triplechoice:


Look at you again. I asked where in the Bible was anybody' actually sacrificed for the God of Israel with the people doing the sacrificing saying what it was for . Why is it difficult for you to understand this simple question.

Abraham never really sacrificed Isaac so don't mention that one. An alternative was provided at the last minute. I kept mentioning this so you can understand exactly why the God of Israel instructed him to proceed with it in the first place. It was a test of faith. The action should not be the main focus, but this has continued to fly past your head each time I mentioned it. You can't simply grasp it.

And in case you don't know,Jesus sacrificing himself for your sins is Pauline theology . Jesus in the Bible never said he came to sacrifice himself for the atonement of sin ,neither did God in the new testament said he sent Jesus to come and die for anybody's sin.

It might be comforting to believe that someone else has died for your sins, but in the end it would only lead to not taking responsibility for own life.

Your Bible says what you sow is what you reap . Accept you want to mock your God, you can reject that and live your life the way you want it believing some has paid the price.

Me uncomfortable? You're just projecting. All of these started with you giving an unchristian interpretation of the Genesis account. You claimed that God set up Adam and Eve to eat the forbidden fruit in the garden so he can later send his son to come and die for what he set them up for. It was God's plan according to you.

Can you teach this kind of thing in any Sunday school or a pulpit where other Christians are gathered and not be seen as a devil preaching heresy? Answer me.

So, I am not uncomfortable, but no longer interested in the conversation as you're just going round in circles while avoiding dealing with the illogicallity of what you said at first about Adam and Eve.

I have insisted the story is an allegory which you're misinterpreting.

You have avoided discussing that ,but have craftily succeeded steering the conversation away in a different direction and now preaching. Sorry, I am not uncomfortable, but no longer interested . Thank you.

Your logic is actually twisted. Christians of all ages believe that Christ died for sin yet they strive to do better and improve their lives. The notion that Christ's sacrifice would make Christians irresponsible people is so wrong. There is no evidence that Christians do not take responsibility when compared to other belief systems.

For your other comments, I don't see the need to keep going around in circles with you. If human sacrifice is an abomination to God, he would not have tested Abraham with evil. God is not the Devil.

tctrills:

Your logic is actually twisted. Christians of all ages believe that Christ died for sin yet they strive to do better and improve their lives. The notion that Christ's sacrifice would make Christians irresponsible people is so wrong. There is no evidence that Christians do not take responsibility when compared to other belief systems.

For your other comments, I don't see the need to keep going round in circles with you. If human sacrifice is an abomination to God, he would not have tested Abraham with an evil. God is not the Devil.

You win and congratulations since you believe that it was God's plan to set up Adam and Eve to eat the forbidden fruit so he can accuse them of disobedience and place curses to increase the pain of the woman during childbirth.
Then centuries later to forgive the original sin he set them up for, he sent his son to die so he can forgive the act of disobedience. Very good reasoning.

Talk you of and logic. I laugh.

And yea, still not showing you understand anything about the so called Abraham's sacrifice..

Modified. Do you know what it means to take responsibility for one's action?. No . You don't. You take responsibility by not waiting for somebody to die to forgive you or bear the consequences of what you have done

triplechoice:


You win and congratulations since you believe that it was God's plan to set up Adam and Eve to eat the forbidden fruit so he can accuse them of disobedience and place curses to increase the pain of the woman during childbirth.
Then centuries later to forgive the original sin he set them up for, he sent his son to die so he can forgive the act of disobedience. Very good reasoning.

Talk you of and logic. I laugh.

And yea, still not showing you understand anything about the so called Abraham's sacrifice..

Modified. Do you know what it means to take responsibility for one's action?. No . You don't. You take responsibility by not waiting for somebody to die to forgive you or bear the consequences of what you have done

You have a lot to understand
Adam and Eve's fall brought far more blessings than your so-called curse. Their fall brought about Jesus Christ, resurrection, and Immortality for all mankind. We are blessed with the knowledge of Good and evil just like God. We also have the ability to become perfect like God thanks to the fall.
So while both of us can keep making fun of each others logic, ask yourself, wether all these blessings I have outlined do not outweigh your perceived curse.

tctrills:


You have a lot to understand
Adam and Eve's fall brought far more blessings than your so-called curse. Their fall brought about Jesus Christ, resurrection, and Immortality for all mankind. We are blessed with the knowledge of Good and evil just like God. We also have the ability to become perfect like God thanks to the fall.
So while both of us can keep making fun of each others logic, ask yourself, wether all these blessings I have outlined do not outweigh your perceived curse.

You're mixing two opposing view points ,gnosticism and Christianity to interpret the Genesis account in order to answer the op. Nothing wrong with that.

But the problem is that you want to make it seem as if the church interprets it the same way. This is deceptionon your part.

