Видео

Reformed Christian here! We don't believe that babies inherit Adam's guilt. We believe that they inherit a sin-nature (in other words, they will sin when able to). With regards to whether or not babies in unbelieving families go to heaven or hell, God's word does not reveal this. God is rich in mercy and just.

Well, well, Mr. N.T. Wright, you appear to be dealing with your past and present words and works coming up against God’s actual Word to us through the Bible. His Living Word is actually contradicting your “interpretation” of his Word. Repent, Sir. The Bible is clear. Those that try to talk all around what it says plainly, are endangering themselves. May The Lord capture your heart and mind with his unfailing love.

You are saved because of the Resurrection? You are saved by faith; that Christ died for you. He took your sin on the cross. The Resurrection, is so that we may believe, because we are dense. All the other miracles were not enough for us.

This is the Eastern Orthodox view. Rome really messed up things. Lol.

Man’s wisdom twisting scripture and discounting the law and the prophets that Paul said were the foundation of all he taught.

Palestine The term Palestine comes from the name of an idol-worshipping tribe: the Philistines. The word Palestine does not have Israelite or Islamic origin. The Philistines were a tribe of skilled ironworkers known as sea people who enslaved Israel for some time. The Philistines fought with Canaanites and Israelites in the area. King Nebuchadnezzar 2 destroyed them in 604 BC. The Philistines were exiled to Babylon and lost their unique ethnic identity. They vanished from archeological and historical records after the late fifth century B.C. However, the region was still named Palestine after them. The Inhabitants of the Disputed Territory: Palestine 1. Before 1500 B.C.: Canaanites (Idol worshippers) 2. 1500 B.C. to 1000 B.C.: Israelites (under Joshua to Saul). For a brief time, the Philistines ruled the Israelites. Islam was not born until 600 A.D. So who were the Philistines? The Philistines were an idol-worshipping tribe that attacked Israel. They were skilled iron workers and had better weapons than Israel. That's why they could rule that territory. 3. From 1000 B.C. to Jesus' time: Israelites. Different idol-worshipping pagan emperors ruled that region: Assyria, Babylonia, Persia, Greece, and the Romans. They called the territory Palestine. The place was known by the name of a pagan, idol-worshipping tribe: the Philistines. Remember, Islam was not born at the time. 4. Jesus' time - Mohammad's time: Israelites (Jews and Jewish Christians). For the next 600 years or so, the Romans ruled Palestinian Jewish and Christian inhabitants. 5. After Mohammad -World War 2: Israelis and Arabs who invaded Palestine under Mohammad. The Romans conducted many unsuccessful crusades to *Free Palestine* from the Arab Muslim invaders. 6. After World War 2-Present: After winning the war, the Allied forces handed over the leadership of the region to the Israelites. The U.N. created a two-state solution so that Arabs could live peacefully under Arab leadership and Israelites could live under Jewish leadership. All the U.N. members agreed to the solution. Only the Arab Emirates did not accept it. Ever since they have been fighting to reclaim the territory. If you go by history, the original inhabitants of this historical place are Israelites, not Arabs. The Arabs invaded Palestine and exiled many Jewish tribes. (Some of them came to India also). Therefore, it is the Arabs who need to free Palestine so that the Israelites can live there peacefully, not the other way around. To those who want to go 4,000+ years backward, the natural inhabitants of the disputed Palestine region were idol-worshipping Canaanites, not Israel or Islam. Israelites conquered it from idol worshippers. Islam conquered it from the Israelites. Israel reconquered it with the help of their Christian friends. Therefore, when you talk about *Free Palestine*, don't forget that it is the Muslims who invaded the Jewish land (the land God Promised to Abraham's descendants, Israel). The crusaders attempted to recapture their land. They succeeded only after World War 2. Now, it is Israel.

