What the ORIGINAL SIN really is. And why Christians are guilty of it

[Avoice]

The church claims man has been infected with the "original sin." Its defined by the church as being unable to please God. That we are all doomed. And only killing a good guy named Jesus can save us.
No one is infected with anything. Its just a cop out. An excuse to failure.
Do you think such a concept insoires people to try harder or an excuse

[Data]

Ezekiel 28:11-19

DOES THE BIBLE SAY SATAN WAS SENT TO EARTH TO PROTECT THE GARDEN OF EDEN?

Some have assumed this because of the passage in Ezekiel 28:11-19 which contains a description of the downfall of the proud king of Tyre. While this description can be understood to paraellel the angel that become Satan the Devil, and there is mention of Eden, there is no reason to assume it puts Satan in the role of "protector" of Eden.

1. The word "protector" nor guard or any other expression that implies such a role is entirely absent in the passage.

2. Logically there would have been nothing to "protect" Eden from, since pre-rebellion there were no negative elements in existence.

3. Scripture indicates Satan himself became the instigator of the rebellion, thus sole element from which any theoretical "protection" would have been needed.

4. Satan, evidently had free access to Eden even after his decision to tempt Eve; we can reasonably conclude then that there was no blocking access to Eden until God pronounced the need for such a thing after the expulsion of Adam and Eve.

* Interestingly, although from the beginning God prohibited the fruit from "The Tree of Knowledge", there is no record of him taking and further measures to "protect" it.

CONCLUSION : There is no scriptural basis to conclude Satan ever had the role of "Protector of Eden".

First of all, let me tell you a story of what happened to me on a forum like this, roughly (as I recall and my memory is not so good these days) about a year or so ago. I was having a dispute with someone regarding the genealogy of Jesus, Heli etc. and I said that the Biblical Hebrew didn't have a word for father-in-law. I don't know where I got this idea, but I argued up and down until someone mentioned Jethro. If you had asked me, I could have told you Jethro was Moses's father-in-law but for some reason, in the heat of the discussion I got sidetracked. And then of course I admitted I was wrong but I was fascinated where this thinking had come from. I knew better. I think the glitch that caused the confusion of data happened like this: I had read someone say there wasn't a word for father-in-law and without thinking about it confused it for there not being a word for son used in the case of Noah/Ham/Canaan.

I bring it up because there could be a misunderstanding on my part, as your response suggests. So, let's address that.

DOES THE BIBLE SAY SATAN WAS SENT TO EARTH TO PROTECT THE GARDEN OF EDEN?

Some have assumed this because of the passage in Ezekiel 28:11-19 which contains a description of the downfall of the proud king of Tyre. While this description can be understood to paraellel the angel that become Satan the Devil, and there is mention of Eden, there is no reason to assume it puts Satan in the role of "protector" of Eden.

1. The word "protector" nor guard or any other expression that implies such a role is entirely absent in the passage.

The concept of protector of Eden specifically was first introduced to me by a Presiding Overseer of my local congregation of Jehovah's Witness when I had my Bible study with him shortly after my becoming a believer. It is certainly possible that my memory doesn't serve me here, but that's how I recall it. It is also possible that the Elder was mistaken or that the Society has changed their position or that that was never their position in the first place. I did some quick research and I can't find any solid conclusion in the Watchtower Library to support my supposition. However, it was a quick search and I did find the following which confirmed my thinking was not without reason. The article on Cherub from both the Insight and my personal favorite Aid books suggest the appointment of Satan as protector of Eden, saying: "In this prophetic book, Ezekiel was also told to “lift up a dirge concerning the king of Tyre,” in which he calls the king a glorious covering cherub that was once “in Eden, the garden of God,” but who was stripped of his beauty and made as ashes upon the ground. “This is what the Lord Jehovah has said: . . . ‘You are the anointed cherub that is covering, and I have set you. On the holy mountain of God you proved to be. In the midst of fiery stones you walked about. You were faultless in your ways from the day of your being created until unrighteousness was found in you. . . . I shall put you as profane out of the mountain of God, and I shall destroy you, O cherub that is covering [O protecting cherub, Vg].’”—Ezek. 28:11-19." (Translation comparison of Ezekiel 28:14)

and "In symbol, the cherubs served as “the representation of the chariot” of Jehovah upon which he rode (1 Chron. 28:18), and the wings of the cherubs offered both guarding protection and swiftness in travel."

Now, what does Eden and Jehovah have (not necessarily of necessity) protection from and what exactly is "protection?" Maybe we will get to that later. Maybe not. Maybe it's conjectural.

Perhaps. Good to use the term "protect" in quotations. I didn't state what exactly that meant. I have no idea, contextually not having much to work with. We can assume, and agree upon perhaps, that the newly created Earth outside of the specific garden of Eden was, well - no garden of Eden (ha, did you see what I did there?) in some sense. Maybe the angel later known as "Satan" was appointed to protect Adam and Eve from that. To prevent them from wandering outside of their paradisaic area. Thus, my use of the Watchtower article linked to above as mentioning the cherubs protecting Jehovah.

RELATED POSTS

Why did God allow Satan into the Garden of Eden?
viewtopic.php?p=908723#p908723

Did you do this specifically for a response to my post?! Excellent! Very good job. I appreciate it. I had always assumed that those addendums at the end of your posts were just a sig. A good idea in and of itself which I've used as well, but I had no idea they were specific to your response.

I'm afraid I don't see your point being established in context to the thread it appears though, to be honest.

Why did God allow Satan into the Garden of Eden?