Can you preach that Adam and Eve disobedience( that's what church doctrine says) is a blessing in any Sunday school or from any pulpit? You have refused to answer that each time I ask.



I already said the story is an allegory and it has nothing to do with the so called "original sin" that would need a sacrifice to erase.

If you interpret the story as a blessing for humanity, I agree also, then I ask you where is the sense in Jesus coming to die again for what is already a blessing for humanity so that God can forgive what?

Why not just own up to what you're trying to do? You can deceive others but not somebody like me.

If you feel the church well known interpretation of the Genesis account doesn't make sense, why don't you do the needful by accepting you have outgrown the religion instead of looking for a way to rationalise things so you continue to believe.

This is exactly where you are right now.

triplechoice:


You're mixing two opposing view points ,gnosticism and Christianity to interpret the Genesis account in order to answer the op. Nothing wrong with that.

But the problem is that you want to make it seem as if the church interprets it the same way. This is deceptionon your part.

Can you preach that Adam and Eve disobedience( that's what church doctrine says) is a blessing in any Sunday school or from any pulpit? You have refused to answer that each time I ask.



I already said the story is an allegory and it has nothing to do with the so called "original sin" that would need a sacrifice to erase.

If you interpret the story as a blessing for humanity, I agree also, then I ask you where is the sense in Jesus coming to die again for what is already a blessing for humanity so that God can forgive what?

Why not just own up to what you're trying to do? You can deceive others but not somebody like me.

If you feel the church well known interpretation of the Genesis account doesn't make sense, why don't you do the needful by accepting you have outgrown the religion instead of looking for a way to rationalise things so you continue to believe.

This is exactly where you are right now.

I am not mixing any view. I am just telling you the truth.
Again, there are over 10000 churches. Which church interpretation are you talking about?
The Catholic interpretation is different from the Jehovah witness, which is different from the Adventist, which is also different for the Mormons, this is again different from the church of Christ.
The death of Jesus is what makes it a blessing. Let me ask you, what has man lost due to the fall?

tctrills:

I am not mixing any view. I am just telling you the truth.

Don't agree you're telling the truth

Again, there are over 10000 churches. Which church interpretation are you talking about?
The Catholic interpretation is different from the Jehovah witness, which is different from the Adventist, which is also different for the Mormons, this is again different from the church of Christ.

After mentioning other denominations or Christian groups, you failed to identify with any so as to make it easy to verify if you're telling the truth of what your church preaches. If you're not hiding something, I dare you to mention your own church so any of your fellow members who might be following can verify that all you say here is the same as what they tell them in church about the story.
You have been called a fake Christian by a Jehovah witness , Maximus, who is not ashamed to identify with his organization. Prove you're not hiding something by announcing your own denomination. I dare you to do that in your next reply if not this would be the last time reply you.

The death of Jesus is what makes it a blessing. Let me ask you, what has man lost due to the fall?

You're certainly confused. If one were to accept the story is not an allegory, the death of Jesus centuries later can't turn it into a blessing. You don't require the spilling of blood of anyone to understand what a blessing is. You're not thinking this at all, but just preaching church doctrine disguised as truth.

triplechoice:
Don't agree you're telling the truth After mentioning other denominations or Christian groups, you failed to identify with any so as to make it easy to verify if you're telling the truth of what your church preaches. If you're not hiding something, I dare you to mention your own church so any of your fellow members who might be following can verify that all you say here is the same as what they tell them in church about the story.
You have been called a fake Christian by a Jehovah witness , Maximus, who is not ashamed to identify with his organization. Prove you're not hiding something by announcing your own denomination. I dare you to do that in your next reply if not this would be the last time reply you. You're certainly confused. If one were to accept the story is not an allegory, the death of Jesus centuries later can't turn it into a blessing. You don't require the spilling of blood of anyone to understand what a blessing is. You're not thinking this at all, but just preaching church doctrine disguised as truth.

Yes, I have been called names by the JW. The last guy to do so, I reminded him that it was in his right to call me anything.
Now to the more serious matters. The death of Jesus was many centuries after Adam but it was ordained ever before Adam ate the fruit. It was not an after thought of God. It was always the plan

triplechoice:


All these so nobody question the Genesis account. Sorry,Nairaland is not your Church or Sunday school where nobody is expected to question anything but jus accept whatever explanation given ,whether it makes sense or not.

You're not even sure of what you explained up there, the reason you're running away from telling us what is good or bad. You're engaged in deceptive argument in defense of the gospel. That's all. You're not the first and won't be the last.

