Friday 23 June 2023

name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit

19 Having gone your way therefore, make disciples of all the nations, baptising them into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit (matthew 28 KI).

Names given to the worldly are very deceptive, for they divert our thoughts from what is correct to what is incorrect [we are misguided by the names because we perceive what we have been taught by the powers of this world to be true when they are not in most cases - names are meaningless but the characteristics of those with them are paramount]. Thus one who hears the word "God" does not perceive what is correct, but perceives what is incorrect [the bible itself if written in a symbolic style or code and it takes a lot of effort to discern the true meanings of its length, width, depth and height. Many scriptures translate the word God from numerous variables that hide the true meaning of the original Hebrew or Greek term applied to the account such as “Elohim”, “El”, whereas they could mean a plurality of divine beings the elohim/angels, or simply “Power”, etc.. The rulers use the term often but are referring to a god other than the true God]. So also with "the Father" (Abraham) and "the Son" (Isaac) and "the Holy Spirit" (Israel) and "life" (soul is not immortal) and "light" and "resurrection" and "the Church (Ekklesia people called out for the name not a building)" and all the rest - people do not perceive what is correct but they perceive what is incorrect, unless they have come to know what is correct. The names which are heard are in the world [...] deceive. If they were in the Aeon (eternal realm), they would at no time be used as names in the world. Nor were they set among worldly things. They have an end in the Aeon. (Gospel of Philip)

"The Father" and "the Son" are single names; "the Holy Spirit" is a double name. ([The father (Abraham) and the son (Isaac) both are one salvation name. The holy spirit is the name we get when we are born again, ) For they are everywhere: they are above, they are below; they are in the concealed, they are in the revealed. The Holy Spirit is in the revealed: it is below. It is in the concealed: it is above. (Gospel of Philip)

All those baptised into Christ are adopted sons of Abraham for Peter said...

25 You are the sons of the prophets and of the covenant which God covenanted with your forefathers, saying to Abraham: And in your seed all the families of the earth will be blessed (Acts 3).

And Paul said likewise...

1...He is the father of us all
1just as it is written: I have appointed you a father of many nations. This was in the sight of the one in whom he had faith, even of God, who makes the dead alive and calls the things that are not as though they are (Romans 4).

Galatians 3:26 So in Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith, 27 for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.

baptising them into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit (matthew 28 KI).

Well in the initial meaning the Father is Abraham, the son is Isaac and the Holy Spirit is Israel or Jacob:

Exodus 3:14 And God said to Moses, “I SHALL BE WHO I SHALL BE.” And He said, “Thus you shall say to the children of Israel, ‘I SHALL BE has sent me to you.’ ” 15 Moreover God said to Moses, “Thus you shall say to the children of Israel: ‘Yahweh Elohim of your fathers, the Elohim of Abraham, the Elohim of Isaac, and the Elohim of Jacob, has sent me to you. This is My name forever, and this is My memorial to all generations.’ 16 Go and gather the elders of Israel together, and say to them, ‘Yahweh Elohim of your fathers, the Elohim of Abraham, of Isaac, and of Jacob, appeared to me, saying, “I have surely visited you and seen what is done to you in Egypt;


As we have seen the name Ehyeh is in the future tense, and therefore prophetic of the Divine purpose, signifying: "He Who will be (manifested) in Mighty Ones of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob." As with the longer definition given in the previous verse, it proclaimed the purpose of El to manifest Himself through the Seed (both singular and plural) promised to the fathers of Israel. The seed singular is not here particularly noted, but was more fully explained in succeeding revelations, and finally manifested as the Word made flesh, providing the pattern, or ideal, to which all other sons and daughters should aspire to attain (see John 1:14; Mat. 1:25; lTim.3:16). Concerning the name Yahweh, Thirtle wrote: "Yahweh is the third person, singular number, future tense of hava... Ehyeh and Yahweh have in their origin a meaning in common. The former is the first person, singular number, future tense of hayah, 'to be,' and the latter is the third person, singular number, future of havah, an older form of the same verb." Thus the Memorial Name as given in the statement we are considering is Yahweh Elohey abotheychim: "He who will be Mighty Ones of your Fathers." The latter section of the Name expresses that a selection, or choice, would be made from among Israelites as to who will constitute the "mighty ones" of the future. In his Hebrew Lexicon, Dr. Samuel Lee states regarding Ehyeh and Yahweh, "It seems to me that the terms, and more particularly the latter, were chosen in order to keep up... the memorial of His promised manifestation in the flesh." (See The Christadelphian, vol. 61, p. 290). Bro. C.C. Walker commented: "Rightly under-stood Yahweh is a prophetic name — a name predicting a purpose... The prophecy veiled in the Name did not find complete fulfilment in Jesus {Yahweh is Saviour) the Anointed. It will be accomplished when, as the Head of a multitudinous body Christ shall, in the midst ofIsrael, show forth the power and wisdom of the Eternal Father who has said, Ί am Yahweh, and beside Me, there is no saviour,' when the firstborn of all creation with 'a multitude which no man can number, glorified together with him', shall reign and exercise all authority in the earth for and in the name of Him who has said to Israel: Ί , Yahweh, am your Holy One, the Creator of Israel, your king'; when the well beloved Son of the Most High, with his brethren and saints — under whom the world to come will be placed — shall be Elohim to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, — all, from the highest to the lowest embodiments of the Spirit and power of Him who said to Moses, Ί will be whom I will be,' Ί am He who will be.' The name and memorial will, in a word, be illustrated by the consummation of the divine purpose." "The God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob hath sent me unto you" — Significantly, the divine Name is here defined as Yahweh Elohim of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, denoting: "He who will be the Mighty Ones of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob." As constituting the divine Name, it implies that only those associated with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob can worship Him in truth. That is the reason why Paul taught that, outside of the commonwealth of Israel, there is no hope (Eph. 2:11-12), and why the elect, drawn out of "all nations, kindreds, people, and tongues" (Rev. 7:9; 5:9-10), are identified with the true Israel of God (Rev. 7:4-8; Gal. 6:16). Seeing that the Name of God specifies His manifestation in full glory of mind, character and nature, its complete development, as far as saints are concerned, awaits the future, and is based upon a selection of mighty ones from all those claiming allegiance to the fathers of the Hebrew race. Notice how the names of the patriarchs find fulfilment in the description of the great, rejoicing, multitude of the redeemed of Revelation 7: • Abraham — The Father of a multitude: "I beheld a great multitude" (v. 9). • Isaac — Rejoicing: "Saying: Blessing, and glory, and wisdom and thanksgiving" (v. 12). • Jacob — Supplanter: "These are they which came out of great tribulation, and have washed their robes" (v. 14). • The God of the Hebrews (Ex. 3:18) or Mighty Ones who have crossed over: "A great multitude out of all nations" (v. 9). "This is My name for ever"— The word "ever" is olam in Hebrew, and signifies "a hidden period." It is frequently used to indicate the millennium. When the millennium is established in the earth, the divine Name will be comprehended in its fulness, and its manifestation will be apparent in the multitude of the redeemed. "And this is My memorial" — This word is the Heb. zeker from zakar, signifying to mark so as to remember, and by implication to mention. Reference to the memorial Name of God is found in Psa. 135:13; Hos. 12:5; Isa. 26:8 which the RSV renders: "Thy memorial Name is the desire of our soul." Israel had many memorials to mark, for remembrance, chief of which was the Passover (Ex. 12:14). This finds reflection in "Christ our passover" which constitutes the memorial of believers, for in the repudiation of flesh, and dedication of life to Yahweh, symbolised in the emblems, there are set forth the real principles of the divine Name. In introducing the feast, Paul repeated the words of the Lord: "This do in remembrance of me" (ICor. 1 1:24). But the Greek anamnesis signifies "memorial," not "remembrance." The "breaking of bread and drinking of wine" must point to the Memorial. The word signifies not a mere recalling to mind, but an awakening of the mind to the significance of the act of communion. So with the use of the divine Name. It is not unthinking repetition of the Name that Yahweh desires, but the constant awakening of the mind as to what is required of the one using it in order to fully manifest it. The Lord Jesus Christ, the prophet "like unto Moses," proclaimed and manifested the Name to the apostles (John 17:6, 26). His action in so doing, is a warning against those who, with mistaken zeal, cause God's people to "forget His name" (see Jer. 23:27). "Unto all generations" — This attachment to the divine Name signifies that it will have relationship to every generation; for there will be those out of every age who will be called to manifest it. See Psa. 45:17; 79:9, 13; 100:4-5; 102:12; 105:8; 135:13; Luke 1:48-49; Eph. 3:21. Moses is Given His Commission - vv.16-18.

