Original Sin Or Committed Sin

Oh boy! I understand that. I will pray for you :smilewinkgrin:

 

Here is what I am coming up with so far. According to “All the Women in the Bible” on pp 66 it reads” In the genealogy of Christ we find the name of Rachab, along with other women…….There is some question as to whether this was Rahab, the harlot, but most scholars identify Rachab and Rahab as one in the same person.”

An interesting note is that “Josephus and some rabbis refer to Rahab not as a harlot but as an innkeeper…..” It goes on to say that innkeepers were not noted as the most moral persons, and were sometimes called harlots.

Pray for me as I tell my wife of my find.:smilewinkgrin:

 

There is a whole chapter devoted to Rahab in the book entitled "All the Women of the Bible" by Deen. It is an interesting read.

 

You are right: Rachab is simply the Greek rendering of the Hebrew Rahab and is in the genealogy of Christ. But that doesn't prove anything about Psalm 51. It is a just another red herring.

 

I was not making any point by mentioning Rahab DHK, I was just trying to answer a question raised about her by Webdog. Nothing fishy here.

 

If in fact David was illegitimate, it would not have kept him from being picked by God to sit on the throne. God often takes the base things of this world to accomplish His ends. What the world despises, God often uses.

I like that. It gives me hope!:godisgood:

 

Rahab has nothing to do with this conversation as Rahab was not the mother of David; Bathsheba was. And there is nothing in Scripture that indicates that David's birth was sinful, or "the sin of Bathsheba" that HP refers to--is some fictional thing that HP brings up is an unwarranted accusation which is false teaching.

 

HP: DHK, now that is entirely a classier way to express your disdain for what I believe than I have witnessed in the past.:thumbsup: This may come as a shock to some, but THANK YOU DHK!:applause:

In case you missed this link, I feel this is one of the best perspectives on Psalm 51 I have ever read. It is short and to the point. http://www.pinpointevangelism.com/libraryoftheologycom/writings/originalsin/Psalms_Fifty_One_Five-WilliamMurray.pdf

 

I'm sure you just misspoke - Bathsheba was not David's mother. She's the one he committed adultery with.

 

THanks for the info! :wavey:

 

That was far too close for comfort.:smilewinkgrin:

 

Thanks Marcia for the correction. I did.

 

Ruth 4:13-22 So Boaz took Ruth, and she was his wife: and when he went in unto her, the LORD gave her conception, and she bare a son.
14 And the women said unto Naomi, Blessed be the LORD, which hath not left thee this day without a kinsman, that his name may be famous in Israel.
15 And he shall be unto thee a restorer of thy life, and a nourisher of thine old age: for thy daughter in law, which loveth thee, which is better to thee than seven sons, hath born him.
16 And Naomi took the child, and laid it in her bosom, and became nurse unto it.
17 And the women her neighbours gave it a name, saying, There is a son born to Naomi; and they called his name Obed: he is the father of Jesse, the father of David.
18 Now these are the generations of Pharez: Pharez begat Hezron,
19 And Hezron begat Ram, and Ram begat Amminadab,
20 And Amminadab begat Nahshon, and Nahshon begat Salmon,
21 And Salmon begat Boaz, and Boaz begat Obed,
22 And Obed begat Jesse, and Jesse begat David.

Here also is Matthew 1
Matthew 1:5 And Salmon begat Booz of Rachab; and Booz begat Obed of Ruth; and Obed begat Jesse;

The above are Burkitt's comments on Matthew 1:5

 

DHK: Burkitt:”… how vile soever their parents' sin has rendered them in the eyes of men, it is their own sin only which exposes them to contempt in the sight of God. It is not illegitimacy, but unregeneracy, that makes us objects of God's wrath.”

HP: Would to God men would accept that comment at face value, and understand clearly that if it is sin it does according to Scripture render man as an object of God’s Divine wrath. Are we being consistent by the admission of original sin, while saying as well that only ‘ones own sin exposes them to contempt in the sight of God’? I think not.

If man is born a sinner due to sin being inflicted upon them due to the sins of Adam or anyone else, that is a concept at direct antipodes with Scripture. Scripture very plainly tells us that no man is accountable to God for the sins of another.
Eze 18:20 The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.

 

Love, holiness and justice all work together in God's plan of redemption. Because you can't understand it from a human standpoint doesn't mean you should reject it.

You are right it doesn't. But it does tell us that we bear the consequences of another's sin.

Again, you take Scripture out of context. We bear the consequences of Adam's sin--a sin nature. Adam is the federal head of the human race, and by his sin the entire human race is plunged under a curse, which includes mankind inheriting a sin nature. Until the curse be removed things will continue as they are. We bear the consequences of Adam's sin.

 

DHK: Again, you take Scripture out of context. We bear the consequences of Adam's sin--a sin nature. Adam is the federal head of the human race, and by his sin the entire human race is plunged under a curse, which includes mankind inheriting a sin nature. Until the curse be removed things will continue as they are. We bear the consequences of Adam's sin.

HP: Hogwash. I by no means take that Scripture out of context. It states exactly what it says it states, you simply cannot accept it because it runs contrary to your presupposition of original sin. Your whole argument of a federal head is nothing more than an unsupported philosophical notion nowhere stated or implied in Scripture. Federal headship is nothing more or less than pure unadultrated Calvinistic philosophy.

 

Does not Scripture tell us that the first man is Adam.
The second Adam is Christ.
What does that tell you?

 

It tells me our physical father is indeed Adam as physical descendants, but eternal life does not come via our physical father. All have sinned. Our only spiritual hope comes from the Second Adam, for we are fallen sinners without hope. Christ has come to redeem us from our sins and the eternal consequence of our sin and to grant to us eternal life IF we reamin firm in our hope and obedience to the end.