Even though I did not quote the bible or mentioned church? Or even denomination, or talk about anyone one as man of God or woman of God, yet you are attacking, relax, stop attacking, sheath your sword, can't you explain without attacking? Who mentioned Sunday school here, or who has said no one should give opinion, may be you need to read my comment open mindedly. Well, I did not run away from not explaining what evil or Good is or wrong or right, I left the vacuum to be filled, anyway, I'll fill it. THERE IS NOTHING AS EVIL OR GOOD, OR BAD OR GOOD, THATS WHY WHEN THERE IS NO LAW, THERE CANT BE OFFENCE OR CRIME OR ANYTHING AS SIN, BUT AS SOON AS THERE IS LAW, THEN WE CAN START TO TALK OF WHAT AND WHAT SHOULD WE AGREE TO BE OFFENCE OR CRIME, WHAT WE WANT TO AGREE TO BE GOOD OR BAD, AND AS SUCH, THEY HAVE THEIR EXPIRY DATES, SINCE WHAT WE AGREED TO BE GOOD TODAY MAY BECOME WHAT WE LATER AGREE TO BECOME BAD TOMORROW, WHAT WE NAME BAD HERE MAY BE THE SAME THING OTHERS NAMED GOOD ELSWHERE, thats the reason I said there is nothing as good or bad or right or wrong. Now to God, its same with God, what he calls bad is bad, what he calls good is good, at any point in time, at that moment, thats why he said we should leave judgement for him. Infact we all operate on God's feelings, emotions, thoughts, That's why God is not bound by any rule or law, whatever God wishes is what God does. What ever God says is good is good, is bad is bad. Both have life spans and are subjected to change at any given time.

SO LIKE I SAID, ONE MAY SAY GOD KNWS BAD IS ABOUT TO HAPPEN AND GOD ALLOWED IT. MY PREVIOUS EXPLAINATION AND THIS ONE HAS CLEARED THE AIR FROM MY SIDE HERE. MY SUBMISSION.

triplechoice:


Then tell us what actually is evil since you're Gods spokesman.

Stop attacking, relax.

tctrills:

Yes, I have been called names by the JW. The last guy to do so, I reminded him that it was in his right to call me anything.
Now to the more serious matters. The death of Jesus was many centuries after Adam but it was ordained ever before Adam ate the fruit. It was not an after thought of God. It was always the plan

Oga mention the name of your church or Christian group. That's what I am interesting in for now .

If you don't want to do that, then stop calling yourself a Christian. Don't hide . I am not asking for your name.

I want to know the real Identity of the person I am arguing with to determine if you're actually presenting what your church preaches and not your own personal interpretation which I already accepted is the proper way to view things.

Christian doctrine says what happened in the garden is disobedience; the original sin that resulted in curses and condemnation.. For this a sacrifice is needed to put things right.

As a Christian,y ou're mixing two opposing viewpoint by saying it is a blessing as against what church doctrine says. You want to eat your cake and have it too? Not possible. Choose one

Concerning Jesus, you still don't get it and here is your confusion. If what happened in the garden was planned by God so that they eat the fruit and become wise, then the later sacrifice of Jesus is meaningless and not needed.

You don't punish somebody for doing the right thing you actually wanted and then later insisting a blood sacrifice must be made before you let go of the punishment. It doesn't make sense.

Your church indoctrination is why you still talk of compulsory sacrifice of Jesus after admitting that what happened in the garden is for the good of humanity. Fear is why you're not bold enough to admit church doctrine concerning the allegory doesn't make sense.

Arrowss:


Even though I did not quote the bible or mentioned church? Or even denomination, or talk about anyone one as man of God or woman of God, yet you are attacking, relax, stop attacking, sheath your sword, can't you explain without attacking? Who mentioned Sunday school here, or who has said no one should give opinion, may be you need to read my comment open mindedly. Well, I did not run away from not explaining what evil or Good is or wrong or right, I left the vacuum to be filled, anyway, I'll fill it. THERE IS NOTHING AS EVIL OR GOOD, OR BAD OR GOOD, THATS WHY WHEN THERE IS NO LAW, THERE CANT BE OFFENCE OR CRIME OR ANYTHING AS SIN, BUT AS SOON AS THERE IS LAW, THEN WE CAN START TO TALK OF WHAT AND WHAT SHOULD WE AGREE TO BE OFFENCE OR CRIME, WHAT WE WANT TO AGREE TO BE GOOD OR BAD, AND AS SUCH, THEY HAVE THEIR EXPIRY DATES, SINCE WHAT WE AGREED TO BE GOOD TODAY MAY BECOME WHAT WE LATER AGREE TO BECOME BAD TOMORROW, WHAT WE NAME BAD HERE MAY BE THE SAME THING OTHERS NAMED GOOD ELSWHERE, thats the reason I said there is nothing as good or bad or right or wrong. Now to God, its same with God, what he calls bad is bad, what he calls good is good, at any point in time, at that moment, thats why he said we should leave judgement for him. Infact we all operate on God's feelings, emotions, thoughts, That's why God is not bound by any rule or law, whatever God wishes is what God does. What ever God says is good is good, is bad is bad. Both have life spans and are subjected to change at any given time.