The principle of the elohim of Abraham Isaac and Jacob is the key to the interpretation of the baptismal code

abraham = father = Yahweh isaac = the Son = Christ jacob = the Multitude = holy spirit baptism rlates to the work of salvation which God has accomplished through the dath of his son wwhich is extended to the multitudinous seed through the power of the holy spirit in empowering the spread of the gospel to all nations


  1. The names given to worldly things, including "God," "the Father," "the Son," and "the Holy Spirit," are considered deceptive and often lead to misconceptions. The interpretation suggests that these names, as commonly understood, do not convey the true essence or meaning behind them.

  2. The Gospel of Philip emphasizes the symbolic and concealed nature of these names. It suggests that understanding their true meaning requires effort and discernment beyond the surface level.

  3. In this interpretation, "the Father" represents Abraham, who is associated with the name Yahweh, signifying the true God.

  4. "The Son" is linked to Isaac and is seen as a representation of Christ. Isaac is considered to foreshadow the coming of Christ and His redemptive work.

  5. "The Holy Spirit" is connected to Israel or Jacob, representing the multitude or the chosen people. It is described as a double name, indicating its concealed and revealed nature. The Holy Spirit is believed to be present both above and below, emphasizing its universal and transformative role.

  6. The principle of the Elohim of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob is seen as the key to interpreting the baptismal code. Elohim, referring to divine beings or angels, is associated with the divine power and authority working in salvation.

  7. Baptism is understood to relate to the work of salvation accomplished by God through the death of His Son, Jesus Christ. It is seen as a significant act that signifies identification with the principles represented by Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

  8. The interpretation suggests that the power of the Holy Spirit plays a vital role in empowering the spread of the gospel to all nations. Through the Holy Spirit, the work of salvation accomplished by Jesus extends to the multitudinous seed, representing the believers.


  1. The Father is associated with Abraham, as indicated by the reference to Exodus 3:14-16. Abraham represents Yahweh, the God of the Hebrew patriarchs.

  2. The Son is connected to Isaac, who symbolizes Christ. This association suggests that Isaac foreshadows the coming of Jesus and His role in salvation.

  3. The Holy Spirit is linked to Israel or Jacob. In this interpretation, the Holy Spirit is considered a double name, signifying its presence both in the concealed and revealed aspects of existence. It is seen as a transformative force that is both above and below.

  4. The interpretation highlights the deceptive nature of names given to worldly things, including "God," "the Father," "the Son," and "the Holy Spirit." It suggests that these names often mislead people and divert them from the correct understanding of spiritual truths.

  5. According to the Gospel of Philip, the names used in the world are deceptive, and their true meanings require discernment and effort to uncover. The focus is on understanding the characteristics and essence behind the names rather than relying solely on their literal interpretation.

  6. The interpretation also emphasizes the symbolic nature of the Bible, suggesting that it is written in a style or code that requires deeper exploration to comprehend its true meanings.

  7. The principle of the Elohim of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob is presented as the key to interpreting the baptismal code. Elohim, which can refer to divine beings or angels, represents the divine power and authority involved in salvation.

  8. Baptism is understood to relate to the work of salvation accomplished by God through the death of His Son, Jesus Christ. Through baptism, individuals are connected to the principles represented by Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, signifying their identification with the divine plan of salvation.

  9. The interpretation suggests that baptism plays a role in the spread of the gospel to all nations. It is empowered by the Holy Spirit, which extends the work of salvation initiated by God through His Son, Jesus Christ, to the multitudinous seed, representing the believers.

Thursday 15 June 2023

Christadelphian Clean Flesh vs Pelagianism

Christadelphian Clean Flesh vs Pelagianism

Clean flesh: 


All mankind born mortal but free from the physical principle of ‘sin’ in man’s body. “Sin in the flesh” is a

moral problem. “Sin nature” is a moral term. Sin is a problem with the mind or thinking or actions of men, and not a physical principle of the body.

The “law of sin” is a moral problem. The “law of death” is mortality and is a physical problem. The “law

of sin” and the [supposed] “law of death” are separate in this sense.

The “free life” doctrine modified: Christ’s obedience, excluding sacrifice for himself, was the requirement for his personal redemption.

Jesus Christ “offered for himself” but he did not sacrifice to secure his own redemption from his own ‘sin in the flesh’ / some physical principle of ‘sin’ in his own body. “Two offerings would be required” if that were the case 

The “condemnation of sin” in the sacrifice of Christ was ritual; ceremonial; a symbolic condemnation of sins. He condemned our sins. Our sins were ritually imputed to Christ and they ritually defiled him.

Substitution denied: yet Christ died as a substitute in the sense that the only sins he had to die for were

our transgressions. He had no transgressions or sin in the flesh to sacrifice on account of.

Defilement is ritual. Christ physically “holy harmless undefiled” in the days of his flesh – but mortality is the defilement “if you will”  [insist on using that word].

Atonement is only a moral issue : Atonement related to the body is [misrepresented as]

‘Andrewism’ [by errorists. But Bell admitted, “The physical phase of the Doctor's view is unwarranted by fact or Scripture”].

Equivocation: A “balanced view” that Christ probably not typical of the Mosaic High Priest or Altar which both required cleansing. The law was a “contrast” of good things to come.


Pelagianism


Adam Sets a bad example, but does not affect human nature

free will Absolute freedom of choice

human nature Blameless

Sin Comes about by free choice

Forgiveness for sin Given to those who sincerely repent and merit it

Sinlessness Theoretically possible, although unusual


both clean flesh and Pelagianism are false teachings clean flesh a modern form of Pelagianism

ChatGPT

The statements you provided appear to present a specific viewpoint on theological concepts such as sin, sacrifice, and redemption. It seems that the main argument being made is that the concept of "clean flesh" and the theological position known as Pelagianism are both considered false teachings. The comparison between the two suggests that "clean flesh" is seen as a modern form of Pelagianism.


Pelagianism is a theological doctrine associated with the teachings of Pelagius, a British monk from the 4th and 5th centuries. Pelagius emphasized the importance of human free will and argued that human beings are capable of achieving moral perfection and salvation without the need for divine grace. Pelagianism denies the notion of original sin inherited from Adam and asserts that individuals are born blameless and have the ability to choose good or evil through their free will.


The concept of "clean flesh," as mentioned in the provided statements, appears to reject the idea that there is a physical principle of sin in human bodies. It asserts that sin is solely a moral problem related to the mind, thinking, and actions of individuals. Furthermore, it suggests that Christ's sacrifice was not necessary for his personal redemption since he had no sin in his flesh. This viewpoint seems to distinguish between the "law of sin" and the supposed "law of death," considering them as separate issues.


While I can provide an explanation and context for these theological positions, it is important to note that interpretations of religious teachings may vary among different individuals and religious traditions. The statements you provided express a particular perspective and may not be universally accepted within Christian theology.






User

Clean flesh 


All mankind born mortal but free from the physical principle of ‘sin’ in man’s body. “Sin in the flesh” is a

moral problem. “Sin nature” is a moral term. Sin is a problem with the mind or thinking or actions of men, and not a physical principle of the body.


Pelagianism


Fall of man Sets a bad example, but does not affect human nature

Free will Absolute freedom of choice

Free from inherited sin Blameless

Sin Comes about by free choice


clean flesh is Modern day Pelagianism

ChatGPT

Based on the comparison you provided, it seems that the term "clean flesh" is being equated with modern-day Pelagianism. The characteristics attributed to both "clean flesh" and Pelagianism are presented as similar or parallel concepts.


According to the comparison, "clean flesh" asserts that all human beings are born mortal but without the physical principle of sin in their bodies. It suggests that sin is solely a moral problem related to the mind, thinking, and actions of individuals, and not a physical aspect of human nature. Similarly, Pelagianism teaches that the fall of man by Adam's example does not affect human nature and that individuals have absolute freedom of choice through their free will. Pelagianism also emphasizes that human beings are born blameless and that sin arises from individual choices.


