Mike, I hate to tell you this when you are clearly so "right," but Jesus isn't described as being "the second Adam" but "the last Adam." There's actually quite a difference in meaning and intent.
If you happen to have a Bible, you can read about it in 1 Cor 15:45.
The first man Adam became a living soul: the last Adam became a quickening spirit.
No idea (and don't care) how it might be described in PFAL.
Jesus Christ is the exception because he was not of Adam's bloodline.
On the contrary, as everyone traces back to Adam and Eve, Jesus Christ was of Adam's bloodline--through his mother, Mary. Mary, was of Adam's bloodline.
Quote
He was not "of Adam" or "of the man."
But he was of Mary, who was of the man, Adam.
Quote
I'd translate the verse "All of Adam [the man] are infused with lies."
This is an ownership issue. The adversary owns Adam's race.
I still haven't had anyone explain to me how eating of a forbidden tree implies transfer of ownership.
Mike, I hate to tell you this when you are clearly so "right," but Jesus isn't described as being "the second Adam" but "the last Adam." There's actually quite a difference in meaning and intent.
If you happen to have a Bible, you can read about it in 1 Cor 15:45.
No idea (and don't care) how it might be described in PFAL.
Thank you. I appreciate fine tuning.
I can only vaguely remember something about "second" but I think it's unimportant for this thread.
What I answered was pretty much straight from Paul's epistles. Some of the terminology I used is PFAL, but the verses line up very nicely. I'll bet thousands of churches answer it the same way I did.
Addendum - the same word is used for "man" and for "Adam."
Please don't insult our intelligence. Spell it out. Which verses "line up very nicely" with what? First off, does the bible EVER specifically indicate that Jesus never even told a "white lie?" Or is it blasphemous for me to even raise the question?
Please don't insult our intelligence. Spell it out. Which verses "line up very nicely" with what? First off, does the bible EVER specifically indicate that Jesus never even told a "white lie?" Or is it blasphemous for me to even raise the question?
What's most clear is that Jesus never violated the Law of Moses.
I do not know what kind of lying might be forbidden in there. I do know that there's a very wide spectrum of what is a lie or a white lie. It's much bigger than most know.
"8 For thou hast delivered my soul from death, mine eyes from tears, and my feet from falling.
9 I will walk before the Lord in the land of the living.
10 I believed, therefore have I spoken: I was greatly afflicted:
11 I said in my haste, All men are liars.
12 What shall I render unto the Lord for all his benefits toward me?"
Psalm 116:8-12 NASB
"For You have rescued my soul from death, My eyes from tears, My feet from stumbling. 9 I shall walk before the Lord In the [e]land of the living. 10 I believed when I said, “I am greatly afflicted.” 11 I said in my alarm, “All men are liars.”
12 What shall I render to the Lord For all His benefits [f]toward me?"
Psalm 116:8-12 CEV
"You, Lord, have saved my life from death, my eyes from tears, my feet from stumbling. 9 Now I will walk at your side in this land of the living. 10 I was faithful to you when I was suffering, 11 though in my confusion I said, “I can’t trust anyone!”
12 What must I give you, Lord, for being so good to me?"
===================================
When vpw/twi bases a docrrine on EXACTLY ONE VERSE (or less), I'm highly suspicious it may have meant nothing of the kind. I see no reason to think this verse is outlining a rule that says "All men are liars." Looks to me like that was the state of mind of the psalmist at the moment he said that, whether true or not.
RG, I thought Mike gave a Bullsheet answer, and it didn't work for me.
lol. You guys are fun. :) But Mike, I still do like your answer. I think sometimes we overthink things, and yours seems like a simple, logical explanation.
lol. You guys are fun. :) But Mike, I still do like your answer. I think sometimes we overthink things, and yours seems like a simple, logical explanation.
Your free to choose whichever answer you want to accept.
However, I'd question an answer such as Mike's which is based on a class presented by an alcoholic which regularly forced himself on women.
I wouldn't trust Saint Vic with any females, none the less my eternal life.
So_crates and WordWolf my answer and the verses I implied are the pretty standard explanation of this. Why not check out the official lines of some large churches And see what they say in their official commentaries.
