Was Adam and Eve the only first created?

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by theguywhodoesntanswerquestions

If you were born sinless, then why did we need Jesus to redeem us? Couldn't we just sacrifice an innocent child? after all, his blood is sinless, so we could pour his sinless blood upon the mercy seat and atone for all of our sins. No, only my Lord had sinless blood, because the seed of His father was pure.

Interesting point of view here. Makes me wonder a few things, like...

1. Why is it assumed that if a person is born sinless, they don't need Jesus to redeem them? As if redemption has no connection at all to sins committed in life, but is ONLY about the condition at birth?

2. From 1 it leads me to ask "So why isn't everybody automatically saved?" If Jesus died to reverse the involuntary condition of our birth, then it should follow that all who are born are saved. Unless His atonement is severely limited in power. Or unless He just doesn't want to redeem most people.

3. Why the assumption that fixing our genetic defect requires a sacrifice of a non-genetically defected person? How does that even work?

4. Did Jesus' death cause a genetic change in human nature? Has anyone identified this biological change?

5. Why do Christians die? If sin is genetic, producing biological death, and if Jesus reversed that, then at least Christians would never experience biological death. But they do. So Jesus failed? Or, nobody has been saved?

6. If Jesus had sinless blood BECAUSE "the seed of his father was pure", is that Divine Flesh teaching? Sure sounds like it to me.

7. Jesus wasn't holy and sinless because He always did the will of His Father? Instead He was holy and sinless because He had the right genetics?

8. So then holiness and sin are all about genetics, and not at all about actions and choices?

9. So then salvation is not about pardon and forgiveness, but is rather a medical procedure involving fixing the DNA?

10. So then salvation is not about grace but race?

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by phareztamar

well, of course i strongly disagree with your statement, and no, i don't hold to any catholic dogma. just curious where you find this in the scriptures.

This was your second post in this thread. Your first post was just a thumbs up. Your third post mentions "same question". Then you complain about people not answering your "question".

Yet you had never asked a question. Instead questions were asked of you, which you never answered, despite you claiming that you answered "too many times to count". In reality you answered 0 times. Meanwhile Your first question is here: ---> http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com...2&postcount=36 where you asked "do you believe as esaias that 'sin is a legal and judicial category, not a biological or metaphysical category'?" which wasn't asked of me. You then asked another question of me (a bit later), didn't like my response, though I told you plainly WHY I was responding the way I did, and then you resorted to some mild insults and playing the victim.

Weird, isn't it?

[Evang.Benincasa]

Phareztamar lets just proceed with the discussion. Prove whatever position you hold.

Let’s start there.

[phareztamar]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Benincasa? What happened to Brother?

What did I miss?

please forgive me my brother. i meant no disrespect. of course you are a brother in Christ. one who is highly regarded. my passion often gives way to rash stupidity. i sincerely apologize.

[phareztamar]

Originally Posted by Esaias

This was your second post in this thread. Your first post was just a thumbs up. Your third post mentions "same question". Then you complain about people not answering your "question".

Yet you had never asked a question. Instead questions were asked of you, which you never answered, despite you claiming that you answered "too many times to count". In reality you answered 0 times. Meanwhile Your first question is here: ---> http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com...2&postcount=36 where you asked "do you believe as esaias that 'sin is a legal and judicial category, not a biological or metaphysical category'?" which wasn't asked of me. You then asked another question of me (a bit later), didn't like my response, though I told you plainly WHY I was responding the way I did, and then you resorted to some mild insults and playing the victim.

Weird, isn't it?

my first question was "just curious where you got this from in the scriptures" although i did omit the question mark. my bad.

[phareztamar]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Phareztamar lets just proceed with the discussion. Prove whatever position you hold.

Let’s start there.

ok my brother, we'll try again. esaias states that "sin is a legal and judicial category, not a biological or metaphysical category." my strong disagreement with that position is this: go by the hospital nursery and look at all the cute little infants. every one of them is sentenced to die. they've done nothing wrong, and have no concept of wrong. yet they are given a death sentence. to me, it doesn't get more biological than that. even if their innocence gains them heaven, still, they are sentenced to death. why?

[phareztamar]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Interesting point of view here. Makes me wonder a few things, like...

1. Why is it assumed that if a person is born sinless, they don't need Jesus to redeem them? As if redemption has no connection at all to sins committed in life, but is ONLY about the condition at birth?

2. From 1 it leads me to ask "So why isn't everybody automatically saved?" If Jesus died to reverse the involuntary condition of our birth, then it should follow that all who are born are saved. Unless His atonement is severely limited in power. Or unless He just doesn't want to redeem most people.

3. Why the assumption that fixing our genetic defect requires a sacrifice of a non-genetically defected person? How does that even work?