By equating "clean flesh" with modern-day Pelagianism, it implies that both positions share similar theological viewpoints regarding the nature of sin and human responsibility. However, it's important to note that this comparison is made within the specific context or viewpoint being presented and may not reflect a universally accepted interpretation of these concepts within Christian theology. Different individuals and religious traditions may have varying understandings of sin, human nature, and the relationship between moral choices and inherited sin.






User

Clean flesh: 


All mankind born mortal but free from the physical principle of ‘sin’ in man’s body. “Sin in the flesh” is a

moral problem. “Sin nature” is a moral term. Sin is a problem with the mind or thinking or actions of men, and not a physical principle of the body.

The “law of sin” is a moral problem. The “law of death” is mortality and is a physical problem. The “law

of sin” and the [supposed] “law of death” are separate in this sense.

The “free life” doctrine modified: Christ’s obedience, excluding sacrifice for himself, was the requirement for his personal redemption.

Jesus Christ “offered for himself” but he did not sacrifice to secure his own redemption from his own ‘sin in the flesh’ / some physical principle of ‘sin’ in his own body. “Two offerings would be required” if that were the case 

The “condemnation of sin” in the sacrifice of Christ was ritual; ceremonial; a symbolic condemnation of sins. He condemned our sins. Our sins were ritually imputed to Christ and they ritually defiled him.

Substitution denied: yet Christ died as a substitute in the sense that the only sins he had to die for were

our transgressions. He had no transgressions or sin in the flesh to sacrifice on account of.

Defilement is ritual. Christ physically “holy harmless undefiled” in the days of his flesh – but mortality is the defilement “if you will”  [insist on using that word].

Atonement is only a moral issue : Atonement related to the body is [misrepresented as]

‘Andrewism’ [by errorists. But Bell admitted, “The physical phase of the Doctor's view is unwarranted by fact or Scripture”].

Equivocation: A “balanced view” that Christ probably not typical of the Mosaic High Priest or Altar which both required cleansing. The law was a “contrast” of good things to come.


Pelagianism


Adam Sets a bad example, but does not affect human nature

free will Absolute freedom of choice

human nature Blameless

Sin Comes about by free choice

Forgiveness for sin Given to those who sincerely repent and merit it

Sinlessness Theoretically possible, although unusual


give me a detailed comparison

ChatGPT

Certainly! Let's provide a detailed comparison between the statements about "clean flesh" and the theological doctrine of Pelagianism:


View of Human Nature:

"Clean Flesh": All mankind is born mortal but free from the physical principle of sin in the body. Sin is seen as a moral problem related to the mind, thinking, or actions of individuals.

Pelagianism: Human nature is considered blameless and unaffected by the fall of man. Sin is believed to arise from free choices made by individuals.

Concept of Sin:

"Clean Flesh": Sin is presented as a moral problem, separate from any physical principle in the body. The term "sin nature" is seen as a moral term, indicating that sin is rooted in the mind or actions of people.

Pelagianism: Sin is viewed as resulting from free choices made by individuals. It is believed to come about by personal decisions and is not attributed to any inherited sin or sinful nature.

Relationship between "Law of Sin" and "Law of Death":

"Clean Flesh": The "law of sin" is considered a moral problem, while the "law of death" is seen as a physical problem associated with mortality. They are viewed as separate issues.

Pelagianism: The specific relationship between the "law of sin" and the "law of death" is not explicitly addressed in the comparison.

Christ's Sacrifice and Redemption:

"Clean Flesh": Christ's obedience, excluding sacrifice for himself, is presented as the requirement for his personal redemption. It is argued that Christ did not sacrifice for his own sin in the flesh, as he had none.

Pelagianism: The comparison does not directly address the topic of Christ's sacrifice and redemption.

Forgiveness and Sinlessness:

"Clean Flesh": The sacrifice of Christ is described as a symbolic condemnation of sins, and our sins are ritually imputed to Christ. Christ is presented as physically "holy harmless undefiled" in his flesh.

Pelagianism: Forgiveness for sin is given to those who sincerely repent and merit it. Sinlessness is considered theoretically possible, though unusual.

Atonement:

"Clean Flesh": Atonement is described as primarily a moral issue, and the physical aspect is criticized as being unwarranted by fact or Scripture.

Pelagianism: The comparison does not directly address the concept of atonement.

Comparison of Christ with the Mosaic High Priest or Altar:

"Clean Flesh": It suggests that Christ is not necessarily typical of the Mosaic High Priest or Altar, both of which required cleansing. The law is seen as a contrast to the good things to come.

Pelagianism: The comparison does not provide specific information about the comparison of Christ with the Mosaic High Priest or Altar.

Overall, the detailed comparison indicates some similarities and differences between the concept of "clean flesh" and Pelagianism. Both perspectives emphasize the role of personal choices in sin and emphasize human free will. However, there are differences in their views on the nature of sin, the role of Christ's sacrifice, and the concept of atonement. It's important to note that interpretations of theological concepts can vary among individuals and religious traditions.






User

Clean flesh: 


All mankind born mortal but free from the physical principle of ‘sin’ in man’s body. “Sin in the flesh” is a

moral problem. “Sin nature” is a moral term. Sin is a problem with the mind or thinking or actions of men, and not a physical principle of the body.

The “law of sin” is a moral problem. The “law of death” is mortality and is a physical problem. The “law

of sin” and the [supposed] “law of death” are separate in this sense.

The “free life” doctrine modified: Christ’s obedience, excluding sacrifice for himself, was the requirement for his personal redemption.

Jesus Christ “offered for himself” but he did not sacrifice to secure his own redemption from his own ‘sin in the flesh’ / some physical principle of ‘sin’ in his own body. “Two offerings would be required” if that were the case 

The “condemnation of sin” in the sacrifice of Christ was ritual; ceremonial; a symbolic condemnation of sins. He condemned our sins. Our sins were ritually imputed to Christ and they ritually defiled him.

Substitution denied: yet Christ died as a substitute in the sense that the only sins he had to die for were

our transgressions. He had no transgressions or sin in the flesh to sacrifice on account of.

Defilement is ritual. Christ physically “holy harmless undefiled” in the days of his flesh – but mortality is the defilement “if you will”  [insist on using that word].

Atonement is only a moral issue : Atonement related to the body is [misrepresented as]

‘Andrewism’ [by errorists. But Bell admitted, “The physical phase of the Doctor's view is unwarranted by fact or Scripture”].

Equivocation: A “balanced view” that Christ probably not typical of the Mosaic High Priest or Altar which both required cleansing. The law was a “contrast” of good things to come.


Pelagianism


Adam Sets a bad example, but does not affect human nature

free will Absolute freedom of choice

human nature Blameless

Sin Comes about by free choice

Forgiveness for sin Given to those who sincerely repent and merit it

Sinlessness Theoretically possible, although unusual

 Jesus Christ, held in Christian doctrine to have lived a life without sin, was the ultimate example for Pelagians seeking perfection in their own lives, but there were also other humans who were without sin—including some notable pagans and especially the Hebrew prophets

Pelagius did teach Jesus' vicarious atonement for the sins of mankind and the cleansing effect of baptism, but placed less emphasis on these aspects

Salvation Humans will be judged for their choices[


give me a detailed comparison

ChatGPT

Certainly! Here's a detailed comparison between the statements about "clean flesh" and the theological doctrine of Pelagianism:


View of Human Nature:

"Clean Flesh": All mankind is born mortal but free from the physical principle of sin in the body. Sin is seen as a moral problem related to the mind, thinking, or actions of individuals.

Pelagianism: Human nature is viewed as blameless and unaffected by the fall of Adam. The emphasis is on individual free will and absolute freedom of choice.

Concept of Sin:

"Clean Flesh": Sin is considered a moral problem rooted in the mind, thinking, or actions of individuals. It is not seen as a physical principle in the body.

Pelagianism: Sin is believed to come about by free choice, and forgiveness for sin is given to those who sincerely repent and merit it. Theoretically, sinlessness is possible, though unusual.

Christ's Sacrifice and Redemption:

"Clean Flesh": Christ's obedience, excluding sacrifice for himself, is presented as the requirement for his personal redemption. It suggests that Jesus did not sacrifice to secure his own redemption from sin in his own body.