Dr. Wright is very wrong here. He minimizes the OT prophets and has a made up theology that Jesus is Israel. Entirely fabricated. Israel is Israel. And Peter in his sermon in Acts 3.21 stated "Heaven must receive him until the time comes for God to restore everything, as he promised long ago through his holy prophets." It's what the prophets declared that will be restored. And part of that is Israel saved and in the land, and with Gentile believers we become the "one new man" of Ephesians. But please note, the prophets NEVER called Israel Jesus, and they NEVER faded Israel out into the church. God is not finished with Israel. The prophets DECLARE IT!

I'm so glad to know my aborted sister will be raised and with the LORD at final judgment and afterward in the new Kingdom.

I greatly respect Dr heiser though I see in scripture that though we do not inherit Adam’s guilt, we do inherit his nature which is to chose the self over God, that is what son is, it isn’t just actively doing horrible wicked things but it’s a whole lifestyle that chooses the self over God. Once you understand that it makes sense that we did inherit a nature of choosing the self over God and thus through Adam all have sinned

Yeah That's what I thought, I agree it is a crystal clear, death is the result not a sin that can put you to hell.

Thank you Tom for putting this point across so clearly. Can’t thank you enough for telling it as it is, from facts not from nationalism.

Luke 21:24, 'They will fall by the edge of the sword and be led away as captives among all nations. Jerusalem will be trampled down by the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled.' The 'they' here are the Jews. And what does this mean? Does the time of the Gentiles are fufilled mean until Israel is brought back as a nation? Because, then, the Gentiles cease to rule the land of Israel. Rev 11:2, 'But exclude the outer court; do not measure it, because it has been given to the Gentiles. They will trample on the holy city for 42 months.' Rev 12:6, 'The woman (Israel) fled into the desert to a place prepared for her by God, where she might be taken care of for 1260 days'. Now I heard all the different interpretations for the 1260 days and none are satisfactory for me. 1260 days: 42 months; time, times and half a time, seem to be all the same event of time, all being the number three and a half. Three and a half is significant because it is symbolic of half of a complete (seven) time. Three and a half, then, is a time which is unexpectantly cut short, not running its complete (seven) time. Jerusalem was trampled underfoot by the Gentiles from 70 AD until 1948. Cheers

There is a fundamental flaw with Christianity. Apparently the death and resurrection of Jesus fixed God's problem. Is that the best solution he could come up with ?

The Roman Catholic Church teaches that in order for man to commit sin there must be free will as well as the knowledge that an act is sinful. Yet they invented the concept of original sin so that all would feel guilt. This is purely an instrument of control. The message is that only the Church holds the means to forgiveness and salvation. If not even an infant is sinless, then everyone is guilty. This concept is deduced from a story in Genesis that is portrayed as factual, and yet not even in Genesis does God condemn the offspring of Adam to be conceived in sin.

From Article IX: _Of Original or Birth-sin_ "Original Sin standeth not in the following of _Adam,_ (as the _Pelagians_ do vainly talk;) but it is the fault and corruption of the Nature of every man, that naturally is ingendered of the offspring of _Adam;_ whereby man is very far gone from original righteousness, and is of his own nature inclined to evil, so that the flesh lusteth always contrary to the spirit; and therefore in every person born into this world, it deserveth God's wrath and damnation. And this infection of nature doth remain, yea in them that are regenerated. (Etc.)"

This is arguing against a strawman, not the real doctrine of original sin

The later Western fathers and even later the Roman Catholic Church got it wrong. Not the Eastern fathers or early Western fathers. There is no inherited guilt. So what Heiser once thought wasn’t entirely correct.

Heists a very bad theologian. When everyone in history disagrees with you, you’re likely on the wrong side.

Jesus was a son of Adam? Man this is gibberish.

People go to hell according to scripture because they didnt repent and rejected the plan of salvation of Jesus Christ. They never recieved Him as their Lord and Savoior. So they were not adopted children of God. God seals us with the Holy Spirit when we are born again. We become new creatures in Him.

Dr Heiser was way to smart to have believe the Catholic Church invented that Mary was sinless. This has always been the belief of historic Christians

WOW! That sounds blasphemous too me! We didnt "inherited" guilt, its the inclination to sin!!

