# Son of God



## 1gr8bldr (Feb 6, 2014)

I thought I might share this that I posted elsewhere to get some feedback. Been seeing some questions about Jesus death that I think is answered by this. ;


 Significance of believing Jesus is the Son of God
Ever wondered what the significance of believing that Jesus is the Son of God? Trins will say that it is believing that he is God. Why would God require anyone to believe this to be saved? What sigificance would that be? Here is the proper significance; Required by God, seen as tradition, each firstborn son would be offered to redeem the remainder of the family. The second or third son would not have to be offered because it was finished/ accomplished by the first. Believing that Jesus was the "son of God" carried an unspoken underlying foundation. Assumed in the term is that he was the firstborn. Assumed in the term is that by believing this, you are redeemed as brother of the firstborn. This is what it means to believe Jesus is the son of God. That his being offered accomplished/fullfilled the tradition of offering the firstborn. ......... Jesus is the son of God, the firstborn among many brothers. 



Something to ponder; Notice that this was Peters reply when asked "who do you say I am". But more important, notice his given a new name. Picturistic of Adam nameing the new creation, pointing to Jesus nameing those who are a new creation.
Last edited by Dr.Context; 02-06-14 at 06:26 PM.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Feb 6, 2014)

quote); Required by God, seen as tradition, each firstborn son would be offered to redeem the remainder of the family. 

I do see and understand everything in the Bible and the culture of the times and Middle East was all about the firstborn son. I'm assuming this culture was started by God. 
What does it mean from the quote above? How was a firstborn son required to redeem the rest of his family? Did he have to die? I'm still trying to figure out the reason Jesus had to die.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Feb 6, 2014)

Artfuldodger said:


> quote); Required by God, seen as tradition, each firstborn son would be offered to redeem the remainder of the family.
> 
> I do see and understand everything in the Bible and the culture of the times and Middle East was all about the firstborn son. I'm assuming this culture was started by God.
> What does it mean from the quote above? How was a firstborn son required to redeem the rest of his family? Did he have to die? I'm still trying to figure out the reason Jesus had to die.


The attonment was a substitute. Each year they made sacrifices and as Paul said, it was only a reminder and never worked to clear the conscience. So basically, it was so that they would look foward to one that would clear the conscience, the son of God. These firstborn son offerings were never death. But in Jesus case, it was not about blood, or any of that sacrifice stuff orchestrated by priest who figured a way to fatten themselves without working, it was about death. God dealth the curse of "you will surely die".This was for all mankind, sinner or not.  Jesus tasted death and was born again as a new creation. "he was put to death in the body but made alive by the Spirit". This aspect of Jesus needing to be reborn raises lots of controversy. The typical response is that he did not need to, that he never sinned. But all mankind fell under the curse of "you will surely die". If Jesus was any part man, then he had to be reborn. Reborn is not a correct understanding. No where does the bible actually state being born again so I will use it as the bible/greek does. "Born from above". I say this for clarification. When we think of born again, or born from above, that is what we think of Christians. But notice this verse, "the one born from above protect us". Paraphrase, Jesus being born from above, just as we are, protects us. Several translations realized the magnitude of this and changed it to "protects himself" trying to divert it from Jesus being born from above as we are to us being born from above protecting ourselves. I'm confusing the matter now. To much info


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Feb 6, 2014)

Hey Art, I realize that I have not answered your question. I will ponder your question as to why. Why did Jesus have to die. Was it obedience to the role of firstborn son of God, that he saw in scripture what would happen to God's firstborn son, and he did not run from it but rather faced it in obedience to what the scriptures foretold??????


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Feb 6, 2014)

Hey Art. You got me to thinking..... The firstborn sons were supposed to serve as priest, but something happened that God chose the tribe of Levi. So the offering was to redeem the firstborn from his duties, paid to the Levi Priest. The original plan was that the firstborn serve as priest. This is why Jesus was called our "high priest", Hebrews, I think. So the Levites were a substitute. This offering was a constant reminder that a substitute was being used. Setting the stage of the expectation of a true, high priest. Now think back to when God told Abraham to go offer his firstborn son Issac. He was about to do it when God stopped him and God said "I will do it". Instead of Abraham offering his firstborn son, God said he would offer his firstborn son instead. I think of Acts 20:28, I think, something like, "be shepherds of the church of God which he purchased with the blood of his own [son]". So God, kept his promise to Abraham. ........... Still not fitting exactly, still not answering the question as to why, why would God ask Abraham to kill his son???? More to ponder.... But I need to have a clear, solid understanding.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Feb 6, 2014)

I'll have to think on this. I'll probably start a new topic on whether Jesus' death was for  penal substitutionary atonement, Christus Victor, or other theory.
There is a lot to be said about the firstborn the High Priest. We have discussed whether Jesus died a human or spiritual death. I'm more interested in the reason of his death as how it relates to atonement, sacrifice, blood, Adam's sin, etc. than who Jesus was or what part of him died. That's why I'll start a new thread up above.


----------



## HawgJawl (Feb 7, 2014)

How do you square the whole concept of a sacrifice to redeem others against the concept of personal responsibility for one's own actions?


----------



## Artfuldodger (Feb 7, 2014)

HawgJawl said:


> How do you square the whole concept of a sacrifice to redeem others against the concept of personal responsibility for one's own actions?



Sacrifice is actually a symbol of holiness rather than punishment. God is loving and merciful, and has no desire to see either human or animal suffering. When we sin, we are not reconciled to God through punishment, but by repenting and living a good life. The sacrifice is then a symbol of the our desire to repent and dedicate our life to God. Christ was symbolically a sacrifice because He purified and sanctified Himself by His holy life. He is symbolically our sacrifice because He enables us to life a holy life. 

http://www.biblemeanings.info/johnodhner/Sacrifice.html


----------



## HawgJawl (Feb 7, 2014)

Artfuldodger said:


> Sacrifice is actually a symbol of holiness rather than punishment. God is loving and merciful, and has no desire to see either human or animal suffering. When we sin, we are not reconciled to God through punishment, but by repenting and living a good life. The sacrifice is then a symbol of the our desire to repent and dedicate our life to God. Christ was symbolically a sacrifice because He purified and sanctified Himself by His holy life. He is symbolically our sacrifice because He enables us to life a holy life.
> 
> http://www.biblemeanings.info/johnodhner/Sacrifice.html