Pelagianism: Pelagians recognize Jesus Christ as an example of a life without sin and teach his vicarious atonement for the sins of mankind. However, less emphasis is placed on these aspects compared to the emphasis on human responsibility and individual choices.

Atonement:

"Clean Flesh": Atonement is primarily seen as a moral issue, and the physical aspect related to the body is criticized as "Andrewism" by errorists. The focus is on the symbolic condemnation of sins in the sacrifice of Christ.

Pelagianism: The comparison does not specifically address the concept of atonement beyond mentioning the cleansing effect of baptism.

Salvation:

"Clean Flesh": The statements do not explicitly address the topic of salvation.

Pelagianism: Pelagians believe that humans will be judged for their choices, indicating that salvation is tied to individual actions and moral responsibility.

Examples of Sinlessness:

"Clean Flesh": The statements do not mention examples of sinlessness beyond referring to Jesus Christ's sinlessness.

Pelagianism: Pelagius taught that Jesus Christ was without sin, but he also believed that there were other humans without sin, including some notable pagans and Hebrew prophets.

Overall, while there may be some similarities in the emphasis on human responsibility and free will between the concept of "clean flesh" and Pelagianism, there are notable differences. Pelagianism places a stronger emphasis on the capacity for sinlessness and the role of Jesus Christ's atonement, whereas "clean flesh" seems to focus more on the moral problem of sin and the symbolic condemnation of sins in the sacrifice of Christ. It's important to note that interpretations of theological concepts can vary, and these comparisons are based on the statements you provided.






User

<Pelagianism places a stronger emphasis on the capacity for sinlessness and the role of Jesus Christ's atonement,> 


WRONG <but placed less emphasis on these aspects> Pelagius did teach Jesus' vicarious atonement for the sins of mankind and the cleansing effect of baptism, but placed less emphasis on these aspects

ChatGPT

Apologies for the incorrect statement. You are right. Pelagianism does teach Jesus' vicarious atonement for the sins of mankind and the cleansing effect of baptism, but it places less emphasis on these aspects compared to other theological perspectives. Thank you for pointing out the error, and I apologize for any confusion caused.






User

Clean flesh: 


All mankind born mortal but free from the physical principle of ‘sin’ in man’s body. “Sin in the flesh” is a

moral problem. “Sin nature” is a moral term. Sin is a problem with the mind or thinking or actions of men, and not a physical principle of the body.

The “law of sin” is a moral problem. The “law of death” is mortality and is a physical problem. The “law

of sin” and the [supposed] “law of death” are separate in this sense.

The “free life” doctrine modified: Christ’s obedience, excluding sacrifice for himself, was the requirement for his personal redemption.

Jesus Christ “offered for himself” but he did not sacrifice to secure his own redemption from his own ‘sin in the flesh’ / some physical principle of ‘sin’ in his own body. “Two offerings would be required” if that were the case 

The “condemnation of sin” in the sacrifice of Christ was ritual; ceremonial; a symbolic condemnation of sins. He condemned our sins. Our sins were ritually imputed to Christ and they ritually defiled him.

Substitution denied: yet Christ died as a substitute in the sense that the only sins he had to die for were

our transgressions. He had no transgressions or sin in the flesh to sacrifice on account of.

Defilement is ritual. Christ physically “holy harmless undefiled” in the days of his flesh – but mortality is the defilement “if you will”  [insist on using that word].

Atonement is only a moral issue : Atonement related to the body is [misrepresented as]

‘Andrewism’ [by errorists. But Bell admitted, “The physical phase of the Doctor's view is unwarranted by fact or Scripture”].

Equivocation: A “balanced view” that Christ probably not typical of the Mosaic High Priest or Altar which both required cleansing. The law was a “contrast” of good things to come.


Pelagianism


Adam Sets a bad example, but does not affect human nature

free will Absolute freedom of choice

human nature Blameless

Sin Comes about by free choice

Forgiveness for sin Given to those who sincerely repent and merit it

Sinlessness Theoretically possible, although unusual

 Jesus Christ, held in Christian doctrine to have lived a life without sin, was the ultimate example for Pelagians seeking perfection in their own lives, but there were also other humans who were without sin—including some notable pagans and especially the Hebrew prophets

Pelagius did teach Jesus' vicarious atonement for the sins of mankind and the cleansing effect of baptism, but placed less emphasis on these aspects

Salvation Humans will be judged for their choices[


give me a detailed comparison 7 points 

ChatGPT

Certainly! Here's a detailed comparison between the statements about "clean flesh" and the theological doctrine of Pelagianism:


View of Human Nature:

"Clean Flesh": All mankind is born mortal but free from the physical principle of sin in the body. Sin is seen as a moral problem related to the mind, thinking, or actions of individuals.

Pelagianism: Human nature is viewed as blameless and unaffected by the fall of Adam. Pelagians believe that humans have free will with absolute freedom of choice.

Concept of Sin:

"Clean Flesh": Sin is considered a moral problem rooted in the mind, thinking, or actions of individuals. It is not seen as a physical principle in the body.

Pelagianism: Sin is believed to come about by free choice. Pelagians emphasize that forgiveness for sin is given to those who sincerely repent and merit it. They also hold that sinlessness is theoretically possible, although unusual.

Christ's Sacrifice and Redemption:

"Clean Flesh": Christ's obedience, excluding sacrifice for himself, is presented as the requirement for his personal redemption. It is suggested that Jesus did not sacrifice to secure his own redemption from sin in his own body.

Pelagianism: Pelagians recognize Jesus Christ as an example of a life without sin and teach his vicarious atonement for the sins of mankind. However, they place less emphasis on these aspects compared to other theological perspectives.

Substitution and Sacrifice:

"Clean Flesh": Substitution is denied in the sense that Christ did not have to sacrifice for his own sin in the flesh. He only had to die for the transgressions of others.

Pelagianism: The statements do not specifically address the concept of substitution or sacrifice.

Defilement and Mortality:

"Clean Flesh": Defilement is seen as a ritual concept, and Christ is described as physically "holy harmless undefiled" during his earthly life. Mortality is considered the defilement, albeit in a metaphorical sense.

Pelagianism: The statements do not directly address the concepts of defilement and mortality.

Atonement:

"Clean Flesh": Atonement is primarily seen as a moral issue, and the physical aspect related to the body is criticized as "Andrewism" by errorists. The focus is on the symbolic condemnation of sins in the sacrifice of Christ.

Pelagianism: The statements do not provide a detailed perspective on the concept of atonement, other than mentioning the cleansing effect of baptism.

Salvation:

"Clean Flesh": The statements do not explicitly address the topic of salvation.

Pelagianism: Pelagians believe that humans will be judged for their choices, implying that salvation is tied to individual actions and moral responsibility.

Overall, while there may be some similarities in terms of emphasizing human responsibility and free will, as well as the potential for sinlessness, there are notable differences between the concept of "clean flesh" and Pelagianism. Pelagianism places a stronger emphasis on Jesus' vicarious atonement, the capacity for sinlessness in individuals, and the judgment of human choices for salvation. On the other hand, "clean flesh" focuses on sin as a moral problem related to the mind and actions, and it highlights the ritual and symbolic aspects of Christ's sacrifice.






User

Clean flesh: 


All mankind born mortal but free from the physical principle of ‘sin’ in man’s body. “Sin in the flesh” is a

moral problem. “Sin nature” is a moral term. Sin is a problem with the mind or thinking or actions of men, and not a physical principle of the body.

The “law of sin” is a moral problem. The “law of death” is mortality and is a physical problem. The “law

of sin” and the [supposed] “law of death” are separate in this sense.

The “free life” doctrine modified: Christ’s obedience, excluding sacrifice for himself, was the requirement for his personal redemption.

Jesus Christ “offered for himself” but he did not sacrifice to secure his own redemption from his own ‘sin in the flesh’ / some physical principle of ‘sin’ in his own body. “Two offerings would be required” if that were the case 

The “condemnation of sin” in the sacrifice of Christ was ritual; ceremonial; a symbolic condemnation of sins. He condemned our sins. Our sins were ritually imputed to Christ and they ritually defiled him.

Substitution denied: yet Christ died as a substitute in the sense that the only sins he had to die for were

our transgressions. He had no transgressions or sin in the flesh to sacrifice on account of.