I don't think there is anything controversial about what we got in the class on this. That's what I meant by the verses lining up nicely. This little subtopic (all men liars; Jesus not liar) is not contested by anyone as far as I know.
I don't think there is anything controversial about what we got in the class on this. That's what I meant by the verses lining up nicely.
No, what is meant by lining up verses nicely is that there are verses to line up. I don't see any verses in you explanation.
Quote
This little subtopic (all men liars; Jesus not liar) is not contested by anyone as far as I know.
It's contested by many as its not a whole verse but part of a verse. If you scroll back, you see at least one example of it being contested
To wit:
20 hours ago, T-Bone said:
good post Rocky !
The ESV renders Psalm 119: 11 as follows:
I said in my alarm, All mankind are liars…Psalm 116: 11 ESV
Reading the context, it appears to me that the psalmist said this out of great distress – and I think he may have succumbed to a cognitive distortion
– which may simply be one of the “ways that our mind convinces us of something that isn’t really true. These inaccurate thoughts are usually used to reinforce negative thinking or emotions — telling ourselves things that sound rational and accurate, but really only serve to keep us feeling bad about ourselves.” (from above link)
Do people lie sometimes? Sure. And some folks have a tendency to lie more than others. Like wierwille – he sure went on and on about his concern for the integrity and accuracy of “The Word” in PFAL…yeah, for someone who was an unabashed plagiarist I guess personal integrity or accuracy over where he got his ideas from wasn’t that big a deal.
I think the mindset reinforced by The Way International was prone to a lot of cognitive distortions – which was one of the ways they exercised a lot of control over folks…lies of entrapment!
Your free to choose whichever answer you want to accept.
However, I'd question an answer such as Mike's which is based on a class presented by an alcoholic which regularly forced himself on women.
I wouldn't trust Saint Vic with any females, none the less my eternal life.
I'm NO fan of VP, let me make that clear. I don't know if Mikes observation about Jesus and lying is from Wierwille's doctrine (I slept through PFAL) If it is, all I can say is that I'm learning that God can bring forth a word of truth from a donkeys butt, if He wants to make a point. I'm NOT talking about Mike here. Also, no matter how bad a religion is, they all have some truth in them. Otherwise nobody would believe anything.
Edited by RottieGrrrl changed a word it would not let me post
"8 For thou hast delivered my soul from death, mine eyes from tears, and my feet from falling.
9 I will walk before the Lord in the land of the living.
10 I believed, therefore have I spoken: I was greatly afflicted:
11 I said in my haste, All men are liars.
12 What shall I render unto the Lord for all his benefits toward me?"
Psalm 116:8-12 NASB
"For You have rescued my soul from death, My eyes from tears, My feet from stumbling. 9 I shall walk before the Lord In the [e]land of the living. 10 I believed when I said, “I am greatly afflicted.” 11 I said in my alarm, “All men are liars.”
12 What shall I render to the Lord For all His benefits [f]toward me?"
Psalm 116:8-12 CEV
"You, Lord, have saved my life from death, my eyes from tears, my feet from stumbling. 9 Now I will walk at your side in this land of the living. 10 I was faithful to you when I was suffering, 11 though in my confusion I said, “I can’t trust anyone!”
12 What must I give you, Lord, for being so good to me?"
===================================
When vpw/twi bases a docrrine on EXACTLY ONE VERSE (or less), I'm highly suspicious it may have meant nothing of the kind. I see no reason to think this verse is outlining a rule that says "All men are liars." Looks to me like that was the state of mind of the psalmist at the moment he said that, whether true or not.
Yes that sort of goes along the line I was thinking...
something else to think about: if ALL men and women were that unreliable in conveying a message , if ALL were such complete liars - then why did God choose certain ones to write the scriptures?
I would infer from that - there have been - and always will be, people - imperfect, fallible humans who are capable of living honest and upright lives; that’s what lends impact to anyone’s words - when they walk the talk - like the impact that Paul’s words, power and example had that’s mentioned in I Thessalonians 1
lol. You guys are fun. :) But Mike, I still do like your answer. I think sometimes we overthink things, and yours seems like a simple, logical explanation.
