What is the Gospel?

[John317]

[Dr. Rich]

No, No, keep going while you have the motion. I want to hear what you have to say about the rest of what I wrote.

[pnattmbtc]

No, No, keep going while you have the motion. I want to hear what you have to say about the rest of what I wrote.

[Musicman1228]

John317 said, "Yes, I agree with this, MM, but also consider 1 John 1: 5 to 2: 2: "If we say we have [present tense] no sin, we deceive ourselves and there is no truth in us. But if we confess our sins to God, he will keep his promise and do what is right: he will forgive us our sins and make us clean from all our wrongdoing. If we say that we have not sinned, we make a liar out of God and his word is not in us. I write this, my children, so that you will not sin; but if anyone does sin, we have Jesus Christ, the rightous, who pleads for us with the Father. And Christ Himself is the means by which our sins are forgiven, and not our sins only, but also the sins of all men."

Again, you are correct, John. What this text describes is the process of sanctification: that is, the Holy Spirit points out a fault, a sin. We then have a choice to make. Do I keep this sin or do I get rid of it. If we decide to keep the sin then the process of sanctification ends right there. There is NOTHING more that the Holy Spirit can do to get you recognize your deficiency. If you choose to get rid of the sin then the process is actually fairly simple; you confess your sin and God forgives you that sin. Simple. Now you are cleansed from that particular sin. The process of sanctification will be completed when there are no more sins for you to confess. This is a definable end point. Up to now no one has lived to see this end point, so at the point in the process where they die God then supplies 'grace' which carries these people over the second death into life eternal. The operational factor here is that they are actually IN the process of sanctification and not looking at it from the outside when they die.

The sanctification process is the process of becoming righteous. God does not supply righteousness to you through grace by faith. Jesus does not cover your sins with His robe of righteousness. The process of sanctification actually eliminates ALL sin from your life. This is the Holy Spirit leading you into ALL truth. This is what happen with the 144,000 and the Saints (the 5 wise bridesmaid, Matt.25:1-13). There is NO sin in them and they are blameless because they have completed the process and have been sealed by becoming righteous. THIS is the overcoming of Rev.3:21.

I do not understand why Christians are so frightened by this process. This is exactly what Jesus describes in His own words. This is part of the gospel of the Kingdom that will be preached to all the world using the testimony of the words of Jesus Christ (Matt.24:14). This process does take WORK and self honesty. These two things are NOT require is you believe in salvation by grace through faith as taught by Paul.

Make up your minds: follow the words and teachings of Jesus Christ, or follow Paul. Simple.

[Twilight]

Originally Posted By: Twilight

Question:

How do we know if we are "in Christ"?

2. We will walk after the Spirit and not after the flesh.

That last part has been added to the ancient manuscripts.

What evidence do you have to make this claim Robert?

[Twilight]

Originally Posted By: Twilight

To be fair to MM, the analogy of Abraham and Isaac would be a fair argument to make.

To say he has no support for that view, is a bit strong in light of that.

You're saying that the episode of Abraham and Isaac teaches that God the Father killed Christ?

I am not saying anything about the episode, other than MM can argue the point from the above story.

And that your response was therefore a little strong when you claimed he had no position to argue from.

He does have a position to argue from, but maybe his argument is wrong when other things are considered.

[Dr. Rich]

pnatt..., you countered my statement: "My God would never do that" with the parable of the prodigal son. IF this story could be found in the other gospels then you would have a point, but Luke wrote it and many of the stories that Luke wrote can't be found in the other gospels. Luke was like Paul, a non-eyewitness who never even met Jesus. Luke, being a gentile (Greek) who was a traveling companion of Paul probably made this story up to give credence to Paul's gospel which was different than what Jesus gave.

Please compare this story with what Jesus did prophecy in Matthew 25 with the ten virgins. I do not see where Jesus is waiting at the door and when He sees the 5 foolish virgins (the ones who gave up their inheritance) finally going toward Him, where Jesus jumps up and down with excitement and welcomes them in to the room with the 5 wise.

In fact, I sincerely believe this prodigal son story was made up to give Paul's gospel a boost.

For your information, I was deeply into Paul's words and what EGW wrote for most of my life, so don't even attempt to tell me that I am looking at his words the wrong way! Neither for EGW! If you think I am wrong and I need to be brought up to your level, then come down to my level--the level of the words of Jesus Christ only and IF you can do that then I can get to your level. If you can't do that, then your level is highly suspect.