At 3:45 of the video the speaker says something about there being verses in the Bible that say we will remember things/people from this life. But Isaiah 65:17 says, "Behold, I will create new heavens and a new earth. The former things will not be remembered, nor will they come to mind."

The kingdom suffers violence and the violent take it by force. Said by some random carpenter.

Mr. Wright passionately denies Scriptural basis for the timing and circumstances of the People of Israel returning to the Land of Israel, yet he can't cite a single Scriptural basis that is made by those holding the doctrine. - Such as the book of Daniel, the source for the famous phrase "the handwriting is on the wall." Mr. Wright is not so much a scholarly apologist, ready to "come, let us reason together" as Isaiah says, or as the New Testament repeatedly instructs believers, to prove all things, hold fast to the good and the true, but rather, he is a proselyte of his denominational dogma. A sad way to end one's long career, even if it avoids "rocking the boat" for his "good name" and "scholarship." Try citing a Messianic Jewish Christian scholar, Mr. Wright. Like Dr. Arnold Fruchtenbaum and his great work, "Israelology: the missing link in systematic theology". It's OK Mr. Wright, Luther was anti-semitic, even after breaking from the Catholic organization. Your desire to retain reputation as an Anglican scholar weakens every time you make such demonstrably false and unreasonable claims about a doctrine, derived with great care and study directly from Scripture - especially when you do it without familiarity with the actual claims and scriptures cited which do support it. It must be difficult to re-examine one's long held beliefs or acquiescence to truly non-Jewish perspective dogma. It is well worth the time and effort to study the works of others' views, and to not denigrate them in such a prejudiced, biased and passionate antagonism.

When I first found N T Wright I was excited. I though he was on the right track. Now I realize he is completely wrong. God concentrated evil in Jesus and then judged it? God punished Evil not Jesus? I guess the death of Jesus was just collateral damage. Sorry, Bart Ehrman is probably right. Jesus of Nazareth never taught atonement. Jesus taught repentance and forgiveness. There never was an atonement. That is why no one can explain it.

Why is he the lamb of God? What did the hebrews do to lambs?

in 2:34 he said "transmission of guilt moral guilt before" Does he mean sin? We do not carry Adams's guilt. we carry his sinful nature, not total depravity but we are in a fallen state. Why? We partake of the knowledge of the tree of good and evil.

But the Bible also says that there will be no more tears or sorrow in the coming new Kingdom. Perhaps, we will have the memory minus the feelings about the ordeal.

So, when you understand Jesus Jewishly you have a replacement Theology? You have to have a PhD to make sense of that. Paul doesn't supercede the position of the prophets. If he does, he's a false prophet. Full stop.

Romans 5:12 does not even say death spread to all because Adam sinned. It says death spread because all sinned, having nothing to do specifically with Adam except that Adam experienced the same thing.

Being born with a sin nature doesn't mean babies sin, it means they WILL sin some day. Until they do sin and their conscience bears witness of it, they are innocent. Sheesh.....Heiser acts like this is rocket science. I knew this stuff 10 years before he was born.