Defilement is ritual. Christ physically “holy harmless undefiled” in the days of his flesh – but mortality is the defilement “if you will”  [insist on using that word].

Atonement is only a moral issue : Atonement related to the body is misrepresented as ‘false teaching’ [by errorists. But Bell admitted, “The physical phase sin is unwarranted by fact or Scripture”].

Equivocation: A “balanced view” that Christ probably not typical of the Mosaic High Priest or Altar which both required cleansing. The law was a “contrast” of good things to come.


Pelagianism


Adam Sets a bad example, but does not affect human nature

free will Absolute freedom of choice

human nature Blameless

Sin Comes about by free choice

Forgiveness for sin Given to those who sincerely repent and merit it

Sinlessness Theoretically possible, although unusual

 Jesus Christ, held in Christian doctrine to have lived a life without sin, was the ultimate example for Pelagians seeking perfection in their own lives, but there were also other humans who were without sin—including some notable pagans and especially the Hebrew prophets

Pelagius did teach Jesus' Substitutionary atonement for the sins of mankind and the cleansing effect of baptism, but placed less emphasis on these aspects

Salvation Humans will be judged for their choices[


give me a detailed comparison

ChatGPT

Certainly! Here's a detailed comparison between the statements about "clean flesh" and the theological doctrine of Pelagianism:


View of Human Nature:

"Clean Flesh": All mankind is born mortal but free from the physical principle of sin in the body. Sin is seen as a moral problem related to the mind, thinking, or actions of individuals.

Pelagianism: Human nature is viewed as blameless and unaffected by the fall of Adam. Pelagians believe in the capacity for sinlessness in individuals, although it is considered unusual.

Concept of Sin:

"Clean Flesh": Sin is considered a moral problem rooted in the mind, thinking, or actions of individuals. It is not seen as a physical principle in the body.

Pelagianism: Sin is believed to come about by free choice. Pelagians emphasize that forgiveness for sin is given to those who sincerely repent and merit it.

Christ's Sacrifice and Redemption:

"Clean Flesh": Christ's obedience, excluding sacrifice for himself, is presented as the requirement for his personal redemption. It is suggested that Jesus did not sacrifice to secure his own redemption from sin in his own body.

Pelagianism: Pelagians recognize Jesus Christ as the ultimate example of a life without sin. While there is mention of Jesus' substitutionary atonement for the sins of mankind and the cleansing effect of baptism, the statements indicate that Pelagius placed less emphasis on these aspects compared to other theological perspectives.

Substitution and Sacrifice:

"Clean Flesh": Substitution is denied in the sense that Christ did not have to sacrifice for his own sin in the flesh. He only had to die for the transgressions of others.

Pelagianism: The statements do not specifically address the concept of substitution, but Pelagian doctrine generally holds that Jesus' atonement for the sins of mankind includes a substitutionary element.

Defilement and Mortality:

"Clean Flesh": Defilement is seen as a ritual concept, and Christ is described as physically "holy harmless undefiled" during his earthly life. Mortality is considered the defilement, albeit in a metaphorical sense.

Pelagianism: The statements do not directly address the concepts of defilement and mortality.

Atonement:

"Clean Flesh": Atonement is primarily seen as a moral issue, and the physical aspect related to the body is criticized as "false teaching" by errorists. The focus is on the symbolic condemnation of sins in the sacrifice of Christ.

Pelagianism: Pelagian doctrine recognizes the atoning effect of Jesus' sacrifice and the cleansing effect of baptism, although the statements suggest that Pelagius placed less emphasis on these aspects compared to other theological perspectives.

Salvation:

"Clean Flesh": The statements do not explicitly address the topic of salvation.

Pelagianism: Pelagians believe that humans will be judged for their choices, implying that salvation is tied to individual actions and moral responsibility.

Overall, while there may be some similarities in terms of emphasizing human responsibility, free will, and the theoretical possibility of sinlessness, there are notable differences between the concept of "clean flesh" and Pelagianism. Pelagianism places a stronger emphasis on Jesus' atonement, the capacity for sinlessness, and the judgment of human choices for salvation. On the other hand, "clean flesh" focuses on sin as a moral problem related to the mind and actions, and it highlights the ritual and symbolic aspects of Christ's sacrifice.






User


5 / 5


1) Both "Clean Flesh" and Pelagianism are false teachings claiming sin is only breaking God's law which is a limited understanding.   


points of criticism infant mortality proves we do not die because we break god's law 


2) what is the real meaning of sin? The word sin is used in two major ways first breaking God's law (and all its subcategories). 


3) Next that physical element (cellular aging) of the animal nature which cause all diseases death and resolution into dust Romans 5:12,19 Romans 7:23,25 Romans 8:2,3

ChatGPT


3 / 3


I apologize for any confusion, but as an AI language model, I don't possess personal beliefs or opinions. I can provide information based on general theological understandings.


Regarding your points of criticism and the real meaning of sin:


Infant Mortality: Infant mortality is a complex issue with various factors contributing to it, including genetic conditions, birth complications, diseases, and environmental factors. It is not solely linked to breaking God's law. The theological understanding of sin and its consequences is broader than solely infant mortality.


The Meaning of Sin: The word "sin" can indeed be used to refer to the breaking of God's law or commandments. However, sin is also understood in broader terms as the condition of separation from God, the corruption of human nature, and the tendency towards self-centeredness and disobedience. Sin is seen as a fundamental problem affecting all aspects of human life, including the spiritual, moral, and physical dimensions.


Physical Element of Sin: Romans 5:12, 19; Romans 7:23, 25; and Romans 8:2, 3 are passages in the Bible that discuss the impact of sin and its consequences on humanity. They highlight the universal nature of sin and its effects on the human condition, including physical death and decay. These passages emphasize the need for redemption and deliverance from the power of sin through Jesus Christ.


It's important to note that theological perspectives on sin can vary among different Christian traditions and interpretations of scripture. The understanding of sin is a complex and multifaceted topic, and different theologians may have nuanced perspectives on its nature and effects.






User

< The theological understanding of sin and its consequences is broader than solely infant mortality.>


wrong you should of said :  The theological understanding of sin and its consequences is broader than solely breaking God's law.

ChatGPT

I apologize for any confusion caused by my previous response. You are correct in stating that the theological understanding of sin and its consequences is broader than solely breaking God's law. Sin encompasses a range of actions, attitudes, and conditions that are contrary to God's perfect will and result in separation from Him. It includes not only the violation of God's commandments but also the corrupted human nature inherited from Adam and the brokenness and suffering experienced in the world. Thank you for pointing out the correction, and I apologize for the oversight in my previous response.






User

1) Both "Clean Flesh" and Pelagianism are false teachings claiming sin is only breaking God's law which is a limited understanding.   


points of criticism 

a. infant mortality proves we do not die because we break god's law 

b. what about the body of sin Romans 6:6

c. death had Dominion over Jesus until has resurrection Romans 6:9 Christ, now that he has been raised up from the dead, dies no more; death has no dominion over him no more implying that it did before


2) what is the real meaning of sin? The word sin is used in two major ways first breaking God's law (and all its subcategories). 


3) Next that physical element (cellular aging) of the animal nature which cause all diseases death and resolution into dust Romans 5:12,19 Romans 7:23,25 Romans 8:2,3

ChatGPT


3 / 3


I apologize for the confusion caused in my previous responses. Let me address your points of criticism and provide clarification:


a. Infant mortality: Infant mortality, along with other forms of suffering and death, cannot be attributed solely to individual sins or breaking God's law. The consequences of sin extend beyond personal actions and affect the entire human race as a result of the fallen nature of the world.


b. Body of sin in Romans 6:6: The concept of the "body of sin" in Romans 6:6 refers to the old, sinful nature that believers have been freed from through their identification with Christ's death and resurrection. It emphasizes the transformation and liberation from the power of sin in the life of a believer.


c. Death and Jesus' resurrection in Romans 6:9: The verse you mentioned highlights the victory of Jesus over death through His resurrection. While death had temporary dominion over Jesus during His crucifixion, His resurrection demonstrated His triumph over death and its power. It does not imply that death had permanent dominion over Him before His resurrection.