4. Did Jesus' death cause a genetic change in human nature? Has anyone identified this biological change?

5. Why do Christians die? If sin is genetic, producing biological death, and if Jesus reversed that, then at least Christians would never experience biological death. But they do. So Jesus failed? Or, nobody has been saved?

6. If Jesus had sinless blood BECAUSE "the seed of his father was pure", is that Divine Flesh teaching? Sure sounds like it to me.

7. Jesus wasn't holy and sinless because He always did the will of His Father? Instead He was holy and sinless because He had the right genetics?

8. So then holiness and sin are all about genetics, and not at all about actions and choices?

9. So then salvation is not about pardon and forgiveness, but is rather a medical procedure involving fixing the DNA?

10. So then salvation is not about grace but race?

yeah, would love to answer all ten of your question, but when you open with "THE GUY WHO DOESN'T ANSWER QUESTIONS' well, i think i'll pass. this has always been you esaias. throw an avalanche of scriptures at the idiot, and see if he finally sees things my way. it's sad, cuz i really do enjoy reading some of your posts. but it's your forum, and your bully-pulpit, and nobody is going to dare challenge all of your great knowledge. so yeah, think i'll pass. but thanx for your input.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by phareztamar

ok my brother, we'll try again. esaias states that "sin is a legal and judicial category, not a biological or metaphysical category." my strong disagreement with that position is this: go by the hospital nursery and look at all the cute little infants. every one of them is sentenced to die. they've done nothing wrong, and have no concept of wrong. yet they are given a death sentence. to me, it doesn't get more biological than that. even if their innocence gains them heaven, still, they are sentenced to death. why?

Because as each person is destined to die once and after that comes judgment.
The debate for original sin being an issue for DNA. Caused issues for the Catholics. I’m in no means calling you a Catholic or that you believe as they do. The doctrine which the Catholics used to defend their teaching was immaculate conception. If Jesus was the direct seed of Adam then Jesus was born with original sin. Therefore Mary was born of a virgin herself, and therefore her offspring would be sinless in nature. Brother Teklemarian and a portion of Ethiopian churches believe in Docetism. The teaching tries to distance the man Christ Jesus from the man Adam.

Matthew 18:3

And said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.

Jesus is speaking about humbleness of repentance to become innocent “remission of sins” to enter the Kingdom.

Jesus tells Nicodemus that unless you become a new born infant you can’t see or enter the kingdom.

If children were a representation of natural sin, why would being born a new be a pre-requisite for new life in Christ Jesus?

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by phareztamar

yeah, would love to answer all ten of your question, but when you open with "THE GUY WHO DOESN'T ANSWER QUESTIONS' well, i think i'll pass. this has always been you esaias. throw an avalanche of scriptures at the idiot, and see if he finally sees things my way. it's sad, cuz i really do enjoy reading some of your posts. but it's your forum, and your bully-pulpit, and nobody is going to dare challenge all of your great knowledge. so yeah, think i'll pass. but thanx for your input.

Don’t pass, stay in the game.

Ok?

Let’s keep moving forward and do this.

[phareztamar]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Because as each person is destined to die once and after that comes judgment.
The debate for original sin being an issue for DNA. Caused issues for the Catholics. I’m in no means calling you a Catholic or that you believe as they do. The doctrine which the Catholics used to defend their teaching was immaculate conception. If Jesus was the direct seed of Adam then Jesus was born with original sin. Therefore Mary was born of a virgin herself, and therefore her offspring would be sinless in nature. Brother Teklemarian and a portion of Ethiopian churches believe in Docetism. The teaching tries to distance the man Christ Jesus from the man Adam.

Matthew 18:3

And said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.

Jesus is speaking about humbleness of repentance to become innocent “remission of sins” to enter the Kingdom.

Jesus tells Nicodemus that unless you become a new born infant you can’t see or enter the kingdom.

If children were a representation of natural sin, why would being born a new be a pre-requisite for new life in Christ Jesus?

My brother you opened with my very point, and the crux of the issue. you said "Because as each person is destined to die..." That is the only baseline we know. Why are we destined to die? Sin? But infants and young children don't know right and wrong yet. Still the death sentence stands at some point in their lives. That gives way to the age of accountability. But it also brings this question for those who haven't reached that age: why is their blood not sufficient to atone for the sins of humanity? it is, after all, sinless blood.

you said "the doctrine which the catholics used to defend their teaching was immaculate conception. if Jesus was the direct seed of Adam then Jesus was born with original sin. Therefore Mary was born of a virgin herself, and therefore her offspring would be sinless in nature. This and the tradgedy of the UPC divorcing the Ethiopian brethren are both the products of a lack of knowledge. About the science of pro-creation and the production of each persons 11 pints of blood.

I'm afraid I don't understand your statement: If children were a representation of natural sin, why would being born a new be a pre-requisite for new life in Christ Jesus?