There is an error in the Genealogies. SOLVED: The Matthew and Luke Genealogy Conflict. Matthew 1:17 states: *_Therefore all the generations from Abraham to David (are) fourteen generations, and from David to the Babylonian Transmigration fourteen generations, and from the Babylonian Transmigration to Christ fourteen generations._* It is a well known fact that the scriptures are missing a generation in the last set of 14 generations. Did Matthew err, or, is there a mistranslation? In the Hebrew language, a dot can change the meaning of a word. While translating Matthew into Greek a translator could easily miss a dot, and mistranslate a word. In the Hebrew language, a single dot changes the word from Father to Husband. The Hebrew Gospel of Matthew reads: *"Joseph the father of Mary."* The Greek text of Matthew 1:16 has the word "ton" in front of "andra" which literally reads in English as: *_"the Joseph the man of Mary"_* The English translators left out the definite article in front of Joseph and translated "ton andra" as "the husband." This is an error. The definite article changes the meaning of "andra" to a specific man of higher importance. It's acceptable to leave the definite article out in the English, as long as the effect it has on context is not ignored, which it was. *"The Joseph the man of Mary"* doesn't really work well for the western English speaking world, so it should have been translated as: *"Joseph the father of Mary"* (a different Joseph than is mentioned in Matthew 1:19). The expression "ton andra" (the man of) is never used for a husband of someone when the subject comes first accompanied with the definite article as in "the Joseph, the man of Mary." As proof, In Matthew 1:19 the writer makes a distinction between the Joseph of verse 16: *_Then Joseph, her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a public example, was about to put her away privately._* In the Greek this actually translates word for word to English as "the Joseph, moreover the husband of her." The writer is making it clear that "the Joseph" in verse 19 is not the same Joseph mentioned in verse 16 by emphasizing that this Joseph is the husband of Mary using the Greek word "aner" instead of "andra." "Andra" and "aner" have similar meaning. Both can mean man, and both can mean husband. The context indicates how the word is translated. Joseph in Matthew 1:16 is the Son of Jacob, the man (father) of Mary, not her husband. *Evidence from the Aramaic Gospel of Matthew* (Revised English Version) In Matthew 1:16, the Aramaic word is "gavra" or "gawra," which means “mighty man,” “father,” or “husband." However, it was read by the Greek translator as 'gura' meaning husband. In Matthew 1:19 and Luke 3:23 the Aramaic word is "bala," which is “man” or “husband.” The Hebrew text preserves the truth. There is a difference between the “Joseph” of verse 16 (the “mighty man” of Mary), and the “Joseph” of verse 19 and Luke 3:23 (the “husband” of Mary). The ancient Aramaic text has Matthew 1:16 translated to English as follows: "Jacob was the FATHER of Joseph, who was the father of Mary. Mary was the mother of Yeshua [Jesus], who is called the Messiah." SEE the REV Bible commentary on Matthew 1:16 Now we can see that Joseph, the father of Mary, is 12th generation, Mary is the 13th, and Jesus is the 14th generation. The Matthew genealogy is the royal lineage of Mary, which fulfills the requirements for the Kingship of Judah. The Luke genealogy traces the royal lineage of Mary's husband all the way back to Adam. Jesus is the legal step son of Joseph, and therefore a legal heir to the throne of David. In addition, before Luke even lists the genealogical record, he gives an account of Jesus being divinely appointed as King of Israel. The result of the two genealogical records is that Jesus qualifies for BOTH kingships: King of Israel, and King of Judah (King of the Jews). Mike is just wrong on so many levels I wish he was still around to see my posts. However, I'm sure he is aware of his errors now.

Jesus is a descendant of David according to the flesh through MARY, not through any earthly father. Plopped into the womb of Mary? Man has artificially inseminated women for many decades and you don't think YHWH performed an insemination with a male seed He created in order to have a Son holy and without sin from birth? Your arguments are not only weak, they are nonsense....unBiblical...and you misrepresent Paul and the Biblical facts.

"Through Adam all sin." That's your verse that says the sin nature comes from the curse of Adam, not the curse of Eve. It's not a theological invention. You are ignoring the obvious and making stuff up. Eve's curse on women is much different than Adam's curse. The sin nature does not come through the mother. It comes through the father. Jesus was born holy and without sin because he had no genealogical connection to Adam. The male seed for Jesus was created by YHWH. This resulted in Jesus being born holy and without the fallen nature of Adam. Spiritually, Jesus had the same divine nature Adam had before Adam fell. Adam became mortal and Jesus became immortal. The process was reversed by Jesus. It's why Jesus had to be born Holy.....the second Adam. Adam was created holy, but he sinned. Jesus undid what Adam had done.