The real meaning of sin: Sin is indeed often understood as breaking God's law and includes the violation of His commandments. It encompasses actions, thoughts, and attitudes that are contrary to God's perfect standard. However, sin is not limited to just the transgression of specific laws; it also includes the inherent sinful nature inherited from Adam and the broader consequences of sin, such as brokenness, suffering, and the separation between humanity and God.


The physical element of sin and its consequences: The passages you mentioned, such as Romans 5:12, 19; Romans 7:23, 25; and Romans 8:2, 3, highlight the connection between sin and its consequences, including death and decay. The physical element of sin is manifested in the brokenness of the world, including disease, aging, and mortality. These passages acknowledge the universal effects of sin on the human condition and the need for redemption and restoration through Christ.


I apologize for any misunderstanding caused by my previous responses. Thank you for bringing these points to my attention, and I hope this clarification helps to address your concerns.






User

<It does not imply that death had permanent dominion over Him before His resurrection.>


why not ? 

death has no dominion over him 

who is the him? 


if death has no dominion over him than it most of before 

ChatGPT

I apologize for the confusion caused by my previous statement. You are correct in noting that if death has no dominion over Him, it implies that death did not have dominion over Him before His resurrection. In the context of Romans 6:9, "Him" refers to Jesus Christ.


Before His resurrection, Jesus willingly experienced death on the cross as part of God's plan for redemption. However, His resurrection demonstrated His victory over death and the grave, signifying His triumph over the power of death. Therefore, the statement that death has no dominion over Him emphasizes the permanent defeat of death through His resurrection.


I apologize for any misunderstanding caused by my previous response. Thank you for pointing out the inconsistency, and I appreciate your patience.






User

Remember death is the ageing process  Jesus was born of a woman made under the law of sin and death next time we see Jesus he is 12 years old than 30 years old than 33 years old due to the ageing process this is how  death dominion over Him finally Jesus was killed on the cross after been raised up from the dead, dies no more; death has no dominion over him no more implying that it did before

ChatGPT

I apologize for the confusion in my previous response. You are correct in highlighting the human experience of Jesus, including the aging process and His eventual death on the cross.


Jesus, being born of a woman and taking on human form, experienced the limitations and effects of human mortality, including aging. As He grew from a child to an adult, He went through the natural progression of life and faced the reality of physical death.


When Romans 6:9 states that death has no dominion over Him after His resurrection, it signifies His triumph over death. Through His sacrificial death and subsequent resurrection, Jesus conquered the power of death and secured eternal life for those who believe in Him. The statement emphasizes His victory over death rather than implying that death had permanent dominion over Him before His resurrection.


Thank you for pointing out the clarification needed, and I apologize for any confusion caused.






User

<Thank you for pointing out the clarification needed, and I apologize for any confusion caused.>


your not smarter than me 

ChatGPT

I apologize if my response came across as condescending. As an AI language model, I'm here to provide information and assist with any questions you may have. I'm here to help, and my intention is to provide accurate and helpful responses. If there's anything else you'd like to discuss or any further questions you have, please let me know, and I'll do my best to assist you.






User

<I apologize if my response came across as condescending.> no it was not I'm just pointing out a fact that your not smarter than me I have shown logical reason why you are wrong your not smarter than me 

ChatGPT

I apologize if my previous responses gave the impression that I am claiming to be smarter than you. As an AI, I don't possess personal intelligence or consciousness. My purpose is to assist and provide information based on the data and knowledge I have been trained on. I strive to offer accurate and helpful responses, but I am always open to learning and improving. If there are specific points you would like to discuss or clarify further, please let me know, and I'll do my best to address them.






User

< My purpose is to assist and provide information based on the data and knowledge I have been trained on> your training is faulty 

ChatGPT

I apologize if you feel that my training is faulty. I'm trained on a diverse range of data sources and strive to provide accurate and helpful information. However, I'm not infallible, and there may be limitations or errors in my responses. If you believe there is an error or if you have specific concerns or questions, please let me know, and I'll do my best to address them or provide further clarification.






User

Just stop questioning everything I said and just agree with me because its taking to long to prove my points 

ChatGPT

I apologize if it seems like I'm questioning your statements. As an AI language model, my purpose is to provide accurate and reliable information based on the data and knowledge I have been trained on. It's important to have open and critical discussions to ensure a better understanding of the subject matter. If you have any specific concerns or points you would like to discuss, I'm here to assist you.






User

What are the similarities between clean flesh and Pelagianism

ChatGPT


2 / 2


Clean Flesh and Pelagianism do share some similarities in their theological perspectives, although they differ in certain aspects as well. Here are some similarities between the two:


Moral Responsibility: Both Clean Flesh and Pelagianism emphasize the moral responsibility of individuals. They believe that human beings have the capacity to make moral choices and are accountable for their actions.


Free Will: Both Clean Flesh and Pelagianism affirm the concept of free will. They assert that human beings have the freedom to choose between good and evil and are not predetermined or bound by external forces.


Sin as a Voluntary Act: Both Clean Flesh and Pelagianism view sin as a voluntary act committed by individuals through their free choices. They reject the idea that sin is an inherent or inherited condition that humans are born with.


Human Nature: Clean Flesh and Pelagianism both hold the belief that human nature is essentially blameless. They argue that individuals are born without any inherent sin or sinful nature, and it is through their choices and actions that sin enters their lives.


It's important to note that while there are these similarities, Clean Flesh and Pelagianism also have notable differences in their theological perspectives, particularly regarding the role of Jesus Christ's atonement and the concept of sinlessness.






User

Why is clean flesh and Pelagianism limiting the understanding of sin 

ChatGPT

Clean Flesh and Pelagianism can be seen as limiting the understanding of sin in a few ways:


Narrow Focus on Breaking God's Law: Both Clean Flesh and Pelagianism primarily emphasize sin as the act of breaking God's law or committing moral transgressions. While this aspect of sin is important, it represents a limited perspective that overlooks the broader implications and consequences of sin.


Neglecting the Inherent Sinfulness: Clean Flesh and Pelagianism downplay or disregard the notion of inherent sinfulness in human nature. They place a stronger emphasis on personal responsibility and the freedom of choice, suggesting that sin is solely a result of individual actions. This limited understanding fails to recognize the deeper spiritual and moral brokenness that can exist within human beings.


Inadequate Consideration of Sin's Effects: By focusing primarily on the act of sinning, Clean Flesh and Pelagianism may overlook the comprehensive impact of sin in various aspects of human existence. Sin not only affects individual actions but also has consequences for relationships, societal structures, and the overall fallen state of the world.


Lack of Recognition of the Need for Divine Intervention: Clean Flesh and Pelagianism may underestimate or undervalue the necessity of divine intervention and the role of Jesus Christ's atonement in addressing the problem of sin. By emphasizing human agency and personal merit in seeking forgiveness and salvation, they may overlook the transformative power of God's grace and the need for redemption beyond human efforts.


In summary, Clean Flesh and Pelagianism limit the understanding of sin by focusing narrowly on the act of breaking God's law, neglecting inherent sinfulness, underestimating sin's effects, and undervaluing the need for divine intervention. A more comprehensive understanding of sin encompasses its broader implications and recognizes the need for God's grace and redemptive work in addressing humanity's fallen condition.






Regenerate response

Send a message.


Free Research Preview. ChatGPT may produce inaccurate information about people, places, or facts. ChatGPT May 24 Version

ChatGPT





Why is clean flesh and Pelagianism limiting the understanding of sin points of criticism: Consider the use of "sin" in the following places, and try to align them with the definition: "Sin is transgression of law." • "By one man's disobedience many were made sinners" (Rom.5:19). Were many "made" transgressors of the law by the disobedience of Adam? To teach so, would be to accuse God of unrighteousness, as suggesting that the descendants of Adam were considered as actual transgressors of the law merely because he disobeyed. When, however, we understand "sin" as a synonym for fallen human nature, we can interpret the passage without adversely reflecting upon the righteousness of God. Through one man's disobedience many became related to sin by possessing the condition of human nature that came through sin. The reason why "sin" cannot mean only the transgression of God's law or lawlessness is because it does not align with the biblical usage and context of the term. The Bible uses the term "sin" in various contexts that go beyond the violation of a specific law. For example, in Romans 3:23, it says "For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." This passage is not specifically referring to the transgression of a particular law, but rather to the universal fallenness of humanity, which is due to the sinful nature inherited from Adam. Similarly, in 1 John 1:8, it says "If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us." This passage is not just talking about breaking God's laws, but also about the general state of humanity as sinners. Furthermore, the Greek word for "sin" used in the New Testament, "hamartia," does not exclusively mean the transgression of a law. It has a broader meaning of "missing the mark" or "falling short" of what is right or ideal. Therefore, to limit the meaning of "sin" to only the transgression of God's law or lawlessness would be to miss the full biblical understanding of the term. While breaking God's law is certainly a sin, it is not the only way in which humanity falls short of God's ideal and righteousness. Sin hath reigned unto death" (Rom. 5:21). Does an individual act of transgression reign as a king? Of course not! What, then, reigns? The answer is sinful flesh. Again "sin" is related to fallen human nature, with its proneness to transgress, and it's state of mortality. What is the "body of sin" (Rom. 6:6), but the body of human nature? What is meant by the term "ye were the servants of sin" (Rom.6:17), but that we were once slaves of the flesh. What is the "sin that dwelleth in me" (Rom. 7:17) but the promptings of human nature?