If symbolism is all there is to it, then Jesus died just so we wouldn't have to sacrifice burnt offerings anymore.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Feb 7, 2014)

1gr8bldr said:


> Hey Art. You got me to thinking..... The firstborn sons were supposed to serve as priest, but something happened that God chose the tribe of Levi. So the offering was to redeem the firstborn from his duties, paid to the Levi Priest. The original plan was that the firstborn serve as priest. This is why Jesus was called our "high priest", Hebrews, I think. So the Levites were a substitute. This offering was a constant reminder that a substitute was being used. Setting the stage of the expectation of a true, high priest. Now think back to when God told Abraham to go offer his firstborn son Issac. He was about to do it when God stopped him and God said "I will do it". Instead of Abraham offering his firstborn son, God said he would offer his firstborn son instead. I think of Acts 20:28, I think, something like, "be shepherds of the church of God which he purchased with the blood of his own [son]". So God, kept his promise to Abraham. ........... Still not fitting exactly, still not answering the question as to why, why would God ask Abraham to kill his son???? More to ponder.... But I need to have a clear, solid understanding.



I found this; 



ISAAC 
Genesis

JESUS 
Gospels
Only begotten Son	Gen. 22:2	John 3:16
Offered on a mountain, hill	Gen. 22:2	Matt. 21:10
Took donkey to place of sacrifice	Gen. 22:3	Matt. 21:2-11
Two men went with him	Gen. 22:3	Mark 15:27; Luke 23:33
Three day journey. Jesus: three days in the grave	Gen. 22:4	Luke 24:13-21
Son carried wood on his back up hill	Gen. 22:6	John 19:17
God will provide for Himself the lamb	Gen. 22:8	John 1:29
Son was offered on the wood	Gen. 22:9	Luke 23:33
Ram in thicket of thorns, crown of thorns	Gen. 22:13	John 19:2
The seed will be multiplied	Gen. 22:17	John 1:12; Isaiah 53:10
Abraham went down. Son didn't.  Isaac is "not mentioned"	Gen. 22:19	Luke 23:46
Servant, gets bride for son	Gen. 24:1-4	Eph. 5:22-32; Rev. 21:2,9; 22:17
The bride was a beautiful virgin	Gen. 24:16	2 Cor. 11:2
Servant offered ten gifts to bride	Gen. 22:10	Rom. 6:23; 12; 1 Cor. 12


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Feb 7, 2014)

1gr8bldr said:


> I found this;
> 
> 
> 
> ...


More parallel; Issac was called Abraham's firstborn son yet we know it was Ishmael. Why is this? Issac was promised in word before Ishmael. OT saints believed God's word/promises as fact, not always existing yet. About Issac, we could say "and the word became flesh and dwealt among us". Issac could say "before Ishmael, I am".


----------



## Artfuldodger (Feb 7, 2014)

HawgJawl said:


> If symbolism is all there is to it, then Jesus died just so we wouldn't have to sacrifice burnt offerings anymore.



That was just one of many views. I'm currently struggling with this issue.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Feb 7, 2014)

1gr8bldr said:


> More parallel; Issac was called Abraham's firstborn son yet we know it was Ishmael. Why is this? Issac was promised in word before Ishmael. OT saints believed God's word/promises as fact, not always existing yet. About Issac, we could say "and the word became flesh and dwealt among us". Issac could say "before Ishmael, I am".



There is a relation between Adam, Jesus, atonement, and the firstborn. 
Not exactly related to this but check out this guy who is a non Trinitarian talking about the firstborn in an article:

http://www.keithhunt.com/Enochhea.html

Check out the articles from the "home" link


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Feb 8, 2014)

Hey Art, Been pondering. God declared that "you will surely die" to Adam. Adam was created to be eternal but lost this due to the curse. Not just Adam, but mankind. From the beginning, God used a substitute. Thus he clothed them. This substitute sacrifice has been in place since the very beginning.  Jewish sacrifice was a constant reminder of a substitute and was unable to clear the conscience. The priest were also substitutes. Originally the firstborn sons were to serve God in the temple but the Levites were given this role because they did not worship the golden calf. The firstborn had to be redeemed from this role by a sacrifice paid to the Levitical priesthood. It was a constant reminder of another substitute. So to clarify, priest were substitutes and the sacrifice was a substitute. the required ritual was only a reminder of the substitute. Now, to believe Jesus is the Son of God carries an unspoken foundation. That he is the firstborn, that he is "our high priest in service to God".  No more substitutes. He is now our true high priest, able to enter the Holy of Holys, and that he is our true sacrifice when he offered himself. Christians believe Jesus is the son of God, this meaning not that he is God but rather that there is no more need for substitutes. It is finished, those believing having a clear conscience before God.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Feb 8, 2014)

1gr8bldr said:


> Hey Art, Been pondering. God declared that "you will surely die" to Adam. Adam was created to be eternal but lost this due to the curse. Not just Adam, but mankind. From the beginning, God used a substitute. Thus he clothed them. This substitute sacrifice has been in place since the very beginning.  Jewish sacrifice was a constant reminder of a substitute and was unable to clear the conscience. The priest were also substitutes. Originally the firstborn sons were to serve God in the temple but the Levites were given this role because they did not worship the golden calf. The firstborn had to be redeemed from this role by a sacrifice paid to the Levitical priesthood. It was a constant reminder of another substitute. So to clarify, priest were substitutes and the sacrifice was a substitute. the required ritual was only a reminder of the substitute. Now, to believe Jesus is the Son of God carries an unspoken foundation. That he is the firstborn, that he is "our high priest in service to God".  No more substitutes. He is now our true high priest, able to enter the Holy of Holys, and that he is our true sacrifice when he offered himself. Christians believe Jesus is the son of God, this meaning not that he is God but rather that there is no more need for substitutes. It is finished, those believing having a clear conscience before God.