Jesus has no genealogical connection to Adam through an earthly father. Jesus was conceived by YHWH's Holy Spirit in the womb of Mary. Obviously it is no stretch to say that YHWH made the male seed to join with Mary's seed to create Jesus. The curse of Adam is passed through the father, not the mother. That's why Jesus was born holy and without sin. I can't believe you don't know these facts. Jesus is called the Son of David because Mary is a descendant of David. Mary carried the bloodline of David and that's how Jesus is of David and qualified to sit on David's throne. Mary's father (also named Joseph) had no sons and because of an exception God makes for a man with no sons, his bloodline is passed through his daughter. Some people argue that Mary could not pass the royal bloodline to Jesus and cite 1 Chronicles 17:11 as proof. However, there is an exception provided by YHWH in Numbers 27:1-11. A group of five sisters came to Moses with a complaint-that their father died in the wilderness without sons. They believe it is unfair for his name to be removed from among his family (v4). Moses takes this problem to the Lord, and the Lord replies thus: “The daughters of Zelophehad speak what is right.” God, therefore, grants that, if there be no male heir, the inheritance should pass to the daughter. Since Mary's father had no sons, Mary became heir and passed it to her son, Jesus. The bloodline of Mary's father(of the Tribe of Judah) was passed on to Jesus through Mary. The Old Testament law confirms both Mary and Jesus are of the tribe Judah. SEED OF THE WOMAN Genesis 3:15 tells us that the Messiah (bruiser of the serpents head) would be from the seed of a woman. In the Hebrew language, the word "seed" always refers to the descendent of a man. But in the case of Genesis 3:15, the seed is of a woman. The clear implication is that the one who was to bruise the head of the serpent had to be born of a woman while not being a descendant of an earthly father. Mary and her Son, Jesus, fulfills the Genesis 3:15 prophecy. For those who teach that a woman does not have seed: In Genesis 16:10 an angel says to Hagar, a woman, "I will multiply thy seed exceedingly, that it shall not be numbered for multitude." Identification of the "seed of the woman" being Jesus goes back at least as far as Irenaeus (180 AD), who (along with several other Church Fathers) regarded this verse as "the first messianic prophecy in the Old Testament". Serapion, the Bishop of Thmuis, wrote the following: "The woman does not have seed, only man does. How then was that (Gen 3:15) said of the Woman? Is it not evident that there is here question of Christ, whom the holy Virgin brought forth without seed? As a matter of fact, the singular is used, "of the seed", and not the plural, "of the seeds". The seed of the woman is referred to again in Revelation 12:17.[16] "...........Surely our fathers have inherited lies, vanity, and things wherein there is no profit." Jeremiah 16:19