SO LIKE I SAID, ONE MAY SAY GOD KNWS BAD IS ABOUT TO HAPPEN AND GOD ALLOWED IT. MY PREVIOUS EXPLAINATION AND THIS ONE HAS CLEARED THE AIR FROM MY SIDE HERE. MY SUBMISSION.

Sorry. All you said is round about talk. Nobody can make sense of it.

If you think I am attacking you, then just ignore me.

triplechoice:


Oga mention the name of your church or Christian group. That's what I am interesting in for now .

If you don't want to do that, then stop calling yourself a Christian. Don't hide . I am not asking for your name.

I want to know the real Identity of the person I am arguing with to determine if you're actually presenting what your church preaches and not your own personal interpretation which I already accepted is the proper way to view things.

Christian doctrine says what happened in the garden is disobedience; the original sin that resulted in curses and condemnation.. For this a sacrifice is needed to put things right.

As a Christian,y ou're mixing two opposing viewpoint by saying it is a blessing as against what church doctrine says. You want to eat your cake and have it too? Not possible. Choose one

Concerning Jesus, you still don't get it and here is your confusion. If what happened in the garden was planned by God so that they eat the fruit and become wise, then the later sacrifice of Jesus is meaningless and not needed.

You don't punish somebody for doing the right thing you actually wanted and then later insisting a blood sacrifice must be made before you let go of the punishment. It doesn't make sense.

Your church indoctrination is why you still talk of compulsory sacrifice of Jesus after admitting that what happened in the garden is for the good of humanity. Fear is why you're not bold enough to admit church doctrine concerning the allegory doesn't make sense.

Christian doctrine is a very broad concept. At no time have Christians of all denominations agreed on a particular doctrine. You would have known if you were a Christian.

Now let's go to the few things you pointed out. You said;
If what happened in the garden was planned by God so that they eat the fruit and become wise, then the later sacrifice of Jesus is meaningless and not needed.

How do you mean? God told Adam and Eve that they would die if they eat the fruit, they obviously needed someone to save them from death.
Secondly, the fruit was called the fruit of knowledge of good and bad for a reason. True it gave man the Knowledge of good, but it also gave him the knowledge of evil. Christ came to take away the sins of the world. Do you get it now?

triplechoice:


Sorry. All you said is round about talk. Nobody can make sense of it.

If you think I am attacking you, then just ignore me.

Ok

tctrills:


Christian doctrine is a very broad concept. At no time have Christians of all denominations agreed on a particular doctrine. You would have known if you were a Christian.

Now let's go to the few things you pointed out. You said;
If what happened in the garden was planned by God so that they eat the fruit and become wise, then the later sacrifice of Jesus is meaningless and not needed.

How do you mean? God told Adam and Eve that they would die if they eat the fruit, they obviously needed someone to save them from death.
Secondly, the fruit was called the fruit of knowledge of good and bad for a reason. True it gave man the Knowledge of good, but it also gave him the knowledge of evil. Christ came to take away the sins of the world. Do you get it now?

Oga, I say let me know the denomination or Christian group you belong to.

You're mixing to opposing viewpoints to interpret the Genesis account. I told you this is deception as a Christian..

.Your answer to the op which I responded to, says that God planned everything so that he could later send his son to die as sacrifice. This is contrary to Christian theology that everyone is familiar with.

In Christianity, the interpretation is that the first two couples disobeyed God and this led to their alienation. To reconcile the descendant of Adam and Eve back to God ,a Jesus sacrifice must happen, if not the burden of original sin remains.

But your Gnostic interpretation is that God wanted them to eat the fruit so their eyes can be opened so they know evil from good and become wise.

Now that they did what God wanted, why do we still need Jesus to die for anything.

You said to remove evil. But this is where you have failed because you don't understand what it means to have the knowledge of good and evil.

In the world that we live in, nothing can be known or understood without its opposite. Without evil we wouldn't appreciate good or know what is good, and without good we can't make sense of what is evil.

Adam and Eve did not know they were naked because they had no knowledge of what is good and evil, but after eating the forbidden fruit their eyes became open to know they were naked.
Hope you get it now? So stop saying Jesus was needed to remove evil. If that were to happen, then it means we would all go back to the pre-Adamic era, ignorance. Naked not Knowing we are naked.
Do you want that to happen? I don't think so.

Evil can't be removed from the world. It is as simple as that. Jesus didn't come to remove evil. That idea is Christian theology and not truth.

Please don't fail in your reply to mention the Christian group you belong to ,so one can be sure you're telling the truth as it is preached there, if not ,it is better the conversation is discontinued.

triplechoice:


Oga, I say let me know the denomination or Christian group you belong to.