RG, I think Mike is way over his head on this thread. People have shown over, and over that Mike lies, and plays games with other posters. Personally, I would have known that I was out of my league, and left. Adios Mike.
I'm NO fan of VP, let me make that clear. I don't know if Mikes observation about Jesus and lying is from Wierwille's doctrine (I slept through PFAL) If it is, all I can say is that I'm learning that God can bring forth a word of truth from a donkeys butt, if He wants to make a point.
You forgot, He only resorts to such extreme methods when He can't get it done any other way.
As, by Mike's own admission, there's a host of religions claiming the same thing, there's no reason to use an alcoholic who regularly violates women.
Quote
Also, no matter how bad a religion is, they all have some truth in them. Otherwise nobody would believe anything.
So some truth is neccessary for some people to believe, right?
People believe in unicorns, where's the truth?
People believe in Sasquatch, where's the truth?
People believe the earth is flat, where's the truth?
So_crates and WordWolf my answer and the verses I implied are the pretty standard explanation of this. Why not check out the official lines of some large churches And see what they say in their official commentaries.
I don't think there is anything controversial about what we got in the class on this. That's what I meant by the verses lining up nicely. This little subtopic (all men liars; Jesus not liar) is not contested by anyone as far as I know.
Verses you did NOT spell out. In presenting (alleged) arguments like that, it's YOUR job to provide links/quotes to claimed "official lines of some large churches." Otherwise, you're just handily being evasive.
So some truth is neccessary for some people to believe, right?
People believe in unicorns, where's the truth?
People believe in Sasquatch, where's the truth?
People believe the earth is flat, where's the truth?
Let me clarify what I meant. Every dangerous "cult" has some truth to it. Every dangerous lie has some truth to it. That's part of the art of masterful deception. Otherwise, the devil would not be able to fool anybody, if it were an out and out bold lie.
Let me clarify what I meant. Every dangerous "cult" has some truth to it. Every dangerous lie has some truth to it. That's part of the art of masterful deception. Otherwise, the devil would not be able to fool anybody, if it were an out and out bold lie.
This, of course, IS (for the most part) true. I would recommend (and have done so on GSC before) people read The Confidence Game.
Let me clarify what I meant. Every dangerous "cult" has some truth to it. Every dangerous lie has some truth to it. That's part of the art of masterful deception. Otherwise, the devil would not be able to fool anybody, if it were an out and out bold lie.
Actually, there is no truth in the PLAF version presented by Mike
On 2/15/2018 at 9:10 AM, Mike said:
Jesus Christ is the exception because he was not of Adam's bloodline.
He was not "of Adam" or "of the man."
I'd translate the verse "All of Adam [the man] are infused with lies."
This is an ownership issue. The adversary owns Adam's race.
Jesus Christ is the second Adam, and never was owned by the adversary, the liar-in-chief.
Please note Saint Vic's argument was that Jesus Christ was the exception because he was not of Adam and that the devil owns Adam's race.
Well, as all people are relatives of both Adam and Eve, doesn't that make Mary, mother of Jesus, a member of Adam's race and therefore Jesus, a member of Adam's race?
Please note Saint Vic's argument was that Jesus Christ was the exception because he was not of Adam and that the devil owns Adam's race.
Well, as all people are relatives of both Adam and Eve, doesn't that make Mary, mother of Jesus, a member of Adam's race and therefore Jesus, a member of Adam's race?
I'm a little surprised you folks are having trouble with this. It's really elementary.
You should check it out how other churches handle it. I'd expect no surprises.
Instead of merely shooting down what I said, why not built something up. Check out how other theologians have handled it. How about Bullinger?