Hell? Where does this doctrine you teach come from? Hell is the grave....PERIOD. Your view of Hell is nothing but a mystical pagan underworld where immortal souls are punished for ceaseless ages of time, and that's not Biblical. But the fallen nature of humankind is Biblical, as I proved in my previous post. If mankind is not in a fallen spiritual state, then will you have people believe Jesus died for nothing? The word HELL is an OLD English word for a pagan belief in an underworld where immortal souls are eternally tormented. Hell is an IMPROPER translation (CORRUPTION) of the original texts which use the HEBREW word *sheol* and the GREEK word *hades.* and sometimes the Aramaic word Gehenna is also improperly translated as hell. Both sheol and hades mean *the grave* and the grave is also in reference to being DEAD. Gehenna: is translated in some English Bibles as Hell. This is another CORRUPTION by the translators. Gehenna was a garbage dump outside the walls of Jerusalem. Jesus used the Gehenna garbage dump metaphorically in reference to the lake of fire which is a spiritual all consuming fire that exists eternally somewhere in the spirit realm. Tartarus is defined as a cold dark place where fallen angels are being held in spiritual chains. *The Holman Christian Standard Bible* got it right when they did not translate Tartarus as Hell in 2 Peter 2:4 *For if God didn't spare the angels who sinned but threw them down into Tartarus and delivered them to be kept in chains of darkness until judgment;* Translating Tartarus as Hell is yet another CORRUPTION by translators who should know better. Regarding the use of the word "Everlasting" in some English Bibles: Is Sodom and Gomorrah still burning today? Of course not. "Everlasting" is a poor translation from the original languages. The context indicates everlasting fire and smoke is an "all consuming spiritual fire", not everlasting. Only believers are offered immortality (eternal life). John 3:16 clearly says those who believe do not perish but receive eternal life. Clearly those who don't believe PERISH. Eternal life is granted now but not received until the resurrection. We sleep in the grave until resurrection. There is no sense of the passage of time while one is in the grave. You die and the next conscious moment you have is when you are resurrected. A thousand years can go by but you have no awareness of it. Ecclesiastes 9:5 - For the living know that they will die, but the dead know nothing; they have no further reward, and even their name is forgotten. Eternal torment? No one can suffer eternal torment without being made immortal through receiving eternal life, and the Bible does not teach anyone other than the repentant believers receive eternal life(immortality). There is no such place as HELL and eternal torment in the Bible. The lie of Satan is: *"you shall NOT surely die."* Gen 3:4 Ezek 18:4, 20 - the soul that sins shall die (not be tortured forever) Rom 6:23 - the wages of sin is death (not being tortured for ceaseless ages in eternity) Rev 21:8 - the lake of fire is *the second death* Matt 10:28 - body and soul destroyed in Gehenna (metaphorical reference to the lake of fire). Note: Gehenna was a garbage dump located outside the walls of Jerusalem a few thousand yards at most from where Jesus was speaking. The people were familiar with the stench and smoke from the burning garbage that often contained corpses. The Gehenna garbage dump burned day and night for hundreds of years. Jesus was comparing the lake of fire(spiritual all consuming fire) with the fire of the Gehenna garbage dump where the corpses of many enemies of Israel, dead criminals, and dead animals had been consumed for many years. Ecclesiastes 9:5 - For the living know that they will die, but the dead know nothing; they have no further reward, and even their name is forgotten. Psalm 21:8-10 - swallow them up and the fire will devour them, destroyed from the earth. Could be referring to the Lake of Fire in Revelation. Psalm 37:10, 20, 34 - will be no more, will perish, will vanish into smoke, you will see it. Again, the Lake of Fire. Psalm 104:35 - they will be consumed, they will be no more. Lake of Fire does that. Psalm 145:20 - all wicked will be destroyed (can only be in the lake of fire) Proverbs 2:22 - wicked will be cut off from the earth, uprooted from it (destroyed in the lake of fire). Rev 20:9 - fire from heaven devours them outside the city (lake of fire is outside the city of Heaven). Mal 4:1-3 - shall be burned up, ashes under your feet when you go out. Metaphorical, not literal. Ezek 28:18, 19 - fire devours the Devil and turns him to ashes on the earth and he will exist no more. Metaphorical, not literal. The Devil gets destroyed in the lake of fire. Isaiah 33:14, 15 - who will dwell with devouring fire, everlasting burning? The righteous. The everlasting fire is the fire of God. (Heb. 12:29, Dan. 7:9, 10) SEE the REV Bible Commentary here: www.revisedenglishversion.com/Isaiah/chapter33/14 Isaiah 1:30, 31 - is an example of fire that can't be quenched yet obviously not burning without end. There will be an end to YHWH using the lake of fire according to Revelation. Jude 7 - Sodom and Gomorrah suffered vengeance of eternal fire. Some translations use everlasting fire. Is it still burning today? No!! Eternal fire is a poor translation. "Long lasting" or "all consuming" is more accurate. Jer 17:27 - Jerusalem burned with fire that will not be quenched. Is it still burning? Of course not. Not literal. Jonah 2:6 - Jonah says he was in the belly of the fish forever (forever in this context does not mean ceaseless ages of eternity). It means what seems to Jonah to be very long time. 3 days. Exodus 21:6 the servant may choose to serve his master forever (forever in this context does not mean ceaseless ages of eternity). Ezek. 18:20: the soul that sins shall surely die. Say to them, 'As surely as I live, declares the Sovereign LORD, I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but rather that they turn from their ways and live. Turn! Turn from your evil ways! Why will you die, people of Israel?' Ezekiel 33:11

