SermonIndex Audio Sermons
Image Map
Discussion Forum : Scriptures and Doctrine : Sin

Print Thread (PDF)

Goto page ( Previous Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 Next Page )
PosterThread
roadsign
Member



Joined: 2005/5/2
Posts: 3776


 Re:

Quote:
The tree of life is another subject fraught with difficulties because of a lack of explicit information.

The tree of the knowledge of good and evil is fraught with difficulties as well..



Might I add another difficulty: It is our cultural programing which has shaped the way we think. In observing discussions on this topic over the years, I'd say, that it is our 'scientific" way of analysis that gets in the way. We must throw out our "microscopes" and dissecting "scalpels" - and let the text simply say what it's trying to say - without trying to add explanations that fit into our own paradigms. Remove the restrictive modernist cognitive paraphernalia.

And then Cain's problem may become clearer.

I'm convinced that if we lived in 1000 BC we'd see this scripture through a different lens.

Why wouldn't the "tree of life" simply refer to eternal life as implied in Revelation, and the other tree simply refer to a conscious awareness that was never intended for humans - because humans are not God?

The "serpent" promised that their "eyes will be opened" if they chose the "fruit". What would they see?

What happened when their "eyes were opened" - after choosing the way of self-mastery, self-knowing, self-god"? What did they "see" that they never saw before?

That may help explain what was actually forbidden.

Something to consider:
Do you think that the ancient people reading Genesis believed that a Redeemer would crush a fleshly snake with his fleshly heal? Does the New Testament ever suggest that?


_________________
Diane

 2018/1/19 12:00Profile
Gloryandgrace
Member



Joined: 2017/7/14
Posts: 1092
Snoqualmie, WA

 Re:

Diane: This is another reason why people like YOU, are a blessing to me.

I no doubt am the epitome of the microscope and surgeon guy, and I a product of my culture.

Your post helps to remind me of what I am and thats a good thing.

you said...if they chose the "fruit" - in other words, self-mastery, self-knowing, self-god".

and again you said...a conscious awareness that was never intended for humans - because humans are not God?
I think this is a revelation from God you just wrote to us.


This is why I have maintained the double whammy of what happened when the tree is understood as 'the law'.
Eve didnt understand the paradox as we see it now, she had to break the law of God "thou shalt not eat" in order to partake of the law of God from the tree. What was the fruit of her fallen-ness once she partook of the law as a sinner?
Rom 7:7 What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.

It was because she partook of that tree, the law did it's work and she and Adam understood 'self' and 'alienation' this is what we are taught from Genesis to Revelation that the law does...it opens our eyes to what we are in relation to the holiness of God's law and God himself.

Therefore they hid themselves.

you said...
Something to consider:
Do you think that the ancient people reading Genesis believed that a Redeemer would crush a fleshly snake with his fleshly heal? Does the New Testament ever suggest that?

The word is bruise..Heb. 'shoof' to break or bruise.
Isaiah 53 speak of God 'brusing' Jesus 'daw kaw' to bruise or beat to pieces. This being done by the conspiracy of the Pharasees and Romans to put him to death on the cross.
But when the new testament speaks of Satan being bruised explicitly, it speaks of the Church doing it.
Rom 16:20 And the God of peace shall bruise Satan under your feet shortly. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you. Amen.

When Jesus 'bruises' Satan it is spoken of in military terms, Col 2:14 Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross;
Col 2:15 And having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a shew of them openly, triumphing over them in it.

here, spoiled; apekdouomai to spoil or divest for himself their power over mankind.
In effect Satan's effort to destroy Jesus turned out to be the destruction and despoiling of his own power.

in simple slang...Satan hit Adam and gained power over mankind, Satan hit Jesus and lost power over mankind.


_________________
Marvin

 2018/1/19 12:46Profile
dohzman
Member



Joined: 2004/10/13
Posts: 2132


 Re:

Isa.55:12. Indeed we all approach the Word of God with baggage. Good post Diane


_________________
D.Miller

 2018/1/19 18:36Profile
Man0fG0d
Member



Joined: 2012/5/27
Posts: 174


 Re:

James 4:17 KJV
Therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin.


_________________
Elijah

 2018/1/19 18:53Profile
BranchinVINE
Member



Joined: 2016/6/15
Posts: 636
Australia

 Re:


Hi Elijah,

What is "good"?

Blessings.


_________________
Jade

 2018/1/19 21:10Profile
roadsign
Member



Joined: 2005/5/2
Posts: 3776


 Re:

Quote:
Indeed we all approach the Word of God with baggage.


It’s so hard to see how our “baggage” burdens down our thinking with a quagmire of twists and justifications. Many years ago someone helped me see how Dispensationalism was "baggage". After that I’d stay unconvinced whenever I needed to go cross-eyed to see a “truth” in the text. I came to believe that no major doctrinal claim needs to be founded on one verse or on “isogesis”(reading into the text) . Not sure yet how that applies here …

Quote:
Eve didn’t understand the paradox as we see it now, she had to break the law of God "thou shalt not eat" in order to partake of the law of God from the tree.



So her eyes were opened to something that innocence protects one from. I still suspect this is about the experiential “knowing”, as in, a conscious awareness. (Here again, we so easily apply our cognitive conditioning – where “knowing” is synonymous with conceptual information (know ABOUT).