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
21
27
19
21
Popular Days
Feb 18
31
Feb 15
29
Feb 16
23
Feb 19
20
Top Posters In This Topic
Rocky 21 posts
Mike 27 posts
T-Bone 19 posts
So_crates 21 posts
Popular Days
Feb 18 2018
31 posts
Feb 15 2018
29 posts
Feb 16 2018
23 posts
Feb 19 2018
20 posts
Popular Posts
T-Bone
Hi Grease Spotters, Just wanted to mention why I am incredulous with some of the posts on this thread (like the ones quoted above). It just seems like a trick to outmaneuver other posters wh
T-Bone
“dulled to questionable behavior, and therefore a pushover for any rationalization. Dulled to it yes; spiritually mature, pretty unlikely.” Hmmmmm… wierwille supposedly the most “spiritually mature”
Bolshevik
The answer usually given has been cognitive dissonance. They've been lied to. They've accepted the lies. They live in a false reality. They now lie to themselves and have to protect that reali
Twinky
Mike, I hate to tell you this when you are clearly so "right," but Jesus isn't described as being "the second Adam" but "the last Adam." There's actually quite a difference in meaning and intent.
If you happen to have a Bible, you can read about it in 1 Cor 15:45.
No idea (and don't care) how it might be described in PFAL.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
So_crates
On the contrary, as everyone traces back to Adam and Eve, Jesus Christ was of Adam's bloodline--through his mother, Mary. Mary, was of Adam's bloodline.
But he was of Mary, who was of the man, Adam.
I still haven't had anyone explain to me how eating of a forbidden tree implies transfer of ownership.
Edited by So_cratesLink to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Thank you. I appreciate fine tuning.
I can only vaguely remember something about "second" but I think it's unimportant for this thread.
I have many Bible versions.
Edited by MikeLink to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
Please don't insult our intelligence. Spell it out. Which verses "line up very nicely" with what? First off, does the bible EVER specifically indicate that Jesus never even told a "white lie?" Or is it blasphemous for me to even raise the question?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
What's most clear is that Jesus never violated the Law of Moses.
I do not know what kind of lying might be forbidden in there. I do know that there's a very wide spectrum of what is a lie or a white lie. It's much bigger than most know.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Psalm 116:8-12 KJV
"8 For thou hast delivered my soul from death, mine eyes from tears, and my feet from falling.
9 I will walk before the Lord in the land of the living.
10 I believed, therefore have I spoken: I was greatly afflicted:
11 I said in my haste, All men are liars.
12 What shall I render unto the Lord for all his benefits toward me?"
Psalm 116:8-12 NASB
"For You have rescued my soul from death,
My eyes from tears,
My feet from stumbling.
9 I shall walk before the Lord
In the [e]land of the living.
10 I believed when I said,
“I am greatly afflicted.”
11 I said in my alarm,
“All men are liars.”
12 What shall I render to the Lord
For all His benefits [f]toward me?"
Psalm 116:8-12 CEV
"You, Lord, have saved
my life from death,
my eyes from tears,
my feet from stumbling.
9 Now I will walk at your side
in this land of the living.
10 I was faithful to you
when I was suffering,
11 though in my confusion I said,
“I can’t trust anyone!”
12 What must I give you, Lord,
for being so good to me?"
===================================
When vpw/twi bases a docrrine on EXACTLY ONE VERSE (or less), I'm highly suspicious it may have meant nothing of the kind. I see no reason to think this verse is outlining a rule that says "All men are liars." Looks to me like that was the state of mind of the psalmist at the moment he said that, whether true or not.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
So, what, exactly, lined up "very nicely" with what?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Confirmation lined up very nicely with bias. "It's axiomatic."
Link to comment
Share on other sites
RottieGrrrl
lol. You guys are fun. :) But Mike, I still do like your answer. I think sometimes we overthink things, and yours seems like a simple, logical explanation.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
So_crates
Your free to choose whichever answer you want to accept.
However, I'd question an answer such as Mike's which is based on a class presented by an alcoholic which regularly forced himself on women.
I wouldn't trust Saint Vic with any females, none the less my eternal life.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Thanks again, RottieGirl.
So_crates and WordWolf my answer and the verses I implied are the pretty standard explanation of this. Why not check out the official lines of some large churches And see what they say in their official commentaries.