You're mixing to opposing viewpoints to interpret the Genesis account. I told you this is deception as a Christian..

.Your answer to the op which I responded to, says that God planned everything so that he could later send his son to die as sacrifice. This is contrary to Christian theology that everyone is familiar with.

In Christianity, the interpretation is that the first two couples disobeyed God and this led to their alienation. To reconcile the descendant of Adam and Eve back to God ,a Jesus sacrifice must happen, if not the burden of original sin remains.

But your Gnostic interpretation is that God wanted them to eat the fruit so their eyes can be opened so they know evil from good and become wise.

Now that they did what God wanted, why do we still need Jesus to die for anything.

You said to remove evil. But this is where you have failed because you don't understand what it means to have the knowledge of good and evil.

In the world that we live in, nothing can be known or understood without its opposite. Without evil we wouldn't appreciate good or know what is good, and without good we can't make sense of what is evil.

Adam and Eve did not know they were naked because they had no knowledge of what is good and evil, but after eating the forbidden fruit their eyes became open to know they were naked.
Hope you get it now? So stop saying Jesus was needed to remove evil. If that were to happen, then it means we would all go back to the pre-Adamic era, ignorance. Naked not Knowing we are naked.
Do you want that to happen? I don't think so.

Evil can't be removed from the world. It is as simple as that. Jesus didn't come to remove evil. That idea is Christian theology and not truth.

Please don't fail in your reply to mention the Christian group you belong to ,so one can be sure you're telling the truth as it is preached there, if not ,it is better the conversation is discontinued.

You are now making my point. You said,
"In the world that we live in, nothing can be known or understood without its opposite. Without evil, we wouldn't appreciate good or know what is good, and without good, we can't make sense of what is evil."
Do you now see why eating the fruit was not a curse? Man could understand good and evil and from then we could resist evil. The only way we can become like God is if we overcome evil. In the Garden, Adam and Eve could not overcome evil.
Yes, Jesus was needed to remove sin. Let me quote a verse to help you with your confusion. John 1:29. 29 The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.
The role of Christ was to take away the sins of all those who surrender to him.
Again I would never mention my group to you. I reserve the right to that and if you are not satisfied sorry. I don't need to know what you worship to discuss with you. If you feel you have a duty to know where I worship before discussing with me, I can't help you, sir.

tctrills:


You are now making my point. You said,
"In the world that we live in, nothing can be known or understood without its opposite. Without evil, we wouldn't appreciate good or know what is good, and without good, we can't make sense of what is evil."
Do you now see why eating the fruit was not a curse? Man could understand good and evil and from then we could resist evil. The only way we can become like God is if we overcome evil. In the Garden, Adam and Eve could not overcome evil.

Who is making your point? You just demonstrated that you have not been reading very well any of my replies. I have maintained that what happened in the garden was not a curse but a blessing. Christianity which you subscribe to doesn't regard it as blessing, but the downfall of man. You see why I said you're not able to comprehend simple things and you say I was rude. If you insist that Christian theology says it is blessing, then, please mention the name of your Christian group so one can confirm you're telling it as it is. You're misconstruing my statements everytime to create confusion.

Yes, Jesus was needed to remove sin. Let me quote a verse to help you with your confusion.

Just imagine. Clear you own confusion first. You're certainly confused as you want to deceive yourself by jumping from Jesus coming to remove evil of the forbidden fruit to now removing sin of the world. Where did the sin came from according to Christianity? Stick to what happened in the garden of Eden to prove why Christ has to die for any sin.You're running away from that to start quoting unrelated scripture. You claimed that everything that happened in the garden was for Jesus to die later. Focus on that

John 1:29. 29 The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.

How does this verse relate with what happened in the garden of Eden or do you now accept Adam and Eve committed the original sin by disobeying God. Hope you can now understand why I say you're confused .If a Muslim quotes something from the Quran would you accept it as truth? Certainly not. The Bible verse is church theology it is not truth but to you. And what is the sin of the world?

The role of Christ was to take away the sins of all those who surrender to him.

So. nothing to do with the garden of Eden then? And what is sin?

Again I would never mention my group to you. I reserve the right to that and if you are not satisfied sorry. I don't need to know what you worship to discuss with you. If you feel you have a duty to know where I worship before discussing with me, I can't help you, sir.