Was Adam a substitute for Jesus or was Jesus a substitute for Adam? first Adam, second Adam line of thinking.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Feb 8, 2014)

You need to look at ransom vs substitution atonement. You are saying or looking at all of the blood sacrifices as being substitutes for Jesus. That's the general belief and that Jesus' death was a substitution for our death.
It's all new to me, delving this deeply into it. It's interesting.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Feb 9, 2014)

1gr8bldr said:


> The attonment was a substitute. Each year they made sacrifices and as Paul said, it was only a reminder and never worked to clear the conscience. So basically, it was so that they would look foward to one that would clear the conscience, the son of God. These firstborn son offerings were never death. But in Jesus case, it was not about blood, or any of that sacrifice stuff orchestrated by priest who figured a way to fatten themselves without working, it was about death. God dealth the curse of "you will surely die".This was for all mankind, sinner or not.  Jesus tasted death and was born again as a new creation. "he was put to death in the body but made alive by the Spirit". This aspect of Jesus needing to be reborn raises lots of controversy. The typical response is that he did not need to, that he never sinned. But all mankind fell under the curse of "you will surely die". If Jesus was any part man, then he had to be reborn. Reborn is not a correct understanding. No where does the bible actually state being born again so I will use it as the bible/greek does. "Born from above". I say this for clarification. When we think of born again, or born from above, that is what we think of Christians. But notice this verse, "the one born from above protect us". Paraphrase, Jesus being born from above, just as we are, protects us. Several translations realized the magnitude of this and changed it to "protects himself" trying to divert it from Jesus being born from above as we are to us being born from above protecting ourselves. I'm confusing the matter now. To much info



You would agree that John 3:3 should say "born from above" instead of "born again?"

John 3:3
International Standard Version
Jesus replied to him, "Truly, I tell you emphatically, unless a person is born from above he cannot see the kingdom of God."

NET Bible
Jesus replied, "I tell you the solemn truth, unless a person is born from above, he cannot see the kingdom of God."

GOD'S WORD® Translation
Jesus replied to Nicodemus, "I can guarantee this truth: No one can see the kingdom of God without being born from above."


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Feb 9, 2014)

Artfuldodger said:


> You would agree that John 3:3 should say "born from above" instead of "born again?"
> 
> John 3:3
> International Standard Version
> ...


Yes, it is without doubt "born from above" in the greek.  But, not without issue, notice what Nico said, something about not being able to get back in his mothers womb..... so... he interpreted it as born again.


----------



## hobbs27 (Feb 9, 2014)

Artfuldodger said:


> Was Adam a substitute for Jesus or was Jesus a substitute for Adam? first Adam, second Adam line of thinking.



Spiritually Adam died when he ate of the fruit, and placed the curse of death on mankind from that moment on...till Jesus. Jesus offered the ultimate sacrifice. The blood of Gods firstborn, an unblemished perfect sacrifice. When the atonement was complete death in itself died. Those that enter into covenant with Christ have everlasting life, we may lay down this flesh but spiritually we live.

 Atleast thats the way I understand it.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Feb 9, 2014)

hobbs27 said:


> Spiritually Adam died when he ate of the fruit, and placed the curse of death on mankind from that moment on...till Jesus. Jesus offered the ultimate sacrifice. The blood of Gods firstborn, an unblemished perfect sacrifice. When the atonement was complete death in itself died. Those that enter into covenant with Christ have everlasting life, we may lay down this flesh but spiritually we live.
> 
> Atleast thats the way I understand it.



Adam's spirit died? His spirit doesn't reside any Heaven or He11? What does death in itself died mean? Those that don't enter into the covenant with Jesus don't have an everlasting life in He11? I get confused about death, spiritual death, everlasting life, and everlasting life in he11.


----------



## hobbs27 (Feb 9, 2014)

Artfuldodger said:


> Adam's spirit died? His spirit doesn't reside any Heaven or He11? What does death in itself died mean? Those that don't enter into the covenant with Jesus don't have an everlasting life in He11? I get confused about death, spiritual death, everlasting life, and everlasting life in he11.



Adam was in covenant with God and had no appointed day of death. When Adam broke covenant he was separated from God....he lost his clothing of righteousness so to speak, or he died spiritually.

His spirit probably resides in heaven now, if you read the book of Enoch, during Enoch's time he looked down on the soul of Abel which was confined making pleads to God in heaven. When Jesus finished the atonement and the saints were released from paradise Adam was likely one of them.

Death itself has died means ...Jesus defeated death..remember O death where is thy sting? I believe there no longer is a paradise or waiting place ..we die physically and our spirit is resurrected immediately to face judgement. Jesus made this possible! 

Yes those that refuse to enter covenant spend eternity in he11, but what is he11? Is it just separation from God? I don't think the bible is clear on this.


----------



## HawgJawl (Feb 10, 2014)

I know that this has been discussed on other threads, but I have often found that a single question gets different answers when asked in different contexts.

Was the penalty for original sin a physical death or a spiritual death?


----------



## Hunting 4 Him (Feb 10, 2014)

hawgjawl said:


> i know that this has been discussed on other threads, but i have often found that a single question gets different answers when asked in different contexts.
> 
> Was the penalty for original sin a physical death or a spiritual death?



yes!!


----------



## HawgJawl (Feb 10, 2014)

HawgJawl said:


> I know that this has been discussed on other threads, but I have often found that a single question gets different answers when asked in different contexts.
> 
> Was the penalty for original sin a physical death or a spiritual death?





Hunting 4 Him said:


> yes!!



So, are you saying that the penalty was both?


----------



## Artfuldodger (Feb 10, 2014)

HawgJawl said:


> I know that this has been discussed on other threads, but I have often found that a single question gets different answers when asked in different contexts.
> 
> Was the penalty for original sin a physical death or a spiritual death?



I'm going to say physical. Jesus only died physically. We only die physically. Our spirits will live for an eternity in Heaven or he11. Unless "everlasting life" can only be had in Heaven. That would mean everyone else dies when they die. 

It appears to be two different concepts getting mingled together as I described the two above.


----------



## hobbs27 (Feb 10, 2014)

Question: "What is spiritual death?"

Answer: Death is separation. A physical death is the separation of the soul from the body. Spiritual death, which is of greater significance, is the separation of the soul from God. In Genesis 2:17, God tells Adam that in the day he eats of the forbidden fruit he will “surely die.” Adam does fall, but his physical death does not occur immediately; God must have had another type of death in mind—spiritual death. This separation from God is exactly what we see in Genesis 3:8. When Adam and Eve heard the voice of the Lord, they “hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God.” The fellowship had been broken. They were spiritually dead.