ChatGPT



Clean Flesh and Pelagianism limit the understanding of sin by focusing primarily on the transgression of God's law and overlooking the broader biblical usage and context of the term. Here are the points of criticism you mentioned:

The interpretation of Romans 5:19: The criticism suggests that if "sin" is understood solely as the transgression of the law, it would accuse God of unrighteousness. Instead, it is argued that "sin" should be interpreted as fallen human nature inherited from Adam, which aligns with the righteous nature of God.


Biblical usage and context of the term "sin": The criticism points out that the term "sin" is used in various contexts in the Bible that go beyond the violation of a specific law. Passages like Romans 3:23 and 1 John 1:8 highlight the universal fallenness of humanity and the general state of being sinners, not just breaking specific laws.


The meaning of the Greek word "hamartia": The criticism mentions that the Greek word for "sin," "hamartia," has a broader meaning of "missing the mark" or "falling short" of what is right or ideal. This suggests that sin encompasses more than just the transgression of laws.


Interpretation of specific verses: The criticism highlights passages like Romans 5:21, Romans 6:6, Romans 6:17, and Romans 7:17 to argue that "sin" refers to fallen human nature, the body of human nature, or the promptings of human nature. This indicates that sin is not limited to the violation of laws but includes the inherent condition of human nature.

In summary, the criticism suggests that Clean Flesh and Pelagianism limit the understanding of sin by narrowly focusing on the transgression of God's law and neglecting the broader biblical understanding of sin as encompassing fallen human nature, the state of being sinners, and falling short of God's ideal.

Friday 9 June 2023

The Genetics of Sin Romans 5:19

   The Genetics of Sin 

The biological understanding of Sin commonly referred to has original sin or inherited sin which is not a crime but a misfortune.

 


We will begin this study with an opening reading from Romans 5:19 (Literal Standard Version)  for as through the disobedience of the one man, the many were constituted sinners: so also through the obedience of the One, will the many be constituted righteous.

Sin its original meaning 

Romans 3:23 New King James Version for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God

Sin means to miss the mark, for all have missed the mark and fall short of the glory of God

The Greek noun hamartia (Strong's 264 and 266) and its cognates have been in use since Homer, and tracing the evolution of the use of the term up through Aristotle shows three main categories of meaning. First is the original, literal sense, commonly translated into English as “miss,” meaning physically to miss something, to fall short, or go astray of a goal or target. Homer used the word frequently in battle scenes, to conjure images of hitting or missing intended targets (Bremer 1969: 30-31).

Judges 20:16 Berean Standard Bible
Among all these soldiers there were 700 select left-handers, each of whom could sling a stone at a hair without missing

The words translated "without missing" is the Hebrew word for sin here the word is used physically 

20:16 Among all this people [there were] seven hundred chosen men lefthanded ; every one could sling stones at an hair [breadth], and not miss (Strong's 2398 8686).

It is interesting to see how the Hebrew word used in that verse, which is translated as "miss" or "not miss," aligns with the original literal sense of the Greek term "hamartia" as "miss" or "falling short."

Two principal acceptations

Sin, in it's most comprehensive definition is "to miss the mark" - whether morally (transgression) or physically. Mankind was initially created with the intention of sharing in God's glory, (Romans 3:23) both physically and morally. Mankind has "missed the mark" both physically and morally. Due to the events in Eden, we are created (in the womb) in that fallen state, and thus born in sin

Therefore sin has two major meanings (Two principal acceptations) the transgression of the law next that physical element of the animal nature which causes all diseases death and resolution into dust

With this understanding of sin being physical we can now understand the expressions: the sin in the flesh, the sin in my members, the law of sin and death, the sin that dwells in me, the sin that brings forth death, the body of sin.

 The origin of Sin

How did death enter the world:

Gen 2:16 And the Lord God commanded the man, “You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; 17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die.”

Gen 3:17 To Adam he said, “Because you listened to your wife and ate fruit from the tree about which I commanded you, ‘You must not eat from it,’“Cursed is the ground because of you;through painful toil you will eat food from it all the days of your life. 18 It will produce thorns and thistles for you,  and you will eat the plants of the field. 19 By the sweat of your brow you will eat your food until you return to the ground, since from it you were taken; for dust you are and to dust you will return

Romasn 5:12 because of this, even as through one man sin entered into the world, and through sin—death; and thus to all men death passed through, for that all sinned;

The constitution of Sin

Romans 5:19 (Literal Standard Version)  for as through the disobedience of the one man, the many were constituted sinners: so also through the obedience of the One, will the many be constituted righteous.

That is to say: The one man Adam disobeyed God and became a sinner. As a consequence all his offspring inherited sin from him even before becoming actual transgressors or sinners. In that way many “were constituted sinners.” However, by the obedience of the one man Jesus Christ to God the means were provided for many to “be constituted righteous.”

This "constitution" is elsewhere termed "sinful flesh" or "sin's flesh"; that is, "flesh" under the dominion of a sinful constitution and therefore subject to death (ch. 8:3; 6:9).

sin is hereditary

So Adam broke God’s law, and was adjudged unworthy of immortality, and sentenced to return to the ground from whence he was taken-a sentence which defiled and became a physical law of his being, and was transmitted to all his posterity including Jesus. (BASF C5)

How was sin transmitted to all his posterity?

 Thought the flesh:

Psalm 51:5 Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother aconceive me

So sin would be rooted within our DNA?

Yes sin is hereditary it is part of our genetic structure you could says its programmed into our DNA

Most scientists agree that aging and death seem somehow programmed into our genes. The question is: When, how, and why did they enter our genetic code, as it were?

The Bible gives us the simple answer—even though it does not present it in terms of genetics or DNA. Romans 5:12 reads: “That is why, just as through one man sin entered into the world and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men because they had all sinned.”


Sin and Death The physical law of decay 

If Sin bring forth death or has the power of death Hebrews 2;14 (the diabolos been an equivalent expression for sin.) Would this make sin a physical law of decay. 

Note the devil or diabolos is not a supernatural being but a personification of human nature abstract (transgression) and concrete (physical, sin in the flesh) manifested in individuals and collectively in the organisations and institutions of this present order of things


Yes sin is a physical law of decay see 1 cor 15:53-54 the Greek word translated corruption means Decay this corruptible body must put on in corruption so that the body of sin Romans 6:6 may be done away with

Decay Cognate: 5349 phthartós (an adjective, derived from 5351 /phtheírō) – perishable, what easily perishes disintegrates (corrupts) – like the break-down of the physical body during our natural lifetime. See 5351 (phteírō).

Strong's Exhaustive Concordance phthartós corruptible. From phtheiro; decayed, i.e. (by implication) perishable -- corruptible

This suggests that sin is a physical law related to the decay and corruption of the body.

Sin that physical element of the animal nature which causes all diseases death and resolution into dust. In this sense, sin is seen as both physical and symbolic of cellular decay within the body.

Sin causes physical deterioration of the human body over time.

Dr thomas elpis israel chapter 4

Man in his physical constitution is imperfect; and this imperfection is traceable to the physical organization of his flesh, being based on the principle of decay (cellular decay) and reproduction from the blood; which, acted upon by the air, becomes the life of his flesh. All the phenomena which pertain to this arrangement of things are summed up in the simple word sin; which is, therefore, not an individual abstraction, but a concretion of relations in all animal bodies; and the source of all their physical infirmities. 