I like this to having a Mormon teaching from their new bible. Well, if they want to believe it, then they will have to come to MY level, meaning the bible which is before what Joseph Smith wrote--and the same goes for EGW's writings. (BTW, the Spirit of Prophecy is NOT the writings of EGW no matter what you think and say. Clearly, Revelation shows that the Holy Spirit IS the Spirit of Prophecy!)

And if you think I am 'twisting' Paul's words show me what I have twisted--don't just tell me. One of the best reasons for knowing for sure that Peter did NOT write 2nd Peter is that IF he had indeed written it, then he would have actually presented what Paul's writings were that were hard to understand and would have corrected them. Peter would not have left us still wondering what was fact or fiction.

Here is the thing:

1. Did not Paul imply that his god gave him a messenger from Satan? Yes or no?

2. Did not Paul demand his god to remove it? Yes or no?

3. Did not Paul write that his god said that he gave it to Paul to keep him from exalting himself? Yes or no?

4. Did Paul "entreat" his god three times in an attempt to have the messenger from Satan depart from him? Yes or no?

5. Did not Paul say that his god told him "My grace is sufficient for you"? Yes or no?

6. Did not Paul say "..crafty fellow that I am, I took you in by deceit"? Yes or no?

No--I am NOT twisting anything! Anyone can read this for himself by going to 2nd Cor. 12. Check it out yourself and don't blame me!

Now in your answer to this, please do yourself a favor and do NOT attempt to twist this to fit your own bias!

[pnattmbtc]

I am not saying anything about the episode, other than MM can argue the point from the above story.

And that your response was therefore a little strong when you claimed he had no position to argue from.

He does have a position to argue from, but maybe his argument is wrong when other things are considered.

I said the Scriptures attribute the death of Christ to several different things, but God the Father killing Him is not one. To try to argue this from Abraham's incident with Isaac I think would be completely misunderstanding what happened there. At any rate, what I said would still be true, which is that nowhere does Scripture state that God the Father killed Christ.

[pnattmbtc]

pnatt..., you countered my statement: "My God would never do that" with the parable of the prodigal son. IF this story could be found in the other gospels then you would have a point,

[pnattmbtc]

For your convenience, this is the post I'm asking you to respond to.

R:One does not have to look far to see how Paul would write one thing and then say something like "may it never be". As MM correctly stated, Paul talked with both side of his mouth, saying one thing and then the other. Jesus never did that.

p:Paul NEVER said the law was evil. This is a gross misrepresentation. MM was not correct about this. Paul said the law is "holy, just, and good." That's clear.

I have no idea where this prejudice against Paul comes from. It's certainly not fair to misrepresent someone's words like this.

R:Paul also said that the law was a curse--right?

p:No, wrong! Paul said:

Quote:

10For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them. (Galatians 3)

p:The law is not the curse, but sin! Cursed is everyone who disobeys the law. Once again, the law is "holy, just, and good," but sin is the problem, just like Romans. Paul is being consistent, and consistently misrepresented.

R:So if Paul said the law is good, then would it have been a 'good curse' to keep it?

p:No! It's a curse to disobey it! This is exactly what Paul says!

R:Didn't Paul also say it was a curse to hang on a tree? I can't see where God would have every said anything like that.

p:It's in Deuteronomy. He quoted from Moses. He didn't originate the thought.

_________________________

Christ exalted the character of God, attributing to him the praise, and giving to him the credit, of the whole purpose of his own mission on earth,--to set men right through the revelation of God.

[Dr. Rich]

pnatt, you asked for bible evidence for God the Father executing His Son and I gave you this in a clear and concise form, but you were to blind to see this for yourself. Here it is again:

1. Who was it that was going to kill (execute) Adam on the day Adam ate from the forbidden tree? Answer= God.

2. Who was it that was going to kill Isaac? Answer=His father.

3. Who is the only one that can kill a spiritual being? Answer=God

4. Was Jesus both human and a spiritual being? Answer=Jesus was the son of man AND the Son of God so the answer is YES!

5. Did Jesus take the place of Adam? Answer=Yes.

6. On the cross, did Jesus give Himself up to His Father? Answer=Yes.

7. On the cross, did Jesus die before they thrust the spear into Him? Answer=Yes.

8. Was Jesus' Heavenly Father present when Jesus died? Answer=Yes.

Ok, lets add all of this up and see who the 'suspect' really is.