When Jesus was hanging on the cross, He paid the price for us by dying on our behalf. Even though He is God, He still had to suffer the agony of a temporary separation from the Father due to the sin of the world He was carrying on the cross. After three hours of supernatural darkness, He cried, “My God, My God, why hast Thou forsaken Me?” (Mark 15:33-34). This spiritual separation from the Father was the result of the Son’s taking our sins upon Himself. That’s the impact of sin. Sin is the exact opposite of God, and God had to turn away from His own Son at that point in time.

A man without Christ is spiritually dead. Paul describes it as “being alienated from the life of God” in Ephesians 4:18. (To be separated from life is the same as being dead.) The natural man, like Adam hiding in the garden, is isolated from God. When we are born again, the spiritual death is reversed. Before salvation, we are dead (spiritually), but Jesus gives us life. “And you He made alive, who were dead in trespasses and sins,” (Ephesians 2:1 NKJV). “When you were dead in your sins and in the uncircumcision of your sinful nature, God made you alive with Christ. He forgave us all our sins” (Colossians 2:13).

To illustrate, think of Jesus’ raising of Lazarus in John 11. The physically dead Lazarus could do nothing for himself. He was unresponsive to all stimuli, oblivious to all life around him, beyond all help or hope—except for the help of Christ who is “the Resurrection and the Life” (John 11:25). At Christ’s call, Lazarus was filled with life, and he responded accordingly. In the same way, we were spiritually dead, unable to save ourselves, powerless to perceive the life of God—until Jesus called us to Himself. He “quickened” us; “not because of righteous things we had done, but because of his mercy” (Titus 3:5).

The book of Revelation speaks of a “second death,” which is a final (and eternal) separation from God. Only those who have never experienced new life in Christ will partake of the second death (Revelation 2:11; 20:6, 14; 21:8).


Read more: http://www.gotquestions.org/spiritual-death.html#ixzz2syh9WIAG


----------



## Artfuldodger (Feb 10, 2014)

Adam was to live forever physically. His sin caused his physical death, not his spiritual death. His spirit still went somewhere. Our spirits will still go somewhere. Even if you believe in Hinduism, reincarnation, or Atheism, your spirit will go somewhere. 
Jesus died a physical death for our sins. His spirit still went somewhere. He overcame his physical death.(resurrection) This was to reconcile our sins, not some spiritual death for a spiritual death. 
His physical death and physical resurrection was the price paid, ransom, substitution, for our sins. His death didn't or doesn't take the place of our spirits going somewhere, just where they go. They are gonna go somewhere as spirits never die.
I do understand the concept of spiritual death being a separation from God. Isn't this something else?  The word "death" can be used for more than one Biblical meaning just like "everlasting life" doesn't mean the opposite of "everlasting death."


----------



## Artfuldodger (Feb 11, 2014)

hobbs27 said:


> Question: "What is spiritual death?"
> 
> Answer: Death is separation. A physical death is the separation of the soul from the body. Spiritual death, which is of greater significance, is the separation of the soul from God.  When Jesus was hanging on the cross, He paid the price for us by dying on our behalf. Even though He is God, He still had to suffer the agony of a temporary separation from the Father due to the sin of the world He was carrying on the cross. After three hours of supernatural darkness, He cried, “My God, My God, why hast Thou forsaken Me?” (Mark 15:33-34). This spiritual separation from the Father was the result of the Son’s taking our sins upon Himself. That’s the impact of sin. Sin is the exact opposite of God, and God had to turn away from His own Son at that point in time.
> 
> Read more: http://www.gotquestions.org/spiritual-death.html#ixzz2syh9WIAG



I wonder if this spiritural separation of God from Jesus is another Atonement Theory so to speak. It's not believed by everyone, but then again, what is. How would it even be possible for God to separate from God?


----------



## HawgJawl (Feb 11, 2014)

This is an example of the different views.  Post #26 says spiritual death.  Post #27 says physical death.  I'm not saying anything derogatory about the different views, just pointing out that they exist.

Upon what do we base the assumption that Adam was originally designed to live forever physically?   I've heard that many times.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Feb 11, 2014)

HawgJawl said:


> This is an example of the different views.  Post #26 says spiritual death.  Post #27 says physical death.  I'm not saying anything derogatory about the different views, just pointing out that they exist.
> 
> Upon what do we base the assumption that Adam was originally designed to live forever physically?   I've heard that many times.


Here is my view on this. Not supported with any one verse, but derived from several. When Adam sinned, God said "you will surely die". So.... what if he had not sinned???? The assumption is that he would live [forever]  But notice that he did not die at that momment, but once this curse was in place, ageing began. Time began


----------



## HawgJawl (Feb 11, 2014)

1gr8bldr said:


> Here is my view on this. Not supported with any one verse, but derived from several. When Adam sinned, God said "you will surely die". So.... what if he had not sinned???? The assumption is that he would live [forever]  But notice that he did not die at that momment, but once this curse was in place, ageing began. Time began



Does this interpretation include a system of reproduction (sexual organs) prior to original sin?


----------



## hobbs27 (Feb 11, 2014)

God told Adam that in that day that he eat of the fruit he would die. I believe this was the spiritual death....in his punishment God told him he would return to dust, that would be his physical death, so I think the answer is both. He died spiritually that day, and would have been redeemed spiritually by Christ.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Feb 11, 2014)

HawgJawl said:


> Does this interpretation include a system of reproduction (sexual organs) prior to original sin?


LOL, maybe I did not understand the original point I responded to. You lost me


----------



## HawgJawl (Feb 11, 2014)

hobbs27 said:


> God told Adam that in that day that he eat of the fruit he would die. I believe this was the spiritual death....in his punishment God told him he would return to dust, that would be his physical death, so I think the answer is both. He died spiritually that day, and would have been redeemed spiritually by Christ.



If the penalty was both spiritual death and physical death, did Jesus pay that penalty for all mankind by dying both physically and spiritually?