ANSWER: Because when Satan rebelled against God's rulership, he (Satan) raised some issues that called into question whether humans would, if given a choice, voluntarily obey their Creator (YHWH/Jehovah) or would humans rather choose to side in a rebellion. The answer to this question had to be settled for the long term stability of all God's intelligent creation, and the only way to legitimately settle this issue without impeding on Adam and Eves free will was to let Satan do as he pleased.

You and I would agree that the proposition presented by both theist and atheists that Jehovah God created Satan to serve as some adversary is nonsensicall and unscriptural, but your quote above doesn't answer the question. The answer is simple; Jehovah allowed the angel who would later become rebellious entrance to Eden because there was no reason to do otherwise.

Does JUDE imply angels were originally charged to take care of the earth?
viewtopic.php?p=1105459#p1105459

[your quote from the post]

DOES THE BIBLE INDICATE THAT ANGELS RULED OVER THE EARTH ORIGINALLY?

Absolutely not. There is no scripture that states that the spirits original "estate" was earthly. Jude explains that the rebellious angels left their original (and implied divinely ordained) habitat, he does NOT say that original home pertained to the earth.

I would agree with that but I don't recall ever having been introduced to the alternative which you were responding to and don't have time to look at its context. I always took it that it wasn't a place they forsook, but a position. They abandoned their created position or overstepped their purpose. Similar to homosexuality with men. Angels are known to take human form to communicate with men, but they don't settle down and make babies with them.

On the point of protection in context with Ezekiel 28:14 you have a good argument and it should be acknowledged as such for clarification due to the speculative nature of the translation. Good job.

[JehovahsWitness]

The Jews don’t believe in Original Sin and never did. It’s not in the Old Testament and they don’t believe anything close to that peculiar doctrine. I heard Jews explain why we sin and neither espoused anything close to this purely christian theological point.

And what were you told is the reason why we sin?

[JehovahsWitness]

The concept of protector of Eden specifically was first introduced to me by a Presiding Overseer of my local congregation of Jehovah's Witness ...

If you believe this is (or has ever been) an official belief of Jehovahs Witnesses, all you have to do is provide a reference. All our literature dating back to the 1950s and beyond is available for free online.

I did some quick research and I can't find any solid conclusion in the Watchtower Library to support my supposition

Well then if I were in your position, I would stand corrected until further information came to light.

You're Welcome,


JEHOVAH'S WITNESS

[Data]

The concept of protector of Eden specifically was first introduced to me by a Presiding Overseer of my local congregation of Jehovah's Witness ...

If you believe this is (or has ever been) an official belief of Jehovahs Witnesses, all you have to do is provide a reference. All our literature dating back to the 1950s and beyond is available for free online.

I did.

[Mae von H]

The Jews don’t believe in Original Sin and never did. It’s not in the Old Testament and they don’t believe anything close to that peculiar doctrine. I heard Jews explain why we sin and neither espoused anything close to this purely christian theological point.

And what were you told is the reason why we sin?

Because “we want and don’t have. We don’t have because we don’t ask. We ask and don’t receive because we ask with wrong motives.” The Bible

[onewithhim]

[Replying to Data in post #59]

My post above doesn't merit any comment?

[Data]

[Replying to Data in post #59]

My post above doesn't merit any comment?

Which post? Link me to the post you want me to respond to. As far as I can tell I did respond to your last post here.

[onewithhim]

[Replying to Data in post #59]

My post above doesn't merit any comment?

Which post? Link me to the post you want me to respond to. As far as I can tell I did respond to your last post here.

Posts #57 and #58.

[Data]

It was no trap. He wanted to give them the opportunity to go on happily living in the beautiful garden.

Correct.

God can decide what He WANTS to know, and what He doesn't want to know.

I suppose I would agree, at least in part. I wouldn't put it in those words. God wanted to know, in a sense, that they were going to do well in his purpose for them to live forever in peace. To fill and subdue the earth. He didn't not want to know if they failed in that capacity. He would have wanted to know if that were the case as not knowing by choice would have been a denial of the truth and his obligation to his creation. I suppose what you mean by that is that there are things outside of the context of the specific case in question God doesn't need or desire to know, in a general sense God doesn't want or need to know every thought of every living being as is sometimes theologically or religiously implied.

He didn't want to know what Adam and Eve would do so He could genuinely give them a choice.

Prophetically you mean. God didn't have the ability to know the outcome before it occurred. He did know the possible outcome because he gave both options to them. He did know they could succeed or fail in their stated purpose.

He didn't want it to be fake. How could He be loving if He knew what they were going to do....just stringing them along? He chose to wait and see what they would do. He has that ability.

In a court of law such assumptions are not well received. My dad and sister like to watch TV, and I've seen them watch Judge Judy. She seems so difficult and mean spirited. What I recognize when I see shows like that is that the judge wants facts, not spin or speculation. The student of the Bible doesn't know in reading the beginning what God does or doesn't want, what his abilities are or that he is or isn't loving. So, I tend to at least try to avoid making those assumptions or spinning the argument. Not that I don't agree with you or that your logic doesn't hold up to an examination of the facts, but rather that making those assumptions, especially in a debate which is somewhat similar to a testimony in a court of law is like a conclusion being presented by putting one's own spin on it. Because putting one's own spin on an examination of the facts is a very natural proclivity. That is what we do in such an examination. So, even if it may be true and accurate, it could cloud our thinking, influence our conclusion or argument.

[Data]

[Replying to Data in post #59]

My post above doesn't merit any comment?

Which post? Link me to the post you want me to respond to. As far as I can tell I did respond to your last post here.

Posts #57 and #58.

57 I didn't see and have responded above. 58 I had responded to, here and in response to JW in more detail, here.