If my investigation proves anyone other than Jesus' Heavenly Father doing the execution, then I must have messed up somewhere. Hmmmm?

Now, did you get this or are you having some problem with this too?

As for my post on Paul's words in 2nd Cor. please tell me why this is too hard for you to understand. My questions were for you to answer and I made it easy for you, but since you knew I had you to rights, you attempted to side step the issue altogether and attempt to confuse the obvious with red herring statements. Go back and answer these question the best way you know how without picking a fight.

I did forget to ask about what Paul said in 1Tim.1:20 "Among these are Hymenaeus and Alexander, whom I have delivered over to Satan, so that they may be taught not to blaspheme." Please give me your best answer to this question: Did Jesus or any of His disciples ever do this?

If you think I need to be taught, then reach down to my level and do it! I can't get to your level without some help here. If people go repeating things they hear from anyone other than Jesus, how is it that I am to trust them? Get the picture?

Just because you have allowed your mind to be filled up with words from others other than Jesus Christ, is not a good reason to go around blaming people who are questioning you about your own belief.

[wayfinder]

Galatians 3:10 NAS

For as many as are of the works of the Law are under a curse ; for it is written, "CURSED IS EVERYONE WHO DOES NOT ABIDE BY ALL THINGS WRITTEN IN THE BOOK OF THE LAW, TO PERFORM

The requirements of the Law are a curse; therefore the Law pronounces the curse

Galatians 3:13 NAS

Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law, having become a curse for us-for it is written, "CURSED IS EVERYONE WHO HANGS ON A TREE "-

This redemption works only if you live under grace and therefore have been set free from the requirements/curse of the Law.

Romans 8:2 NAS

For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set you free from the law of sin and of death

1 Corinthians 15:56 NAS

The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law

So according to Paul, God cursed Israel when He gave them the Law at Mt Horeb.

And if you had any doubts about what Law he is talking about.

Romans 2:21 you, therefore, who teach another, do you not teach yourself ? You who preach that one shall not steal, do you steal ?

22 You who say that one should not commit adultery, do you commit adultery ? You who abhor idols, do you rob temples ?

it is the Ten Commandments, the covenant of the Kingdom of God, keept in the Most Holy Place. And this is the curse that the Lamb of God freed us from?

[pnattmbtc]

Quote:

pnatt, you asked for bible evidence for God the Father executing His Son and I gave you this in a clear and concise form, but you were to blind to see this for yourself. Here it is again:

1. Who was it that was going to kill (execute) Adam on the day Adam ate from the forbidden tree? Answer= God.

Where do you get the idea that God would kill anyone? God warned them that if they would eat of the tree, they would die. He didn't say He would kill them! Again, where do you get such an idea?

Quote:

2. Who was it that was going to kill Isaac? Answer=His father.

At this time human sacrifice was common. God demonstrated through this story that He did not want human sacrifice. Abraham did NOT kill Isaac. If anything, this is evidence that God did NOT kill His Son.

Quote:

3. Who is the only one that can kill a spiritual being? Answer=God

God is the one who gives life. No one lives, either physically or spiritually unless God gives him life. When one separates from God, one dies, not because God kills him, but because he has separated himself from the source of life, which is God.

Quote:

4. Was Jesus both human and a spiritual being? Answer=Jesus was the son of man AND the Son of God so the answer is YES!

We're also spiritual beings. It sounds like you mean "divine" as opposed to "spiritual."

Quote:

5. Did Jesus take the place of Adam? Answer=Yes.

If you mean as head of the race, agreed.

Quote:

6. On the cross, did Jesus give Himself up to His Father? Answer=Yes.

One could say this.

Quote:

7. On the cross, did Jesus die before they thrust the spear into Him? Answer=Yes.

Why is this point being made?

Quote:

8. Was Jesus' Heavenly Father present when Jesus died? Answer=Yes.

Yes, God was present, as Psalm 18 eloquently depicts. God suffered with His Son. God was crucified with Christ.

Quote:

Ok, lets add all of this up and see who the 'suspect' really is.

If my investigation proves anyone other than Jesus' Heavenly Father doing the execution, then I must have messed up somewhere. Hmmmm?