----------



## HawgJawl (Feb 11, 2014)

1gr8bldr said:


> LOL, maybe I did not understand the original point I responded to. You lost me



I'm just saying that if the original plan was for man to live forever physically, and to reproduce, at some point we would run out of room.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Feb 11, 2014)

The story goes; that Adam being made in God's image failed to represent that image. Thus banished from heaven. Sentenced to "death". Jesus pleased the Father in that he did represent that image. He was credited with being the "exact representation". Jesus regained all that Adam lost. He is now the "second Adam" enjoying what Adam lost.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Feb 11, 2014)

HawgJawl said:


> I'm just saying that if the original plan was for man to live forever physically, and to reproduce, at some point we would run out of room.


My view is that Adam was not on earth but rather "heaven".


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Feb 11, 2014)

An interesting study, which I may have time to make the case, with the snow, is that at the same time that the curse was handed down, that ageing was for man as well as the earth.


----------



## HawgJawl (Feb 11, 2014)

1gr8bldr said:


> My view is that Adam was not on earth but rather "heaven".



So the creation story in Genesis is talking about heaven then and not earth?


----------



## hobbs27 (Feb 11, 2014)

HawgJawl said:


> If the penalty was both spiritual death and physical death, did Jesus pay that penalty for all mankind by dying both physically and spiritually?



No, not all but many.


----------



## HawgJawl (Feb 11, 2014)

HawgJawl said:


> If the penalty was both spiritual death and physical death, did Jesus pay that penalty for all mankind by dying both physically and spiritually?





hobbs27 said:


> No, not all but many.



If the penalty of physical death has been paid for many, then why do we ALL still have to die a physical death?


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Feb 11, 2014)

HawgJawl said:


> So the creation story in Genesis is talking about heaven then and not earth?


I think the creation story is about the universe........ no rethinking that, your probably right


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Feb 11, 2014)

HawgJawl said:


> If the penalty of physical death has been paid for many, then why do we ALL still have to die a physical death?


I am not sure it applies exactly, but this verse may apply "he was put to death in the body but made alive by the spirit"


----------



## hobbs27 (Feb 11, 2014)

HawgJawl said:


> If the penalty of physical death has been paid for many, then why do we ALL still have to die a physical death?



To obtain our celestial eternal bodies.


----------



## HawgJawl (Feb 11, 2014)

1gr8bldr said:


> I am not sure it applies exactly, but this verse may apply "he was put to death in the body but made alive by the spirit"



1 Peter 3:18 could be interpreted to say that Jesus did not die spiritually.


----------



## HawgJawl (Feb 11, 2014)

hobbs27 said:


> To obtain our celestial eternal bodies.



If physical death is required to obtain a celestial body then I guess Elijah doesn't get one, huh?


----------



## hobbs27 (Feb 11, 2014)

HawgJawl said:


> If physical death is required to obtain a celestial body then I guess Elijah doesn't get one, huh?



I think Elijah died a physical death--- I posted a thread on the subject above...Elijah returned from the whirlwind... Christ said no man had been to heaven but Himself.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Feb 11, 2014)

HawgJawl said:


> 1 Peter 3:18 could be interpreted to say that Jesus did not die spiritually.



I take it to mean that he had no spiritual existence prior to death...... or rather baptism. Meaning that man is destined to die but those who receive the eternal Spirit of God will live, including Jesus. Notice "made alive". Implying that he did not have this before


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Feb 11, 2014)

HawgJawl said:


> If physical death is required to obtain a celestial body then I guess Elijah doesn't get one, huh?


I should learn better than to jump into a conversation without having read the previous post. I need to go back so I can understand your intent with these questions


----------



## HawgJawl (Feb 12, 2014)

1gr8bldr said:


> I should learn better than to jump into a conversation without having read the previous post. I need to go back so I can understand your intent with these questions



The intent is to try to nail down ONE answer to a question that does not change when that same question is brought into a different discussion.

I find this often and I know you have found this also.

I'm bad to get off on pig trails and leave the main topic, mainly when a response to my question contains statements I either don't believe or that contradict something the same person said before.

I guess the main topic I was asking about was whether Jesus died a physical death or a spiritual death or both and how that relates to the penalty for original sin and how that relates to His divinity.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Feb 12, 2014)

HawgJawl said:


> The intent is to try to nail down ONE answer to a question that does not change when that same question is brought into a different discussion.
> 
> I find this often and I know you have found this also.
> 
> ...


Well, I guess I'm not a good one to respond because I don't believe in his having diety. I consider it a physical death, nothing spiritual about it. If I understand the word in the same light that you guys do. I believe him to be the second Adam. He died as seed of the first Adam under the curse of "you will surely die" but was raised because he pleased God. Since he was no substitute priest, him being the firstborn, he is our high priest, our mediator who intercedes for us. Adam blamed God, and said "it was that woman you gave me". Jesus does not throw us under the bus but intercedes on our behalf.


----------



## HawgJawl (Feb 12, 2014)

1gr8bldr said:


> Well, I guess I'm not a good one to respond because I don't believe in his having diety. I consider it a physical death, nothing spiritual about it. If I understand the word in the same light that you guys do. I believe him to be the second Adam. He died as seed of the first Adam under the curse of "you will surely die" but was raised because he pleased God. Since he was no substitute priest, him being the firstborn, he is our high priest, our mediator who intercedes for us. Adam blamed God, and said "it was that woman you gave me". Jesus does not throw us under the bus but intercedes on our behalf.



Under the belief that it was only a physical death, the penalty for original sin would then be physical death which leads to the belief that Adam and Eve were originally to live forever.  If that is the case, I wonder about the original plan for reproduction, if any.  I also wonder why we still die a physical death today if the price has been paid by Christ.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Feb 12, 2014)

HawgJawl said:


> Under the belief that it was only a physical death, the penalty for original sin would then be physical death which leads to the belief that Adam and Eve were originally to live forever.  If that is the case, I wonder about the original plan for reproduction, if any.  I also wonder why we still die a physical death today if the price has been paid by Christ.


Much for me to ponder.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Feb 13, 2014)

1gr8bldr said:


> Well, I guess I'm not a good one to respond because I don't believe in his having diety. I consider it a physical death, nothing spiritual about it. If I understand the word in the same light that you guys do. I believe him to be the second Adam. He died as seed of the first Adam under the curse of "you will surely die" but was raised because he pleased God. Since he was no substitute priest, him being the firstborn, he is our high priest, our mediator who intercedes for us. Adam blamed God, and said "it was that woman you gave me". Jesus does not throw us under the bus but intercedes on our behalf.



