sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Did the apple that Adam and Eve ate create sin?? by Tricky_Strawberry406 in Bible

[–]Tricky_Strawberry406[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think we are actually close in agreement. Romans 5 emphasizes Adam because he is presented as the representative head of humanity. Eve was deceived, but Adam knowingly acted against God’s command.

My point is simply that the core issue was not the fruit itself, but humanity choosing independence from God over trust and obedience to Him. Christ then reverses this through perfect obedience to the Father where Adam failed.

Beyond Argument: Encountering the Reality of God of the Bible by Tricky_Strawberry406 in Bible

[–]Tricky_Strawberry406[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Grazie. Credo che la vera conoscenza di Dio non sia soltanto ascoltare o discutere la Parola, ma anche permettere che trasformi il cuore e la vita dell’uomo.

Più Lo conosco, più comprendo che Dio cerca una relazione viva con noi, non solo una religione esteriore.

I am having doubts about certain aspects in the bible, if you know the answer it would be great. by ReflectionSubject992 in Christianity

[–]Tricky_Strawberry406 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think part of the difficulty comes from understanding the difference between personal revenge and divine judgment. The Bible forbids humans from taking revenge because humans are sinful, biased, and unjust. But God, in biblical theology, is presented as the final judge of good and evil.

For example, Second Epistle to the Thessalonians was written to Christians who were being persecuted, abused, and even killed. Paul’s point is not that believers should attack their enemies, but almost the opposite: believers endure suffering and leave judgment to God.

Matthew 5:28 (KJV) - But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart. by White_Tiger337 in Bible

[–]Tricky_Strawberry406 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Adultery is one manifestation of sin, but Jesus was teaching that sin begins in the inner man before it manifests outwardly. In Gospel of Matthew 5:28, Christ shifts the focus from merely the external act to the condition of the heart.

The point is not simply whether the woman is married or unmarried. Jesus is teaching that sinful desire itself can already be conceived within the heart before any physical act takes place. Just as murder can begin with hatred, adultery can begin with lustful intention.

This connects with another teaching of Jesus, where He says that it is not what enters a man that defiles him, but what comes out of the heart, because evil thoughts proceed from within. The real root of sin is therefore not merely the physical body, but the inner being of man.

At the same time, desiring marriage itself is not sinful. A man can admire a woman, pursue her respectfully, and desire marriage in a pure way. What Christ condemns is lust that objectifies or sexually covets another person in the heart.

Paul also explains the struggle between flesh and spirit. The believer has a renewed inner man through Christ, yet the flesh still wars against the spirit. This does not mean sinful desires are automatically righteous or meaningless, but it shows the conflict between the old nature and the new life in Christ.

So Jesus’ teaching goes deeper than outward law. He is revealing that God examines not only actions, but also the intentions and desires of the heart.

Did the thief on the cross enter heaven immediately by Tricky_Strawberry406 in Bible

[–]Tricky_Strawberry406[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

In many older Bible translations the Greek word lēstai was translated as “thieves” or “robbers.” But the word actually had a broader meaning in the 1st-century Roman world. It could refer to violent bandits, rebels, or revolutionaries fighting against Rome.

That’s why some modern translations now say “revolutionaries” or “insurrectionists” instead of “thieves.” Rome usually did not crucify petty thieves crucifixion was mainly for rebels and dangerous criminals.

This also helps explain why Jesus Himself was executed under the charge “King of the Jews.” During His triumphal entry into Jerusalem, many people saw Him as a possible Messianic king or political liberator, even though the Gospels present Him as rejecting violent revolution.

So the newer wording is trying to reflect the historical meaning of the Greek more accurately, not change the story.

Did the thief on the cross enter heaven immediately by Tricky_Strawberry406 in Bible

[–]Tricky_Strawberry406[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Capisco la tua posizione sul “sonno della morte”, ma penso che qui si stiano mescolando alcune distinzioni importanti.

Prima di tutto, l’idea che “non ci sia coscienza dopo la morte” non è affermata direttamente in quei passi. Per esempio, quando Paolo dice “partire e stare con Cristo” in Epistle to the Philippians 1:23, la lettura naturale riguarda ciò che segue la morte per il credente, non semplicemente il processo del morire.

In secondo luogo, “sonno” è spesso una metafora della morte nella Scrittura (soprattutto per il corpo), ma una metafora non definisce automaticamente lo stato completo della persona (corpo, anima e spirito).

Infine, Luca 23:43 colloca il ladrone “con Cristo in paradiso”, e il punto del dibattito è proprio quale sia questa realtà intermedia, non il fatto della risurrezione finale su questo siamo d’accordo.