I have mentioned the reason I want to know. You dare not mention it as you know you would be exposed for saying things that are contrary to what is preached in your church. That's the truth. You're mixing to opposing viewpoints to rationalise Christianity's wrong interpretation of the Genesis account . Instead of admitting that it is your own personal interpretation, which is commendable, you're trying desperately to tie it to church theology. The interpretation that Adam and Eve eating the forbidden fruit is blessing is not Church theology. Others know that but not you. I think I have wasted too much time with you. You're have been running from pillar to post trying to cover up for what you started.

triplechoice:
Who is making your point? You just demonstrated that you have not been reading very well any of my replies. I have maintained that what happened in the garden was not a curse but a blessing. Christianity which you subscribe to doesn't regard it as blessing, but the downfall of man. You see why I said you're not able to comprehend simple things and you say I was rude. If you insist that Christian theology says it is blessing, then, please mention the name of your Christian group so one can confirm you're telling it as it is. You're misconstruing my statements everytime to create confusion. Just imagine. Clear you own confusion first. You're certainly confused as you want to deceive yourself by jumping from Jesus coming to remove evil of the forbidden fruit to now removing sin of the world. Where did the sin came from according to Christianity? Stick to what happened in the garden of Eden to prove why Christ has to die for any sin.You're running away from that to start quoting unrelated scripture. You claimed that everything that happened in the garden was for Jesus to die later. Focus on that How does this verse relate with what happened in the garden of Eden or do you now accept Adam and Eve committed the original sin by disobeying God. Hope you can now understand why I say you're confused .If a Muslim quotes something from the Quran would you accept it as truth? Certainly not. The Bible verse is church theology it is not truth but to you. And what is the sin of the world? So. nothing to do with the garden of Eden then? And what is sin? I have mentioned the reason I want to know. You dare not mention it as you know you would be exposed for saying things that are contrary to what is preached in your church. That's the truth. You're mixing to opposing viewpoints to rationalise Christianity's wrong interpretation of the Genesis account . Instead of admitting that it is your own personal interpretation, which is commendable, you're trying desperately to tie it to church theology. The interpretation that Adam and Eve eating the forbidden fruit is blessing is not Church theology. Others know that but not you. I think I have wasted too much time with you. You're have been running from pillar to post trying to cover up for what you started.

The knowledge of sin and also good came from the garden. It would be foolish to stick to the garden. The Garden was only a part of the plan. God's entire plan was to make man like him. The Garden played a major role in the plan but it would have been a curse and a failure without other aspects of the plan.

God's plan began with Jesus Christ, not Adam. Jesus Christ is the center of the plan. Adam played a vital role. Through him, the knowledge of good and evil came into the world. Also through him, man became mortal and we could go through the trials of mortality. These would not have been possible in the garden. I hope you understand it now.

tctrills:


The knowledge of sin and also good came from the garden. It would be foolish to stick to the garden. The Garden was only a part of the plan. God's entire plan was to make man like him. The Garden played a major role in the plan but it would have been a curse and a failure without other aspects of the plan.

God's plan began with Jesus Christ, not Adam. Jesus Christ is the center of the plan. Adam played a vital role. Through him, the knowledge of good and evil came into the world. Also through him, man became mortal and we could go through the trials of mortality. These would not have been possible in the garden. I hope you understand it now.

Before you ask me if I understand, read again the gibberish you wrote up there ,and ask yourself if it really make any sense to you.

You just typed anything that came to your head with the hope it would make sense.It has not. It just a series of disjointed and unrelated statements.

If you don't want to answer one by one to each of the points I raised in my last reply, then , don't bother anymore.

You have failed woefully to prove your claim of how God planned what happened in the garden to pave way for Jesus coming later.

triplechoice:


Before you ask me if I understand, read again the gibberish you wrote up there ,and ask yourself if it really make any sense to you.

You just typed anything that came to your head with the hope it would make sense.It has not. It just a series of disjointed and unrelated statements.

If you don't want to answer one by one to each of the points I raised in my last reply, then , don't bother anymore.

You have failed woefully to prove your claim of how God planned what happened in the garden to pave way for Jesus coming later.

I don't answer points we have already discussed. You are recircling your talking points which is not healthy.
Let me help you with a summary,
1. God wanted man to have the Knowledge of good and evil as he does. He also wanted man to face and overcome trials and to choose the good. These would not have happened without Adam and Eve eating the fruit.

2. He wanted man to overcome death and all the effects of the fall.
He wanted man to return to his presence. These would not have happened without Christ.

triplechoice:


Before you ask me if I understand, read again the gibberish you wrote up there ,and ask yourself if it really make any sense to you.

You just typed anything that came to your head with the hope it would make sense.It has not. It just a series of disjointed and unrelated statements.

If you don't want to answer one by one to each of the points I raised in my last reply, then , don't bother anymore.

You have failed woefully to prove your claim of how God planned what happened in the garden to pave way for Jesus coming later.

I understand how you feel but it doesn't change anything.
Humanity had 2 options.
1. Remain in the garden forever, never to die and be forever innocent.
2. Leave the garden, overcome sin and become like God.
I would choose option 2 what about you?

tctrills:

I understand how you feel but it doesn't change anything.
Humanity had 2 options.
1. Remain in the garden forever, never to die and be forever innocent.
2. Leave the garden, overcome sin and become like God.
I would choose option 2 what about you?