The curse of Adam is death to all people, however, that death is the result of the fallen spiritual condition "the sin nature." We all come into this world under the curse of Adam with a SIN NATURE. If we did not, then we would have no need for a redeemer. It means we have a spiritual predisposition to SIN. As much as I respect your years of Study and teaching the Bible, I think you are misrepresenting the condition of the human spirit as a result of the fall of Adam. It is this fallen condition that results in man being unable to save himself. THE SIN NATURE, the curse of Adam on all mankind a.k.a Original Sin is absolutely Biblical and understanding it is foundational for receiving salvation. We are all born sinners with sinful, selfish natures. Unless we are spiritually regenerated by the Spirit of YHWH, through faith in Jesus' death, burial, and resurrection, we will not pass from death to life. Humanity is totally depraved; that is, all of us have a sinful nature that affects every part of us (Isaiah 53:6; Romans 7:14). We do not choose to become sinners from birth. In fact we can do nothing but sin. We have a natural inclination to sin. No one needs to be taught to lie, steal, bear false witness, live selfish lives, or rebel against God. To the contrary, we have to teach our children not to do those things and God enacted laws to reign in the sinful behavior of man. We are born with a sinful nature we inherited from Adam. “Sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people” (Romans 5:12). Every one of us is affected by Adam’s sin; there are no exceptions. “One trespass resulted in condemnation for all people” (Romans 5:18). "For just as through the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one the many will be made righteous." Romans 5:19 We are all sinners, and we all share the same condemnation, because we are all children of Adam. Even children sin: “Folly is bound up in the heart of a child” (Proverbs 22:15). “Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me” (Psalm 51:5). “Even from birth the wicked go astray; / from the womb they are wayward, spreading lies” (Psalm 58:3). Before salvation man is “by nature deserving of wrath” (Ephesians 2:3). Note that we deserved God’s wrath not only because of our sins but because of our nature. That nature is what we inherited from Adam... a SINFUL NATURE We are all born sinners, and for that reason none of us can win merit with God while we still live in our natural sinful state. Hence redemption is through Jesus finished work. “Those who are not saved have a sinful nature and cannot please God (Romans 8:8). Believers were dead in their sins before putting their trust in Jesus finished work resulting in spiritual life (Ephesians 2:1). We lacked any inherent spiritual good prior to believing. The divine nature is placed into the heart of the believer upon conversion. The divine nature a.k.a. the spirit of God in us empowers us to overcome the old sinful nature. --------------------- Jesus did not sin and had no sin in him means he was born without sin. 1 Peter 2:22 He did not commit sin, nor was deceit found in his mouth. 2 Corinthians 5:21 He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him. Hebrews 4:15 For we do not have a high priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but One who has been tempted in all things as we are, yet without sin. 1 John 3:5 You know that He appeared in order to take away sins; and in Him there is no sin. 1 Peter 1:18-19 knowing that you were not redeemed with perishable things like silver or gold from your futile way of life inherited from your forefathers, but with precious blood, as of a lamb unblemished and spotless, the blood of Jesus the Christ. Isaiah 53:9 His (Jesus') grave was assigned with wicked men,Yet He was with a rich man in His death, Because He had done no violence, Nor was there any deceit in His mouth. Luke 1:35 35 And the angel answered and said to her, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you, and for that reason the holy one to be born will be called the Son of God." No one else is spoken of as being "holy" from birth. The expressions “old man” and “new man” occur in basically four places in Paul’s letters, namely, Romans 6:6; Ephesians 2:15; Ephesians 4:22-24; and Colossians 3:9-11 When a person comes to realize they are unable to save themselves because of their fallen nature, responding to Paul's Gospel message becomes the only way of salvation. Paul's Gospel is the only Gospel that applies during this present age (times of the Gentiles) which ends at the rapture. Then the Tribulation Gospel containing "works" comes into effect.

ruclips.net/video/3YgWNvHH0FU/видео.htmlsi=Zq55tZXjNVIV-o8m

"Don't think you're going to surprise me with an email. I know all of them." 😂

What a blessing the teachings from Michael have been to me many things I have believed has been confirmed by him and it encourages me to stand firm