I have no idea how you're reaching such a conclusion.

Quote:

22Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know:

23Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain:

24Whom God hath raised up, having loosed the pains of death: because it was not possible that he should be holden of it. (Acts 2:22-24)

I suspect you'll reject this, but nevertheless it is clear that what is written here is what happened. Jesus Christ was taken by wicked hands, crucified and slain.

If you wish to reject this because it's not the words of Jesus Christ, OK, then let's consider the words of Christ. Did Christ every say that His Father would kill Him? No. Did He ever say that His Father would execute Him? No. Did He teach that others would kill Him? Yes, He did, on a number of occasions. I'm not sure which Gospels you accept, but whichever one or ones they are, you'll find that Jesus Christ explained to His disciples, as well as teaching by parables, that He would be put to death, and in no case did He attribute this act to His Father.

Quote:

Now, did you get this or are you having some problem with this too?

Does your theology result in your being disrespectful to others? Do you think if I disagree with you it's because I'm not "getting it"? Isn't another possibility that I disagree with what you're saying, rather than not getting it?

The problem I'm having with this is that it's completely out of harmony with anything Jesus Christ taught. He spoke of His Father in glowing, positive ways. His whole life was a revelation of the Father. Indeed, He taught, "If you've seen Me, you've seen the Father."

Jesus Christ was a living portrait of the Father. He was God in human flesh. He was the answer to the question, "If God were a human being, what He would like?"

In Christ, God presented Himself in a way that we could best understand Him.

Nowhere did Jesus Christ even remotely present the idea that His Father would kill or execute Him. Where are you getting this idea from?

Quote:

As for my post on Paul's words in 2nd Cor. please tell me why this is too hard for you to understand.

I'm a member of Mensa. I'm not stupid. I'd appreciate your conversing in a less insulting tone.

What I don't understand is why you think if someone agrees with you it's because they're not understanding something, or something is too difficult for them. Isn't a more gracious possibility that there may some defect on the writer's side?

Quote:

My questions were for you to answer and I made it easy for you, but since you knew I had you to rights, you attempted to side step the issue altogether and attempt to confuse the obvious with red herring statements. Go back and answer these question the best way you know how without picking a fight.

You're still being disrespectful here. I'll pass.

Quote:

I did forget to ask about what Paul said in 1Tim.1:20 "Among these are Hymenaeus and Alexander, whom I have delivered over to Satan, so that they may be taught not to blaspheme." Please give me your best answer to this question: Did Jesus or any of His disciples ever do this?

If you think I need to be taught, then reach down to my level and do it! I can't get to your level without some help here. If people go repeating things they hear from anyone other than Jesus, how is it that I am to trust them? Get the picture?

Just because you have allowed your mind to be filled up with words from others other than Jesus Christ, is not a good reason to go around blaming people who are questioning you about your own belief.

This whole tone of post is vituperative and disrespectful. If your theology is based on following the words of Christ, it should lead to your treating others as He did.

I don't believe you responded to the post I posted, and posted a second time. Please do so.

I also asked you to quote the words of Paul and to say what you think they mean. If you wish to discuss these words, please do so, and please make your points and ask questions without being insulting.

[David A Rosales]

Man I feel like I missed something it is pretty clear to me that he was given up "Mat 26:45 Then cometh he to his disciples, and saith unto them, Sleep on now, and take your rest: behold, the hour is at hand, and the Son of man is betrayed into the hands of sinners." To Sinners in which they killed him BUT

Joh 18:11 Then said Jesus unto Peter, Put up thy sword into the sheath: the cup which my Father hath given me, shall I not drink it?

This text in John seems to be the only indication that the actual cup comes from the Father nevertheless it was sinners doing the killing yet it was the Father's will for Christ to die (not my will but thy will)

Interesting stuff

[pnattmbtc]

I think there's an important distinction between the Father's will and the will of those who wanted to kill Jesus. It was God's will in the sense that He permitted it to happen, but God did not want His Son to be killed. However, Christ's enemies did want Him to be killed, so it was their will in an active sense, not just a passive or permissive sense.

[Dr. Rich]

If not God, then who would it be to kill Adam. (Strongs shows the word to mean "execute".

Were you there to know that human sacrifice was common, or are you just guessing?