The above is not the reason for my interactions with you, and you know it



We don't need Jesus for anything since the story is an allegory. That has been my argument with you and not because I don't understand the real meaning encoded in the story.

So far you have failed to convince anyone why your Jesus should sacrifice himself for what happened in a fictional story.

I am going to repeat this again, all the characters in the story are symbolic, meaning no real God, Adam and Eve or talking snake Even the garden was not a real place. It's just the product of the imagination of those who wrote the story.

So, talking of the story as if it's something that actually happened is exposing your level of understanding.


Enjoy yourself.

triplechoice:


The above is not the reason for my interactions with you, and you know it



We don't need Jesus for anything since the story is an allegory. That has been my argument with you and not because I don't understand the real meaning encoded in the story.

So far you have failed to convince anyone why your Jesus should sacrifice himself for what happened in a fictional story.

I am going to repeat this again, all the characters in the story are symbolic, meaning no real God, Adam and Eve or talking snake Even the garden was not a real place. It's just the product of the imagination of those who wrote the story.

So, talking of the story as if it's something that actually happened is exposing your level of understanding.


Enjoy yourself.

The other time, you spoke about Adam and Eve's "disobedience" I agree with you, they disobeyed God. But remember, they did not have the knowledge of Good and evil.
But it was not a sin because they did not have knowledge. Below is the bible's definition of sin; James 4:17
Anyone, then, who knows the right thing to do, yet fails to do it, is guilty of sin.
Without the knowledge of Good and bad, there can be no sin.

tctrills:
The other time, you spoke about Adam and Eve's "disobedience" I agree with you, they disobeyed God. But remember, they did not have the knowledge of Good and evil.
But it was not a sin because they did not have knowledge. Below is the bible's definition of sin; James 4:17
Anyone, then, who knows the right thing to do, yet fails to do it, is guilty of sin.
Without the knowledge of Good and bad, there can be no sin.

Disobey which God? In a story that's an allegory?

It's clear you don't even understand anything I have said and just replying nonsense.
Take a break. It would do you some good

triplechoice:


Disobey which God? In a story that's an allegory?

It's clear you don't even understand anything I have said and just replying nonsense.
Take a break. It would do you some good

The fall of Adam is a vital part of the salvation of man. That is why Jesus was chosen before the earth was created to atone.

Kobojunkie:
1. Why would he prevent them from accessing the fruit trees when what He wanted was for them to make the choice to obey Him instead?

2. Could could easy recreate the world. What He wanted wasn't a good world - He can make those anytime after all it only took Him 6 days to make this one . What God wants is instead a good people who will obey His commandments and Sons for His Kingdom..

But he stopped them from eating the tree of life.

MyVILLAGEpeople:
But he stopped them from eating the tree of life.

This happened after man made the choice to go it alone - without God, - not before. God rightly expelled man from His garden so man could indeed experience the weight of his choice, so?

It seems that you don't know God's mindset.

Perfection is not in the Action of Man but in the Design of Man. If you had ever invented or created a thing then would you understand the mindset of God.

The same scenario played out in the case of Father Abraham. Did God know that Abraham would sacrifice son or not as commanded?

If you knew that your program/script would work why then do you test it?

God gave man free will with a great cost to Him and Jesus Christ.

Glory be to our God Almighty.

triplechoice:
■ It is obvious that you're deliberately misinterpreting it in order to reconcile it with the primitive Christian doctrine of blood for the remission of sin. This is one of the major contradictions in the Bible which Bible scholars over the years have struggled unsuccessfully to explain away; A God that detest human sacrifice but still want such sacrifice for the forgiveness of sin. See, you can't reconcile this no matter how you try. ....
■ BTW, why should anyone worship a God that wants human blood to be spilled before he can forgive anything? What does a God need blood for?

This isn't an attempt to hold brief for any one here. Simply an attempt to clear up some confusion that you seem to have as far as what is in fact written in scripture which is that Jesus Christ died for the remission of sins.

First, what is sin? Sin is direct disobedience of God's commandment or teaching as indicated in His Law/agreement. It is a transgression of the Law because God's Law is all-or-nothing meaning that by disobeying one command, one is guilty of disobeying the entirety of the Law. In the Old Law, God provided for the people a bonus ticket of sorts by which they had their sins erased — their debt cleared so to speak — and this on one day of each year, the day of Atonement, via the offering of what is called a sin-offering. In the Old Law, the purpose and application of sin-offering are found detailed in Exodus 30 and Leviticus 4.