I don't think there is anything controversial about what we got in the class on this. That's what I meant by the verses lining up nicely. This little subtopic (all men liars; Jesus not liar) is not contested by anyone as far as I know.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
So_crates
No, what is meant by lining up verses nicely is that there are verses to line up. I don't see any verses in you explanation.
It's contested by many as its not a whole verse but part of a verse. If you scroll back, you see at least one example of it being contested
To wit:
Edited by So_cratesLink to comment
Share on other sites
RottieGrrrl
I'm NO fan of VP, let me make that clear. I don't know if Mikes observation about Jesus and lying is from Wierwille's doctrine (I slept through PFAL) If it is, all I can say is that I'm learning that God can bring forth a word of truth from a donkeys butt, if He wants to make a point. I'm NOT talking about Mike here. Also, no matter how bad a religion is, they all have some truth in them. Otherwise nobody would believe anything.
Edited by RottieGrrrlchanged a word it would not let me post
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Yes that sort of goes along the line I was thinking...
something else to think about: if ALL men and women were that unreliable in conveying a message , if ALL were such complete liars - then why did God choose certain ones to write the scriptures?
I would infer from that - there have been - and always will be, people - imperfect, fallible humans who are capable of living honest and upright lives; that’s what lends impact to anyone’s words - when they walk the talk - like the impact that Paul’s words, power and example had that’s mentioned in I Thessalonians 1
Edited by T-Bonecorrections
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Grace Valerie Claire
RG, I think Mike is way over his head on this thread. People have shown over, and over that Mike lies, and plays games with other posters. Personally, I would have known that I was out of my league, and left. Adios Mike.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
So_crates
You forgot, He only resorts to such extreme methods when He can't get it done any other way.
As, by Mike's own admission, there's a host of religions claiming the same thing, there's no reason to use an alcoholic who regularly violates women.
So some truth is neccessary for some people to believe, right?
People believe in unicorns, where's the truth?
People believe in Sasquatch, where's the truth?
People believe the earth is flat, where's the truth?
Edited by So_cratesLink to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
Verses you did NOT spell out. In presenting (alleged) arguments like that, it's YOUR job to provide links/quotes to claimed "official lines of some large churches." Otherwise, you're just handily being evasive.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
RottieGrrrl
Let me clarify what I meant. Every dangerous "cult" has some truth to it. Every dangerous lie has some truth to it. That's part of the art of masterful deception. Otherwise, the devil would not be able to fool anybody, if it were an out and out bold lie.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
This, of course, IS (for the most part) true. I would recommend (and have done so on GSC before) people read The Confidence Game.
Edited by RockyLink to comment
Share on other sites
So_crates
Actually, there is no truth in the PLAF version presented by Mike
Please note Saint Vic's argument was that Jesus Christ was the exception because he was not of Adam and that the devil owns Adam's race.
Well, as all people are relatives of both Adam and Eve, doesn't that make Mary, mother of Jesus, a member of Adam's race and therefore Jesus, a member of Adam's race?
The following page illistrates what I'm saying:
http://www.ldolphin.org/2adams.html
Further, I'm still waiting for an explanation of how eating from a forbidden tree implies transfer of ownership.
Edited by So_cratesLink to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
I'm a little surprised you folks are having trouble with this. It's really elementary.
You should check it out how other churches handle it. I'd expect no surprises.
Instead of merely shooting down what I said, why not built something up. Check out how other theologians have handled it. How about Bullinger?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
So_crates
Yah, it's so elementary not eevn you can answer it.
In other words you can't answer the question so your trying to tear something down rather than build something up.
I got a better idea, Why don't you see how other theologians handle it. Obviously Saint Vic didn't.
Edited by So_cratesLink to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
No, those other words miss it.
I'm not interested in this that much to put the work into it.
Like I said, I'm surprised you are having trouble with it.
It's also a little funny that you reject my answer, and then demand I come up with another answer. Is that what's happening?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
So_crates
Like I said, you don't know either. Even though by your own claim its so simple.
Seems to me the same person who would sit there and beat his gums about how simple it is should have the answer.
But typically, rather than putting up you evade.
Once again your dishonesty is showing
Edited by So_cratesLink to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.