No, humans are NOT spiritual beings. That is why they are called 'human beings'. A spiritual being is one that you and I can't see and only God can destroy (kill) them. Yes, humans have a living soul and it is made up of a body (case) and the breath of God (battery). Take away either and there is no living soul.

No, you are not stupid, but then being a member of Mensa will not guarantee salvation either. My parent called me smart, but it ended with 'alik' or something like that. I am sorry I upset you. What bothers me is you say 'you have no idea' after I presented my investigation which shows that the ONLY one that could execute (kill) was the Almighty God the Father. If that is not 'an idea' then I give up. You are free to believe what you want but since God is the one that is going to destroy evil, Satan and his messengers (demons), then to me this all fits.

Since you refuse to answer my questions about Paul, I shall assume that you also believe that Paul's gospel is not the same as Jesus' gospel. You acquiescence is noted.

[pnattmbtc]

Quote:

If not God, then who would it be to kill Adam. (Strongs shows the word to mean "execute".

I'm seeing the word as being "muth," used hundreds of times, with the most common meaning being, by far, "die."

Quote:

Were you there to know that human sacrifice was common, or are you just guessing?

Are you kidding? I'm only a few decades old. If I were limited to knowing things that occurred in my life time, that would be a very small sampling of history.

I know things about places I've not been to and times I've not lived because I read.

Quote:

No, humans are NOT spiritual beings.

Websters has:

Quote:

1 : of, relating to, consisting of, or affecting the spirit : incorporeal <spiritual needs>

2 a : of or relating to sacred matters <spiritual songs> b : ecclesiastical rather than lay or temporal <spiritual authority> <lords spiritual>

3 : concerned with religious values

4 : related or joined in spirit <our spiritual home> <his spiritual heir>

5 a : of or relating to supernatural beings or phenomena b : of, relating to, or involving spiritualism : spiritualistic

Do you have last definition in mind?

In common parlance, humans are spiritual beings.

Quote:

That is why they are called 'human beings'. A spiritual being is one that you and I can't see and only God can destroy (kill) them.

Where do you get this idea from? I've quoted above what "spiritual" means. Unless you have the last definition in mind, I don't see where you're getting your idea from.

Anyway, all beings, however you wish to designate them, obtain their life from God.

Quote:

Yes, humans have a living soul and it is made up of a body (case) and the breath of God (battery). Take away either and there is no living soul.

No, you are not stupid, but then being a member of Mensa will not guarantee salvation either. My parent called me smart, but it ended with 'alik' or something like that. I am sorry I upset you.

Thank you. If you don't insult me, I'd appreciate that.

Quote:

What bothers me is you say 'you have no idea' after I presented my investigation which shows that the ONLY one that could execute (kill) was the Almighty God the Father.

It was a pretty sketchy argument, don't you think? Read it from the perspective of someone not yourself, and see if you don't agree.

What I'm really asking for is an argument based on Jesus' words, and I didn't see any of that.

Quote:

If that is not 'an idea' then I give up. You are free to believe what you want but since God is the one that is going to destroy evil, Satan and his messengers (demons), then to me this all fits.

Since you refuse to answer my questions about Paul, I shall assume that you also believe that Paul's gospel is not the same as Jesus' gospel. You acquiescence is noted.

I refused to answer your questions because of your tone. You also did not do, and still have not done, what I requested, which is to quote what you had in mind from Paul, and explain what you think Paul meant.

You also haven't responded to my post, which was the first thing posted in our discussion, even though I've repeatedly asked you to do so, and posted it again for your convenience.

[Robert]

What evidence do you have to make this claim Robert?

It's rather simple....Remember that in the original manuscripts there were no verse and chapter divisions. Reading from Romans 7:21

So I find this law [the law of sin - our bent-to-self] at work: When I want to do good, sin is right there with me. 22 For in my inner being I delight in God's law; 23 but I see another law at work in the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin at work within my members. 24 What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body of death? 25 Thanks be to God--through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, I myself in my mind am a slave to God's law, but in the sinful nature a slave to the law of sin.

Here's a man that loves God's law (your shall love your neighbor as yourself), but when the rubber meets the road he is failing to experience agape because he is depending on his will power to say "no" to his bent-to-self. Is there any condemnation to those who are failing to be selfless?

