for your insight.

Tpop33's insight was basically an opinion that wasn't close to being objective.

It would be wonderful if folks would learn to separate truth from error and fact from fiction that can't be proven.

 

[Tpop33]

testing something

 

[Tpop33]

Wow, I really have no idea where to begin...
Well let me start with this,
Who said I wanted it to "abruptly end"? No where did I say it should end, nor did I suggest it. The statement was as I stated it, one of awe.

Person attack realated to you assuming I wear my feelings on my sleeve.

I don't feel like anyone's beating anyone over the head. You have the right to feel the way you do, but your personal feelings or emotions shouldn't be the cause for wanting to discontinue stimulating debate on a public forum.

Now you presume to be a god and now what person is feeling by words alone without any factual information or prior knowledge of a person and again no where did I infer that the discussion/debate should end. I used an analogy that any Christian former or present should have and would have understood. Here's a better analogy for you "to continue this discussion is like beating a dead horse" Is that better?
In relation to the verse used, it was to help emphasize my point to DA and RB, but I guess you missed it, because you said

if people never debate or discuss issues, no one can grow in intellect or grow as a person

Have you really grown more in intellect or as a person through this discussion? You seem to have more questions, than answers, and no answer seems to be good enough. (I'll discuss this further at the end of this)

Your analogy using President Obama,

If Obama would've told the Republicans that "I bow out of the debates, I wipe the dust off of my feet from discussing anything with you anymore, he wouldn't be President right now.

" was/is out of context as it pertains to this topic. For President Obama to debate, its about winning, (lower taxes, more jobs, green energy, etc) not just discussing, so that the Reps or the Dems can grow intellectually or on a personal level.

There's nothing wrong with respectful debating. If for some reason you seem to have a personal problem with this, you really don't have to involve yourself with reading these posts, but there HAS to be a reason why you chose to voice an opinion on this matter at this point and time.

I agree there is nothing wrong with respectful debating, and yes the three of you have been very respectful, which is usually hard to find when debating a topic of this sort, but again you think I'm allowing personal feelings to enter into this, go back and read above comment, and the same goes for as it relates to why I decided to speak now, it is to get wrapped up in these types of discussions.