Even without deity jesus would have a body and soul. Whish died on the cross. I say his body as his spirit, different from the Holy Spirit went somewhere to preach. His spirit didn't die.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Feb 13, 2014)

Artfuldodger said:


> Even without deity jesus would have a body and soul. Whish died on the cross. I say his body as his spirit, different from the Holy Spirit went somewhere to preach. His spirit didn't die.


Hmmm, He was put to death in the body but made alive by the Spirit. Wonder if this verse is referring to.... I stumped


----------



## HawgJawl (Feb 14, 2014)

Genesis 3:22-24
And the Lord God said, “The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.”   So the Lord God banished him from the Garden of Eden to work the ground from which he had been taken.   After he drove the man out, he placed on the east side of the Garden of Eden cherubim and a flaming sword flashing back and forth to guard the way to the tree of life.

How does this correlate with the belief that Adam and Eve were originally designed to live forever?


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Feb 14, 2014)

HawgJawl said:


> Genesis 3:22-24
> And the Lord God said, “The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.”   So the Lord God banished him from the Garden of Eden to work the ground from which he had been taken.   After he drove the man out, he placed on the east side of the Garden of Eden cherubim and a flaming sword flashing back and forth to guard the way to the tree of life.
> 
> How does this correlate with the belief that Adam and Eve were originally designed to live forever?


LOL, This place is an assumption corrector. Good find, yet right there, how did I overlook it. Mercy, assumptions are powerful


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Feb 15, 2014)

HawgJawl said:


> Genesis 3:22-24
> And the Lord God said, “The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.”   So the Lord God banished him from the Garden of Eden to work the ground from which he had been taken.   After he drove the man out, he placed on the east side of the Garden of Eden cherubim and a flaming sword flashing back and forth to guard the way to the tree of life.
> 
> How does this correlate with the belief that Adam and Eve were originally designed to live forever?





1gr8bldr said:


> LOL, This place is an assumption corrector. Good find, yet right there, how did I overlook it. Mercy, assumptions are powerful


Hey friend, just realized that this does not mean that Adam was not meant to live forever. It was said after the curse. Do you see what I mean?


----------



## bullethead (Feb 15, 2014)

1gr8bldr said:


> Hey friend, just realized that this does not mean that Adam was not meant to live forever. It was said after the curse. Do you see what I mean?



It all comes back down to the ridiculous circular run around.

This is my version based off of what I have read in the Bible::

And the Lord said "Adam, Eve, you have Free Will...but I don't want you to have the Knowledge of Good and Evil.
In fact..I FORBID you from eating the fruit of that tree right over there...see that tree? Yeah, don't eat the fruit from it..."

Then (I guess God turns to whoever else he is talking to up there beyond the roof that he built over the Earth) and says.. "Don't worry I told that Adam and Eve NOT to eat the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge...therefore they will not be "like us" and know Good and Evil! Lets kick back and marvel at how wonderful and all knowledgeable and all powerful I am...or "we" are...well you know what I mean." 

Then in the midst of "US" basking in their own glory one of "them" says to God, or "us" or however you want to figure out in your head WHO God talks to up there ( I am hearing this in Bill Murray's voice from CaddyShack) "hey God...GREAT celebration party you got 'goin on here...but uhhhhhh...just thinking out loud here Did you happen to take care of that ONE little problem that would put the Kai-bosh to your whole plans??" "Remember that Satan guy...the one you created...the one that rebelled and you sent away to boot camp for eternity...Yeah.. Da prince of darkness and whatnot....anyway there Chieferoo... well I saw him hanging wit a snake right around the corner when you were having that chat with Adam and Eve and uhh well there Big Guy....uhhhhh.....I just saw dat snake havin a chat with the chick right near that Tree....but uhhh being that you are all knowledgeable and all powerful I know that you have it covered...I just thought I'd trow it out there, ya know mention it for old times sake because I know you wouldn't let a pesky little devil chuck an unfixable monkey wrench into the works or nuttin like dat" "Right God?.....God?.....Oh Boyyyyyyy!"


----------



## HawgJawl (Feb 15, 2014)

1gr8bldr said:


> Hey friend, just realized that this does not mean that Adam was not meant to live forever. It was said after the curse. Do you see what I mean?



Absolutely.  The existence of the Tree of Life is what I question.  The purpose of the Tree of Life is what I question.  Apparently the Tree of Life didn't give immortality to any birds or squirrels who may have eaten from it so it must have been created and placed in the Garden of Eden to work only on man.  If man had already eaten from it, there would be no issue of "we must prevent man from eating from it".  

Was this tree more powerful than God's will.  Could this tree undermine God.  If death came to man simply by God saying so, what could this tree do to reverse that curse?


----------



## HawgJawl (Feb 15, 2014)

There were many possible solutions to prevent man from eating from the Tree of Life other than posting a guard.  God created the tree and place it there for some incomprehensible reason, so He could just have easily removed it.  He could have taken away the tree's magical powers.  He could have spanked Adam every time he ate from it and re-issued the death curse.  He could have moved Adam to the other side of the earth.  He could have made Adam forget what the tree could do and where it was.  Etc...

If God chose not to remove the tree but to place a guard over the tree, why is that not still in place?  Did God change His mind?  Was this angel standing guard there until the time of the flood which killed the magical tree?


----------



## HawgJawl (Feb 15, 2014)

HawgJawl said:


> Genesis 3:22-24
> And the Lord God said, “The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.”   So the Lord God banished him from the Garden of Eden to work the ground from which he had been taken.   After he drove the man out, he placed on the east side of the Garden of Eden cherubim and a flaming sword flashing back and forth to guard the way to the tree of life.



Here is an important question; Did the Tree of Life have the power to nullify a curse from God?


----------



## gordon 2 (Feb 15, 2014)

HawgJawl said:


> It sounds like you may not have read the last few posts.  I am discussing the Tree of Life not the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil.  It is in regard to the assumption that Adam and Eve were originally designed to live forever.