Remember that as a Pharisee Paul considered himself blameless before the law. See Phil 6:6. But when he understood what coveting really was (the love of self - i.e., our bent-to-self) he saw himself as a sinner. As EGW states, "when the spiritual character of the law was discerned, he saw himself a sinner."

So the context of Romans 7 as related to the law isn't about keeping the letter of the law, but rather keeping its spirit. For example you can give all your possessions to the poor, but if your motive is bent back to self (if your motives is selfish in the least bit) your deed is polluted and hence filthy rags.

That's the issue with the man of Romans 7. He doesn't have problems with keeping the letter of the law...it's the spirit of the law he can't keep. Why? Because agape is the only way one can be in harmony with the law and that comes by the spirit if you are not depending on these works to save you.

So the man of Romans 7 is failing to keep the spirit of the law. Is there any condemnation?

Romans 8:1 (the tradition view) There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

But this man is failing...therefore we must conclude there's condemnation to the one who isn't keeping the spirit of the law. What is the spirit of the law? No bent-to-self. You must live Christ's life....A life that "thought not, planned not, lived not, for himself".

Since you say that the traditional view of Romans 8:1 is correct then you must admit that you are under the curse and lost.

Now maybe the correct version would be appreciated, what do you think?

Rob

[wayfinder]

pnatt, did you read my post on Paul and the Law?

As far as the Hebrew word for the penalty for eating of the forbidden tree.

Strong's Number: 4191 Muwth

Definition

to die, kill, have one executed

to die (as penalty), be put to death

Genesis 2:17 but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil-- of it ye shall not eat, but in whatsoever day ye eat of it, ye shall surely die

Strong's Number: 3117 Transliterated Word:Yowm

Definition

day (24 hour period)

as defined by evening and morning in Genesis 1

Adam and Eve did not "die" nor were they put to death that day (24 hour period).

The penalty for eating from the forbidden tree was death by execution, God is the executioner. God killed His Son in the place of Adam and Eve and with His shed blood purchased a kingdom.

[pnattmbtc]

Galatians 3:10 NAS

For as many as are of the works of the Law are under a curse ; for it is written, "CURSED IS EVERYONE WHO DOES NOT ABIDE BY ALL THINGS WRITTEN IN THE BOOK OF THE LAW, TO PERFORM

The requirements of the Law are a curse; therefore the Law pronounces the curse

[wayfinder]

Galations 5:1 It was for freedom that Christ set us free ; therefore keep standing firm and do not be subject again to a yoke of slavery.

2 Behold I, Paul, say to you that if you receive circumcision, Christ will be of no benefit to you.

3 And I testify again to every man who receives circumcision, that he is under obligation to keep the whole Law.

4 You have been severed from Christ, you who are seeking to be justified by law ; you have fallen from grace

I agree whole heartedly that we must keep the Law. Paul states that it is impossible to keep the Law and that Christ freed us from the requirement/curse that we must keep the Law. It is absured to think that knowledge of sin only came when the Law was revealed. Sin was well known prior to the giving of the tablets on Mt Horeb.

Genesis 4:7 NAS

"If you do well, will not your countenance be lifted up? And if you do not do well, sin is crouching at the door ; and its desire is for you, but you must master it."

[pnattmbtc]

Quote:

pnatt, did you read my post on Paul and the Law?

I don't know. What's the number?

Quote:

As far as the Hebrew word for the penalty for eating of the forbidden tree.

Strong's Number: 4191 Muwth

Definition

to die, kill, have one executed

to die (as penalty), be put to death

The most common meaning, by far, is "to die."

Quote:

body (1), bring about my death (1), bring death (1), caused the death (1), certainly die (1), certainly put (1), certainly put me to death (1), corpse (2), dead (104), dead man (1), dead* (2), deadly* (1), death (21), deceased (5), destroy (2), die (214), die shall be put (1), died (167), dies (30), dying (1), kill (13), killed (24), killing (2), kills (4), means kill (2), mortally (3), must die (1), perished* (1), put (4), put her to death (1), put him to death (1), put him to death (20), put his to death (1), put me to death (1), put me to death (3), put my to death (1), put some to death (1), put the to death (3), put their to death (1), put them to death (1), put them to death (8), put to death (62), put us to death (2), put you to death (6), puts him to death (1), putting to death (1), slay (7), surely be put to death (56), surely we will kill (1), surely will die (1), surely die (16), surely* (1), took life (2).