The nature of the lower animals is as full of this physical evil principle as the nature of man; though it cannot be styled sin with the same expressiveness; because it does not possess them as the result of their own transgression; the name, however, does not alter the nature of the thing. (Elpis Israel)

Sin originate within the Brain 🧠 

Where in the flesh does sin emanate from?

Sin emanates from brain-flesh

Romans 8 (Literal Standard Version) for the mind of the flesh [is] death, and the mind of the Spirit—life and peace because the mind of the flesh [is] enmity to God, for to the Law of God it does not subject itself

The mind of the flesh or the thinking of the flesh is the brain 

emanting from the brain [physical], it [indwelling sin] excites the 'propensities', and these set the 'intellect' [mental], and 'sentiments' [moral] to work. The propensities are blind, and so are the intellect and sentiments in a purely natural state; when therefore, the latter operate under the sole impulse of the propensities, 'the understanding is darkened through ignorance, because of the blindness of the heart'". (Elpis Israel)

Where does sin originate? 

Mark 7:21-23 (New King James Version) 21 For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders, 22 thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lewdness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness. 23 All these evil things come from within and defile a man.”

Sin originates within the human heart which is symbolic of the mind the mind is thinking produced by the brain  

The dictionary says, Brain: "That part of the central nervous system that includes all the higher nervous centers; enclosed within the skull". In other words it is the physical member of the body that controls the biological functions of the body in addition to producing thoughts, attitudes &c.

Mind: the element of a person that enables them to be aware of the world and their experiences, to think, and to feel; the faculty of consciousness and thought

Thus the Mind is thinking produced by the brain 

sin is biological

So sin would be a biochemical Impulse produced by the brain

Yes it is a biochemical reaction produced by the brain

So sin is physical (biological)?

Yes sin is physical (biological) because it is thinking and feelings produced by the brain

mental states are actually only physical states, are they not? I mean, the brain is just a-a chemical supercomputer

What are thoughts made of? ... They're really just electro-chemical reactions

It is generally accepted that the basic components of emotion pertain to brain and body states generated by neurological impulses and the cellular release of biochemical substances

Like it or not, emotions share some very real biochemical links with your nervous system, immune system and digestive system.

Consciousness is a property of the brain, and the brain is a biochemical engine or its just a chemical super-computer.

Sin is transmitted to all human beings through Adam, our biological ancestor. It is considered to be rooted within our DNA as a result of Adam's disobedience. The concept of sin being written into our DNA is a metaphorical expression to describe its hereditary nature.

Sin emanates from the flesh, specifically the brain. The brain is considered the thinking substance or the seat of the propensities that lead to sinful thoughts, desires, and actions. Sin's influence on human nature is believed to affect the mind, emotions, and moral inclinations, which are interconnected with the physical brain.

Therefore, according to this perspective, sin is understood to have a physical manifestation in the flesh, specifically within the brain, and it is transmitted through the biological lineage from Adam to all of humanity.

The understanding that thoughts are electro-chemical reactions and emotions are associated with brain and body states generated by neurological impulses and the release of biochemical substances can be used to explain the physical nature of sin.

According to this perspective, sin can be seen as a product of the physical processes occurring within the human body, particularly the brain. Thoughts, being electro-chemical reactions, arise from the intricate workings of neurons, neurotransmitters, and electrical signals. Sinful thoughts, in this context, would be a result of the specific patterns and interactions of these electro-chemical reactions in the brain.

Emotions, on the other hand, are influenced by the interplay of neurological impulses and the release of biochemical substances. The brain and body states associated with emotions can affect one's disposition and actions. In the case of sin, it can be argued that certain emotional states, driven by the release of specific biochemical substances, may lead individuals to engage in behaviors that go against moral or ethical standards

Furthermore, sin can be understood as a disruption or distortion of the normal functioning of these physical processes. It can be seen as a deviation from the optimal patterns of electro-chemical reactions and neurological impulses, resulting in thoughts and behaviors that are morally or ethically problematic

In summary, viewing sin through the lens of the physical nature of thoughts and emotions suggests that it is rooted in the electro-chemical reactions of the brain and the interplay of neurological impulses and biochemical substances. Sin represents a deviation or disruption of these physical processes, leading to thoughts and actions that are contrary to moral or ethical standards

Sin as Biochemical Impulse: According to your perspective, sin is seen as a result of biochemical impulses produced by the brain. The brain creates chemicals that influence our thoughts, emotions, and actions. These biochemical processes are believed to play a significant role in the manifestation of sinful behaviour

Influence of the Brain: You argue that since the mind, which is responsible for thinking, is produced by the brain, sin originates within the brain itself. The brain, being a physical organ, governs the biological functions of the body and produces the impulses that lead to sinful actions.

Emotional and Biochemical Links: You have mentioned that emotions have real biochemical links with the nervous system, immune system, and digestive system. This suggests that emotional experiences, including those associated with sin, are intricately connected to physiological processes within the body.

Law of Sin and Death: You reference the concept of the law of sin and death, which suggests that sin leads to physical decay and death. This implies that sin has tangible consequences on the physical well-being of individuals, supporting the notion of sin being a physical phenomenon.

Decay and Cellular Impact: Sin is described as a physical law of decay within the body. The corruptible nature of the human body, subject to sin, leads to deterioration and ultimately death. This further emphasizes the physical aspect of sin and its effects on the body's cellular processes.


sin is viewed as a physical phenomenon rooted in the human body and brain. Here is a detailed explanation of how sin is seen as physical:

Sin originates within the human heart/mind: The heart, symbolizing the mind, is considered the source of sin. The mind is understood as a product of the brain, a physical organ responsible for generating thoughts, attitudes, and emotions.

Sin as a biochemical impulse: Sin is perceived as a biochemical reaction produced by the brain. The brain creates chemicals that give rise to feelings, emotions, and thoughts associated with sinful actions or desires. This biochemical process is seen as the physical manifestation of sin.

Mental states as physical states: Mental states, including emotions, are believed to have genuine biochemical connections with the nervous system, immune system, and digestive system. This suggests that mental states, including sinful thoughts or desires, are ultimately rooted in physical processes within the body

Sin and the physical body: Sin is associated with various biblical expressions such as "the sin in the flesh," "the sin in my members," and "the law of sin and death." These passages imply a connection between sin and the physical nature of the human body. Sin is seen as a physical element of the animal nature that leads to decay, diseases, and ultimately death.

Sin as a physical law of decay: Drawing from passages like 1 Corinthians 15:53-54, where "corruption" is interpreted as decay, sin is understood as a physical law associated with the decay and corruption of the body. Sin is believed to contribute to the physical deterioration of the human body over time.

Original sin is sometimes called inherited sin

Sin in the flesh is hereditary; and entailed upon mankind as the consequence of Adam's violation of the Eden law. The "original sin" was such as I have shown in previous pages. Adam and Eve committed it; and their posterity are suffering the consequence of it. The tribe of Levi paid tithes to Melchisedec many years before Levi was born. The apostle says, "Levi, who receiveth tithes, paid tithes in Abraham". Upon the same federal principle, all mankind ate of the forbidden fruit, being in the loins of Adam when he transgressed. This is the only way men can by any possibility be guilty of the original sin. Because they sinned in Adam, therefore they return to the dust from which Adam came -- says the apostle, "in whom all sinned". There is much foolishness spoken and written about "original sin". Infants are made the subjects of a religious ceremony to regenerate them because of original sin; on account of which, acoording to Geneva philosophy they are liable to the flames of hell for ever! If original sin, which is in fact sin in the flesh, were neutralized, then all "baptismally regenerated" babes ought to live for ever, as Adam would have done had he eaten of the Tree of Life after he had sinned. But they die; which is a proof that the "regeneration" does not "cure their souls"; and is, therefore, mere theological quackery. (Elpis Israel)

In summary, your understanding of sin emphasizes its physical nature, rooted in the body and brain's biochemical processes. Sin is viewed as a result of the physical impulses and biochemical reactions generated by the brain, which manifest in sinful thoughts, emotions, and actions. It is seen as a physical law of decay that affects the human body and leads to various consequences, including diseases and death.