Your right. I will zap it. Pardon my English.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Feb 15, 2014)

HawgJawl said:


> Absolutely.  The existence of the Tree of Life is what I question.  The purpose of the Tree of Life is what I question.  Apparently the Tree of Life didn't give immortality to any birds or squirrels who may have eaten from it so it must have been created and placed in the Garden of Eden to work only on man.  If man had already eaten from it, there would be no issue of "we must prevent man from eating from it".
> 
> Was this tree more powerful than God's will.  Could this tree undermine God.  If death came to man simply by God saying so, what could this tree do to reverse that curse?


Wow, your a deep thinker. I would have never caught that. This is strange that God forenew everything but put a guard over the tree. And LOL, birds and squirrels. Good catch


----------



## HawgJawl (Feb 15, 2014)

1gr8bldr said:


> Wow, your a deep thinker. I would have never caught that. This is strange that God forenew everything but put a guard over the tree. And LOL, birds and squirrels. Good catch



If the Tree of Life means that Adam and Eve were not originally designed to live forever, then the punishment for original sin was not physical death.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Feb 15, 2014)

HawgJawl said:


> If the Tree of Life means that Adam and Eve were not originally designed to live forever, then the punishment for original sin was not physical death.


I wonder if this is a play on words that although they received the curse, a reversal exists.


----------



## HawgJawl (Feb 15, 2014)

1gr8bldr said:


> I wonder if this is a play on words that although they received the curse, a reversal exists.



I think that the curse of death must have been spiritual death or some variation of a seperation from God.  

I see too many problems with the idea that they were designed to live forever.  Were all the animals designed to live forever too?  If so, why were the animals punished?  If not, then why the similarity in our physiology?


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Feb 15, 2014)

HawgJawl said:


> I think that the curse of death must have been spiritual death or some variation of a seperation from God.
> 
> I see too many problems with the idea that they were designed to live forever.  Were all the animals designed to live forever too?  If so, why were the animals punished?  If not, then why the similarity in our physiology?


My belief is that the whole world was cursed. That ageing started with the curse. And then, I am not sure about the why, that God later adjusted that number. I reason that dinosaur like creatures lived and grew extreme sizes in the days of men living 900 years, then after man being givin a limit of app 100 years, that they no longer got to those prehistoric sizes. This view is without having given it much thought, could be full of holes


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Feb 15, 2014)

1gr8bldr said:


> My belief is that the whole world was cursed. That ageing started with the curse. And then, I am not sure about the why, that God later adjusted that number. I reason that dinosaur like creatures lived and grew extreme sizes in the days of men living 900 years, then after man being givin a limit of app 100 years, that they no longer got to those prehistoric sizes. This view is without having given it much thought, could be full of holes


When I say world, I don't mean everybody in the world. I mean the whole world. The earth included, that it is ageing


----------



## HawgJawl (Feb 17, 2014)

1gr8bldr said:


> My belief is that the whole world was cursed. That ageing started with the curse. And then, I am not sure about the why, that God later adjusted that number. I reason that dinosaur like creatures lived and grew extreme sizes in the days of men living 900 years, then after man being givin a limit of app 100 years, that they no longer got to those prehistoric sizes. This view is without having given it much thought, could be full of holes



What do you believe carnivores ate before original sin?


----------



## Artfuldodger (Feb 17, 2014)

HawgJawl said:


> What do you believe carnivores ate before original sin?



Did plants have everlasting life too? Maybe animals only ate a part of the plant or a part of the animal,such as a limb, so the living being would continue to have everlasting life.
Maybe before the fall, the limb would grow back.

I do see where everlasting life on Earth could be a problem with population control. We don't know much about what life would have been like since the fall. We would have never gone to Heaven or He!!. 
I don't imagine the "good life" would have lasted too long before the next Adam or Eve would have been tempted. It's not like we need to imagine what life would have been like if Adam had not sinned. Humans will be humans, even almost perfect humans. It's just our nature. 
I'm still trying to figure out if we are born good and are taught to be bad or if we are born bad and must taught to be good.


----------



## ambush80 (Feb 17, 2014)

Artfuldodger said:


> Did plants have everlasting life too? Maybe animals only ate a part of the plant or a part of the animal,such as a limb, so the living being would continue to have everlasting life.
> Maybe before the fall, the limb would grow back.
> 
> I do see where everlasting life on Earth could be a problem with population control. We don't know much about what life would have been like since the fall. We would have never gone to Heaven or He!!.
> ...



As always I admire your desire to try to make sense of your beliefs but trying to explain Ark story literally is really quite the same as wondering how fast Superman can fly or how much horsepower the Star Ship Enterprise has.  Eventually I'm afraid you will have to file these questions under "I don't know how the Lord made it happen and I don't care but He just did. Maybe He'll tell me after I'm dead.  Hallelujah." 

You don't strike me as someone who will be content with that.


----------



## stringmusic (Feb 17, 2014)

HawgJawl said:


> What do you believe carnivores ate before original sin?



I haven't read any of this thread, but I just clicked on it because it won't seem to go away. 

Is this where the conversation is?...... 



Like I've said before, there is nothing left to discuss in here....


----------



## ambush80 (Feb 17, 2014)

stringmusic said:


> I haven't read any of this thread, but I just clicked on it because it won't seem to go away.
> 
> Is this where the conversation is?......
> 
> ...




I take it that you're still good with "I don't know how He did it but I'm ABSOLUTELY certain that He did.   (Because it says so in the Bible so it must be true)"


----------



## stringmusic (Feb 17, 2014)

ambush80 said:


> I take it that you're still good with "I don't know how He did it but I'm ABSOLUTELY certain that He did.   (Because it says so in the Bible so it must be true)"



"I don't know how He did it but I believe He did"  How's that?


You're in the same boat ya know, you're just paddling in the other direction.


----------



## HawgJawl (Feb 17, 2014)

stringmusic said:


> I haven't read any of this thread, but I just clicked on it because it won't seem to go away.
> 
> Is this where the conversation is?......
> 
> ...



We're discussing the Tree of Life and whether physical death existed prior to original sin.


----------



## stringmusic (Feb 17, 2014)

HawgJawl said:


> We're discussing the Tree of Life and whether physical death existed prior to original sin.



10-4, y'all have fun.


----------



## ambush80 (Feb 17, 2014)

stringmusic said:


> "I don't know how He did it but I believe He did"  How's that?
> 
> 
> You're in the same boat ya know, you're just paddling in the other direction.