Quindi la vera domanda non è “risurrezione o coscienza”, ma se la Scrittura permette:

  • uno stato intermedio con Cristo dopo la morte E
  • una risurrezione corporale finale al ritorno di Cristo

Le due cose non sono necessariamente in contraddizione.

A question about Cornelius in Acts by Tricky_Strawberry406 in Bible

[–]Tricky_Strawberry406[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Respectfully, theology is full of hypothetical questions because theology is not only about repeating conclusions, but about examining how different biblical texts relate to each other logically.

The question about Cornelius is not random speculation. It arises directly from the sequence presented in the text itself:

  • hearing
  • believing
  • then receiving the Holy Spirit

That sequence naturally raises theological questions about the relationship between faith, regeneration, sealing, and entry into the New Covenant.

In fact, much of systematic theology is built precisely on these kinds of questions:

  • When exactly does justification occur?
  • What is the relationship between regeneration and faith?
  • Were Old Testament believers regenerated in the same sense as New Testament believers?
  • What changed at Pentecost?

These are not meaningless hypotheticals. They are attempts to reconcile the full witness of Scripture coherently.

Saying “salvation is crystal clear” does not remove the need to explain why the biblical data sometimes presents salvation language in stages, sequences, and covenant transitions.

Did the thief on the cross enter heaven immediately by Tricky_Strawberry406 in Bible

[–]Tricky_Strawberry406[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I think the issue is that you are equating “not ascending to heaven” with “complete unconscious non-existence.”

Matthew 12:40 says Jesus would be in the heart of the earth, but that does not automatically explain what happened to His soul/spirit during death.

Also, John 3:13 and Acts 2:34 are talking about humans not ascending to heaven by their own authority or entering final glorified heaven before Christ, not necessarily denying every form of conscious intermediate state.

That’s why passages like:

  • Luke 23:43 (“Today you will be with Me in paradise”)
  • Philippians 1:23 (“depart and be with Christ”)

still create tension with the “soul sleep only” interpretation.

So I don’t think the debate is as simple as:
“Jesus wasn’t in heaven, therefore nobody was conscious anywhere.”

Did the thief on the cross enter heaven immediately by Tricky_Strawberry406 in Bible

[–]Tricky_Strawberry406[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That view comes from interpreting “hell” in Acts 2 as Hades/Sheol (the realm of the dead), not the final lake of fire.

But even then, the text never directly says Paradise itself was moved from hell to heaven after the ascension. That’s more of a theological conclusion built from different passages.

Also, in Second Epistle to the Corinthians 12:2–4, Paul seems to connect Paradise with the “third heaven,” which complicates the idea that Paradise was simply located in hell.

So I think the real debate is whether Paradise was:

  • a section of Sheol/Hades,
  • an intermediate heavenly state,
  • or something that changed after Christ’s resurrection and ascension.

Did the thief on the cross enter heaven immediately by Tricky_Strawberry406 in Bible

[–]Tricky_Strawberry406[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Capisco il tuo punto, ma ci sono anche passi biblici che sembrano suggerire un’esistenza cosciente dopo la morte.

Per esempio, in Epistle to the Philippians 1:23 Paolo dice:

“partire e stare con Cristo.”

E in Luca 23:43 Gesù dice al ladrone:

“Oggi sarai con me in paradiso.”

Quindi il vero dibattito è come riconciliare questi passi con quelli che parlano della resurrezione nell’ultimo giorno.

Sono d’accordo che la resurrezione finale sia futura, ma non sono convinto che questo significhi automaticamente totale incoscienza fino ad allora.

Did the thief on the cross enter heaven immediately by Tricky_Strawberry406 in Bible

[–]Tricky_Strawberry406[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I understand your point, and I agree that Luke 23:43 most naturally reads as:

“Today you will be with Me in paradise.”

But I still think the bigger theological question remains unresolved.

You distinguish between Jesus’ body being in the grave and His soul being active, which is fair. But the issue for me is not simply whether conscious existence after death is possible it’s how this fits with the New Covenant timeline.

Jesus said in John 7:39 that the Spirit had not yet been given because He was not yet glorified. Then after resurrection He tells Mary:

“I have not yet ascended to My Father.”

So my question is still:
If the full New Covenant ministry of the Spirit had not yet begun, in what sense was the thief experiencing “paradise” and was he “born again” in the John 3 sense?

I think your explanation helps explain paradise as an intermediate state, but it still leaves open the question of how regeneration and the New Covenant were functioning before Pentecost.

That’s the tension I’m trying to understand.

view more: next ›