This is from the NASB concordance. Sometimes the word is used to mean "to put to death," but much more often it is translated simply "die" or "died" or "deceased" or something similar. There's certainly nothing in the context of Genesis to suggest that God was saying He would execute them if they ate of the fruit. And, as perhaps the greatest evidence as to the meaning, it's not what happened! God did not execute them, even though they ate of the fruit.

Quote:

Genesis 2:17 but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil-- of it ye shall not eat, but in whatsoever day ye eat of it, ye shall surely die

Strong's Number: 3117 Transliterated Word:Yowm

Definition

day (24 hour period)

as defined by evening and morning in Genesis 1

Adam and Eve did not "die" nor were they put to death that day (24 hour period).

The penalty for eating from the forbidden tree was death by execution, God is the executioner.

I don't understand where you're getting this from. There is no tradition of the text which has this understanding. I did some looking, and couldn't find anything.

The Genesis account is clear as to what happened. They ate the fruit, became aware they were naked, made a covering from fig leaves to hide themselves, and ran and hid from God. When God found them, He didn't execute them, but instead invited them to come out of hiding so He could talk to them. He must have done so in a winsome way, because they did so.

Where is there anything at all harsh or threatening in God's behavior towards them?

Quote:

God killed His Son in the place of Adam and Eve and with His shed blood purchased a kingdom.

God did not kill His Son! Again, I'll ask you to quote something from the words of Jesus to establish your position. Jesus NEVER said, "My Father will kill Me," or anything ever remotely close to this.

He said no one would take His life from Him, but He would lay it down. When He spoke of His being slain, it was in the context of evil men, not of God.

Your concept of God seems dark to me.

[pnattmbtc]

Quote:

Galations 5:1 It was for freedom that Christ set us free ; therefore keep standing firm and do not be subject again to a yoke of slavery.

2 Behold I, Paul, say to you that if you receive circumcision, Christ will be of no benefit to you.

3 And I testify again to every man who receives circumcision, that he is under obligation to keep the whole Law.

4 You have been severed from Christ, you who are seeking to be justified by law ; you have fallen from grace

I agree whole heartedly that we must keep the Law. Paul states that it is impossible to keep the Law and that Christ freed us from the requirement/curse that we must keep the Law.

To quote Paul, "May it never be!" No, Paul did not teach anything like this. Paul taught that obedience to the law is necessary, but only possible by faith in Christ.

Quote:

It is absured to think that knowledge of sin only came when the Law was revealed.

Sin was well known prior to the giving of the tablets on Mt Horeb.

Genesis 4:7 NAS

"If you do well, will not your countenance be lifted up? And if you do not do well, sin is crouching at the door ; and its desire is for you, but you must master it."

The knowledge of sin was made clearer by the addition of the law. The law had always been know, in some sense, but had been lost sight of by the people in their captivity. The law was spoken to them to make clear to them their need of a Savior.

[wayfinder]

pnatt, I find, for myself, some troubling statements made by Paul. I realize I am in a minority on this issue, but I must be honest with myself, for I am accountable for myself, for the light given me by God and responsible for sharing this light with others.

Revelation 2:2 'I know your deeds and your toil and perseverance, and that you cannot tolerate evil men, and you put to the test those who call themselves apostles, and they are not, and you found them to be false

I put everyone to the test who "calls themselves apostles" and I find troubling statements made by Paul. The standard I use is the testimony of Jesus as recorded by His eyewitnesses and the books of the Law and prophets.

Revelation 12:17 So the dragon was enraged with the woman, and went off to make war with the rest of her children, who keep the commandments of God and hold to the testimony of Jesus.

[Musicman1228]

pnatt said, "Clearly the law can't literally "pronounce" anything, not being a sentient being. Are you here attempting to state Paul's argument? (as opposed to being your own thought; i.e., that the law pronounces a curse)."

(A brief aside from the topic at hand.)

It is interesting how you put this. Stated this way you would also have to assess the same value to the Two Witnesses of Rev. 11 as being the Old and New Testament in the same light. The 'Law' being contained inside the Old and New Testaments would also fall under this same stricture; that is they cannot be the Two Witnesses because they are not 'sentient beings'. Therefore, the Two Witnesses MUST be real human beings living during the Great Tribulation. Would this not make EGW incorrect in her clear prophetic statement that the Two Witnesses are the Old and New Testament?