Featured Consider Jack and Joe - who is worse?

They cannot. It is not honest and it is not a genuine critique. It is a demonization tactic. It is a debate tactic. It is an attempt to belittle and attack those who disagree with them because they do not have the fortitude to deal with disagreement properly.

 

Well, whatever this knowledge is, it cannot be evil, because scripture confirms that God has this knowledge. So, this does not prove that man became depraved.

Before the fall, man had only knowledge of good, after the fall he had knowledge of evil also.

The scriptures say as soon as they ate their eyes were opened and they knew they were naked. So, I believe this shows for the first time they became aware of themselves, self-conscious. We all know a little baby can walk around the house completely naked and not feel shame or embarrassment. But in a few short years a child becomes aware of himself and wants to be clothed.

So, I believe this shows man became self aware, especially of his own faults. Some have argued this is when man gained a conscience, and this may well be true. The conscience knows between good and evil and commends a man when he does good, but condemns a man when he does evil.

Jhn 8:9 And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst.

Here, the conscience of these men convicted them.

Acts 23:1 And Paul, earnestly beholding the council, said, Men and brethren, I have lived in all good conscience before God until this day.

Here Paul says he lived in all good conscience before God. Paul could not be saying he lived his whole life without sin, but was speaking of his preaching the gospel, that he did not feel guilty or wrong for doing so, he knew he was teaching the truth.

So, I believe this self awareness and the ability to judge one's self whether they have done good or evil is what the knowledge of good and evil is. Before this, Adam and Eve were like little children who were completely unaware of themselves or their actions.

 

the next post after yours Winman said this...again-

Do you agree with this HT??????

hebrews 2 does not say....the nature of the post fall seed.......he is denying the particular nature of the atonement....He took on the seed of Abraham....not their sin nature....see the quotes at the bottom of my long post...read them!

Actually here it is-
This does not mean our sin nature we get from Adam....you deny this ..so you can never see the truth in scripture, or any quote about it,because you mis-read it.
again ...Pink-

Quote:
The Greek verb here translated "He took on" or "laid hold" is found elsewhere in some very striking connections. It is used of Christ’s stretching out His hand and rescuing sinking Peter, Matthew 14:31, there rendered "caught." It is used of Christ when He "took" the blind man by the hand (Mark 8:23). So of the man sick of the dropsy. He "took" and healed him (Luke 14:4). Here in Hebrews 2:16 the reference is to the almighty power and invincible grace of the Captain of our salvation. It receives illustration in those words of the apostle’s where, referring to his own conversion, he said, "for which also I am (was) apprehended (laid hold) of Christ Jesus" (Phil. 3:12). Thus it was and still is with each of God’s elect. In themselves, lost, rushing headlong to destruction; when Christ stretches forth His hand and delivers, so that of each it may be said, "Is not this a brand plucked from the burning" (Zech. 3:2). "Laid hold of" so securely that none can pluck out of His hand!

It is speaking of atonement...not sin nature.....MT henry is speaking of human nature...ie, flesh and blood...as in hebrews 2:14...
not the sin nature

 

Perhaps you can offer examples of that which you claim?

I noticed you did not do so in the other thread.

 

Original Sin Issue and Nature of Man thread started here...

Original Sin Issue and Nature of Man thread started here...

 

I have not reached a level of certainty that I'm comfortable with regarding the issue of "What is the nature of man?" Whatever the nature of man is, it does seem to me that Jesus was 100% human.

So, again, the argument is not what kind of God Jesus is but what kind of world He has created. And the argument here is what kind of nature did man have and what kind of nature does man now have? Consider water... it is actually water in all it's states but the affects of conditions results in ice that I just can't seem to absorb with a paper towel... so, I could see that the conditions which man's will has forced onto his nature have altered the nature but did not necessarily make his nature something that it was not prior to the conditions of sin.

This is a subject on my list to inform myself of so please make your best reasoned argument!

(I think this thread might be closed soon... would you mind making the case in another thread or in the one I just created as indicated in my post above?)

 

I started to HT///take your time think it out..i will send the whole link for you