7 “Aaron must burn sweet-smelling incense on the altar every morning. He will do this when he comes to care for the lamps. 8 He must burn incense again when he checks the lamps in the evening so that incense will be burned before the Lord every day forever.
9 Don’t use this altar for offering any other kind of incense or burnt offering or for any kind of grain offering or drink offering.
10 “Once a year Aaron must make a special sacrifice. He will use the blood of the sin offering to erase the people's sins. He will do this at the horns of this altar. This day will be called the Day of Atonement, and it will be a very special day for the Lord.” - Exodus 30 vs 7 - 10

A sin-offering is meant to completely erase the sins of the people once every year.

To qualify as a sin-offering, Jesus Christ ought to offer His followers an instant fix to the sin debt which they come to Him with. Jesus Christ, God's New agreement, would need to be able to erase all of their sins without much effort on their path to be considered a sin-offering candidate. However, a close look at His Gospel reveals that this is not the case at all.

31 So Jesus said to the Jews who believed in him, “If you continue to accept and obey my teaching, you are my followers.
32 You will know the truth, and the truth will make you free.”
33 They answered, “We are Abraham’s descendants. And we have never been slaves. So why do you say that we will be free?”
34 Jesus said, “The truth is, everyone who sins is a slave—a slave to sin.
35 A slave does not stay with a family forever. But a son belongs to the family forever.
36 So if the Son makes you free, you are free.
37 I know you are Abraham’s descendants. But you want to kill me because you don’t want to accept my teaching.
38 I am telling you what my Father has shown me. But you do what your father has told you.” - John 8 vs 31 - 38

In the passage just above, we see that the path to forgiveness of sins in Jesus Christ —for those who are followers of Jesus Christ — does not in any way mirror the sin-offering described in the Old Law, as those who follow Jesus Christ are individually responsible for:
■ putting an end to their bad ways,
■ repenting from a life of disobedience(transgression of God's Law), choosing instead obedience to His Truth
■ following continuously in the path of obedience to the Truth until one is made pure from sin — set free from slavery to sin — by the Truth
■ Attaining everlasting righteousness through the process of obedience to the Truth of God
see Daniel 9 vs 24

Jesus Christ does not erase sins. Instead, He is a path to redemption for all those who seek to be made free from the curse and burden of God's Old Law or Moses. The onus is on those who follow Him to use that path in achieving a life free from slavery to sin. Those who refuse to live in continuous submission and obedience to His teachings and commandments remain slaves to sin and are destined for eternal damnation as a result. This brings us back to what is stated in Matthew 26 where Jesus Christ reveals that He is the New agreement from God to the people.

27 Then he took a cup of wine, thanked God for it, and gave it to them. He said, “Each one of you drink some of it.
28 This wine is my blood, which will be poured out to forgive the sins of many and begin the new agreement from God to his people.
29 I want you to know, I will not drink this wine again until that day when we are together in my Father’s kingdom and the wine is new. Then I will drink it again with you.”
30 They all sang a song and then went out to the Mount of Olives. - Matthew 26 vs 27 - 30

Jesus Christ never insinuated that He is a sin-offering. Instead, He said His blood was poured out for the forgiveness of sins, a path to redemption for the defaulters of the Old Law of Moses — sinners of the House of Israel. Jesus Christ is not some sort of price paid for sins, neither is He a sin-offering nor a sin-eater.

Jesus Christ offered Himself to those of the House of Jacob who were weary of the curse they were under and the heavy burden of sin they continued to carry with them as a result of their being unable to obtain redemption and resolution of their sin debt by way of the Old Law, and this by design.

27 “My Father has given me everything. No one knows the Son—only the Father knows the Son. And no one knows the Father—only the Son knows the Father. And the only people who will know about the Father are those the Son chooses to tell.
28 “Come to me all of you who are tired from the heavy burden you have been forced to carry. I will give you rest.
29 Accept my teaching. Learn from me. I am gentle and humble in spirit. And you will be able to get some rest.
30 Yes, the teaching that I ask you to accept is easy. The load I give you to carry is light.” - Matthew 11 vs 27 - 30

That rest which Jesus Christ promises is earned through acceptance of His teachings — continuous submission and obedience of the Truth of God, the teachings and commandments of Jesus Christ. So, let no man deceive you with lies that your heavy burden — the sin debt you owe God carried over from His Old Law — is erased when you proclaim belief in Jesus Christ, for it isn't. God has not changed His mind regarding sin.

2. To your second question, Jesus Christ's death wasn't for the sake of God. He told you instead in John 15 vs 11 - 16 that He gave up His life for the sake of His friends. Jesus Christ could have lived and died in His Old age if He had so desired, but He gave up His life and time on earth in order to grant His friends immediate access to the path of redemption that He alone is able to give to them. He chose to come to die in order that the agreement that He brings to the House of Israel would be made available at the time in question, a time right before God's final judgment against the children of Israel.