How so?  I see a claim that all the animals of the Earth were put in a boat and I say "Hmmmm.  That doesn't sound quite right".  How does that put us in the same place?


----------



## stringmusic (Feb 17, 2014)

ambush80 said:


> How so?  I see a claim that all the animals of the Earth were put in a boat and I say "Hmmmm.  That doesn't sound quite right".  How does that put us in the same place?



Sorry, I wasn't specifically talking about Noah and the ark, I was referring to an overall worldview.


As far as Noah and the ark, of course you say "hmmmm", you don't believe in God. If I didn't believe God existed, then I would have a hard time believing the ark story too.


----------



## ambush80 (Feb 17, 2014)

stringmusic said:


> Sorry, I wasn't specifically talking about Noah and the ark, I was referring to an overall worldview.



We are still not in the same place just opposite directions.  I don't know.  You KNOW with all your heart because it says so in a book with talking donkeys.



stringmusic said:


> As far as Noah and the ark, of course you say "hmmmm", you don't believe in God. If I didn't believe God existed, then I would have a hard time believing the ark story too.



And this is my point.  You have before you a book with that Ark story in it and even more nonsensical stories (and they are nonsensical whether you believe in a god or not) and instead of being critical of it you simply say "I don't need to understand it.  I believe it's true".  

Would you do that with ANYTHING else?

It's just weird, man......

Tell me, please.  Explain it to me like I'm a four year old how you can do that.  Every time I read a Bible I'm baffled at how anyone can suspend that part of your reasoning that would allow you to say with a straight face that Noah's Ark was real.


----------



## drippin' rock (Feb 18, 2014)

1gr8bldr said:


> My belief is that the whole world was cursed. That ageing started with the curse. And then, I am not sure about the why, that God later adjusted that number. I reason that dinosaur like creatures lived and grew extreme sizes in the days of men living 900 years, then after man being givin a limit of app 100 years, that they no longer got to those prehistoric sizes. This view is without having given it much thought, could be full of holes



OR...... It's a fairy tale, and like all fairy tales has no logical explination.


----------



## stringmusic (Feb 18, 2014)

ambush80 said:


> We are still not in the same place just opposite directions.  I don't know.  You KNOW with all your heart because it says so in a book with talking donkeys.


No, I BELIEVE it and have FAITH with all my heart.



> And this is my point.  You have before you a book with that Ark story in it and even more nonsensical stories (and they are nonsensical whether you believe in a god or not) and instead of being critical of it you simply say "I don't need to understand it.  I believe it's true".


I don't need to understand all of it. Obviously, I need to understand some of it.




> Would you do that with ANYTHING else?


Quantam theory, gravity, my wife.....




> Tell me, please.  Explain it to me like I'm a four year old how you can do that.  Every time I read a Bible I'm baffled at how anyone can suspend that part of your reasoning that would allow you to say with a straight face that Noah's Ark was real.


Look at it like an equation. Will an equation make sense if you don't believe in numbers before you even start trying to figure out the equation?


----------



## WaltL1 (Feb 18, 2014)

> Tell me, please. Explain it to me like I'm a four year old how you can do that. Every time I read a Bible I'm baffled at how anyone can suspend that part of your reasoning that would allow you to say with a straight face that Noah's Ark was real.


I think that's a question all A/As have. I also don't think its possible for a believer to explain it in a way that is going to make sense to a nonbeliever. Basically its a "top down" versus a "bottom up" way of thinking. They are totally opposite and one is never going to make sense to the other. I think that's just the way it is when it comes to religion/God.


----------



## mtnwoman (Feb 22, 2014)

HawgJawl said:


> How do you square the whole concept of a sacrifice to redeem others against the concept of personal responsibility for one's own actions?



Because we choose a 'scape goat' for ourselves if offered up, kinda like a plea deal?


----------



## mtnwoman (Feb 22, 2014)

drippin' rock said:


> OR...... It's a fairy tale, and like all fairy tales has no logical explination.



Almost like men believing they could fly? or like we can telecommuncate by phones, or that we could have electricity instead of candles, or bathrooms instead of outhouses, or cars instead of horses.

Do you think in the 50's anyone would believe we could have color tv, or portable phones? Or how about computers, who ever would believe that in the 50's? Or how about microwaves instead of wood cookstoves.....just fairytales?....alrighty then...whatever. The technology for all those things has always existed, just not discovered yet. Or how about a virgin who is artificially inseminated and can give birth....or how about penicillan to kill infection/sickness.....someone had a dream/fairytale that it could happen and it did. Fairytales sometimes come true....eh?


----------



## 660griz (Feb 22, 2014)

mtnwoman said:


> Fairytales sometimes come true....eh?



No they don't. Fairy tales by definition are made up FALSE stories to mislead.


----------



## mtnwoman (Feb 22, 2014)

660griz said:


> No they don't. Fairy tales by definition are made up FALSE stories to mislead.



No one can prove the bible is a 'fairy tale', is my point. Use whatever definition you choose. The fairy tale of prince charming has come true for many women, to others, not so much....to others a cinderella story has come true...rags to riches. My fairy tale to win the lottery hasn't come true thus far, but it could....


----------



## bullethead (Feb 23, 2014)

Definitions of "fairy tale":
*A fairy tale or fairy story is a fictional story that may feature folkloric characters (such as fairies, goblins, elves, trolls, witches, giants, and talking animals) and enchantments, often involving a far-fetched sequence of events. ...
*A story involving fantastic forces and beings.
*A story that often includes elements of magic and magical folk .
*a fictional tale, marked by fantasy and magic, often appealing to the imagination.
*fairytale: an interesting but highly implausible story; often told as an excuse. 

Cinderella, Hansel and Gretal, Jack and the Beanstalk......according to some on here MUST be real because nobody can prove they didn't happen.
THE problem for the "can't prove a it did not happen crowd" is the proof of an event or events happening is what makes them legitimate and credible. Until then it is legend, folklore and fairy tales.


----------



## mtnwoman (Feb 28, 2014)

Take wrestling for example....lol


----------



## bullethead (Mar 1, 2014)

mtnwoman said:


> Take wrestling for example....lol



WWE? They are not trying to pass it off as anything but entertainment. Try to convince some of the fans otherwise though.


----------