This is Heiser's distorted and erroneous theology. The "gods" in Psalm 82 are not divine beings. How do we know? Because the immediate context tells us. Nowhere in the entire Bible do "gods" judge humans unjustly, so that God now has to judge them. Human judges are described in Psalm 82 based on the immediate context of that Psalm. We know that humans were called "elohim" meaning judges because of passages like Exodus 21:6 and Exodus 22:8-9. Right now I am interviewing the author of the book "The Unbiblical Realm: Refuting the Divine Council of Michael Heiser’s Deuteronomy 32 Worldview." We both came to similar conclusions without knowing each other before, and he cites others who also take issue with Heiser's theology. This is not rocket science here. Heiser simply misread several passages. Case in point. I have heard him say that Deut. 32:8 where he takes as original the reading "Sons of God" instead of "sons of Israel," is related to Deut. 4:19. He then argues that Deut. 4:19 is speaking of "heavenly beings." But anyone reading the immediate context of Deut. 4 starting from verse 15 down to 19 will see the clear reference to God warning against IDOL worship, not worship of any alleged "divine beings." No, Moses is talking in that context about the problems with idol worship of different kinds, and when we get down to verse 19, the flow of thought continues as God warns against a different kind of idol worship, the worship of heavenly bodies, the "sun, moon and stars, all the host of heaven." So one of his key passages he got grossly wrong. The fact that Heiser missed this simple truth from the immediate context speaks volumes, and it also speaks to how people can be blinded by a theology that they can't see the obvious. Deut. 4:19 is not speaking about any kind of real "gods" or "divine beings." God there is warning against idolatry, man made idols (carved images per vs. 16), and idols people could make of heavenly bodies.

Thank You, Lord for Tim Mackie 🙏 He does such a wonderful job of painting the narratives of scripture

Read Ezekiel 18.

This is exactly what I needed and what I have been searching for-and it brings me such joy! Heiser thank you so much for this message.

No original sins, that means we do not need God to forgive us anymore! That means, we do not have tendency/instinct to commit sins anymore😂

The simple fact is that the people in the Middle East need to learn to get along. Every theologian/historian/scholar has an opinion about all the major doctrinal or theological issues. For instance, N.T. links all thoughts of escaping this world to Platonism but Jesus promised the thief on the cross that he would be with Him in paradise that very day. What Christian does not long, at times, for an escape from this troubled world?

I feel I smell replacement theory a little bit here though this time people may say the whole world replaces Israel regarding the matter of salvation. I, an American believer of Jesus Christ, have never been a fan of J N Darby, Scofield, or dispensationalism. I do have eyes to see God has done amazing things against all odds for the state of Israel since 1946/1948 and for the not-yet-repent and not-yet-turn-to-Yeshua-HaMashia Jews in Israel or in the whole wide world. I cannot deny that the God of Abraham, Isaac and Israel has been working miraculously for His chosen people Jews and the state of Israel. I am a student of Dr. Michael Heiser and always remember he taught us that the fulfillment of the Bible prophecies are in the principle of ALREADY BUT NOT YET. We may have seen the fulfillment of Isaiah 59:20 in some ways, but in the principle of ALREADY BUT NOT YET, I can expect to see more of the fulfillment of Isaiah 59:20 on Jews now and in the future. I have not seen what Paul said in Romans 11:26 that all Israel will be saved, but I indeed have seen more and more Israeli and Jews come to the faith of Yeshua the Messiah. According to the principle of the fulfillment of prophecy -- ALREADY BUT NOT YET, I can expect to see all Israel will be saved because the Bible tells me so.

Once again, someone thinks that an interpretation of one mistranslated verse caused the doctrine of Original Sin. I've got a video that shows how original sin derives from scripture: ruclips.net/video/t2GWFm9WIFA/видео.html

Children that die before the profess faith are not necessarily burning in Hell: see Jeremia and David's first son