It seems that the “tree” represented a spiritual law that cannot be defied, just as gravity is a natural law that cannot be defied. We could tell people: “thou shalt not disobey the law of gravity”. Really, they can’t defy this law even if they tried! But they can experience (know) the consequences of trying to defy gravity. (you get hurt, or die).

When humanity disobeyed and “ditched” God (which they can’t actually do) they imposed the need for laws, as in rules. (Is that what the "tree" becomes for sinners? imposed laws? Naturally, the outcome would be irreconcilable guilt - alienation from God.

Quote:
Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.


What a burden to carry - because of sin.


There’s one word in the text that’s key I think, and doesn’t readily accommodate our legal/law frame of mind. It’s the word: SHAME – at the beginning and at the end of the Bible. Why is this word “shame” used when “sin” might have made more sense to us? ( The word "sin" isn't even found in the account of the fall).

"SHAME" - WASABSENT BEFORE THE FALL:
“The man and his wife were both naked, and they felt NO SHAME”. Gen. 2:25

WAS PRESENT AFTER THE FALL
“”Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they realized they were naked; so they made coverings for themselves.” Gen. 3:10

THE FRUIT OF SALVATION:
“Anyone who believes in him will never be put to shame.” Romans 10:11

ABSENT IN THE NEW “JERUSALEM”:
“Blessed is the one who stays awake and remains clothed, so as not to go naked and be SHAMEfully exposed.” Rev. 21:27

Was shame Cain's problem?


_________________
Diane

 2018/1/20 16:13Profile
JFW
Member



Joined: 2011/10/21
Posts: 1244
Dothan, Alabama

 Re:

Sister Diane,

Wow!! That was a deeply insightful post... one of the best I’ve read anywhere in quite a long time as it has set off a cascade of revelations in my mind, quickened by Holy Spirit:)

Thank you for sharing this,... there’s so much meat it’s gonna take a bit to digest but in any case I am grateful for such a feast:))
Again, THANK YOU!


_________________
Fletcher

 2018/1/21 8:47Profile
roadsign
Member



Joined: 2005/5/2
Posts: 3776


 Re:

Quote:
Gen. 4:2-3 - Cain was a tiller of the ground. So it came about in the course of time that Cain brought an offering to the LORD of the fruit of the ground.


Question:

What is bad about what Cain did?


Answer: Nothing!


Next question:
What did God mean when he said, "Sin is crouching at your door" ?
Had a sin been committed yet?

PS: I'd still like to explore the problem of SHAME as it is explicitly related to the fall - and Cain's problem.


_________________
Diane

 2018/1/21 14:01Profile
TMK
Member



Joined: 2012/2/8
Posts: 5355
NC, USA

 Re:

“BERKOWITZ: That moniker, Son of Sam. That was not ... That was a demon. That was a demonic entity that I was serving in my ignorance, in my shame.” (From interview wit David Berkowitz, “Son of Sam” serial killer).

A common result of shame is to lash out in anger at the person that shamed you; if that is not possible to lash out of others. A bully is often shamed at home.


_________________
Todd

 2018/1/21 14:51Profile
BranchinVINE
Member



Joined: 2016/6/15
Posts: 636
Australia

 Re:

Hi Diane,

Firstly:

Gen. 4:2-3 - Cain was a tiller of the ground. So it came about in the course of time that Cain brought an offering to the LORD of the fruit of the ground.
Verse 5 - but for Cain and for his offering He had no regard. So Cain became very angry and his countenance fell.

I asked: “What is bad about what Cain did?”

You replied: “Nothing!”


This is what Cain did:
He brought an offering to the Lord of the fruit of the ground that the Lord had no regard for.
The problem was in the offering he brought. He became angry AFTER the Lord rejected it.




Secondly:

You wrote:
“What did God mean when he said, ‘Sin is crouching at your door’ ?
Had a sin been committed yet?”


Sin was already there. It was crouching at the door. It was blocking Cain from the door to something for what is a door but an opening to something. I suggest that it was blocking Cain from God’s acceptance, fellowship and the glory and the blessings of God.

Isa. 59:2 -- But your iniquities have separated between you and your God, and your sins have hid his face from you, that he will not hear.

Rom. 3:23 -- for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God

Add (1):
John 10:9 -- "I am the door; if anyone enters through Me, he will be saved, and will go in and out and find pasture.

Add (2):
It is “self” or “I” (i.e. the "self-God" and self-life) that comes between us and Christ.
Luke 9:23-24 - And He was saying to them all, "If anyone wishes to come after Me, he must deny himself, and take up his cross daily and follow Me. For whoever wishes to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for My sake, he is the one who will save it.”

Add (3):
At this point Cain could still acknowledge his wrong and return to God as the prodigal son did in Luke 15:11-32.
The prodigal son did the wrong thing in leaving his father.
He did the right thing in acknowledging his sin and returning.
Luke 15:18 – “I will get up and go to my father, and will say to him, "Father, I have sinned against heaven, and in your sight……”
And God would have welcomed Cain back with an embrace and a kiss and organised a sumptuous feast to celebrate his return as the father did for his prodigal son.
Unfortunately Cain moved further away from God to the point of no return.






Thirdly:

Is shame the cause of sin or the effect of sin?

Add:
Luke 9:26 -- For whoever is ashamed of Me and My words, the Son of Man will be ashamed of him when He comes in His glory, and the glory of the Father and of the holy angels




_________________
Jade

 2018/1/21 21:28Profile





©2002-2019 SermonIndex.net
Promoting Genuine Biblical Revival.
Privacy Policy