The usual date given for the destruction of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar in academic and Christian publications is either 587 BCE or 586 BCE. The Watchtower claims it was destroyed in 607 BCE. This date is critically important to them, because on it Charles Taze Russell calculated the year 1914 (2520 years (7 * 360) later). What do Jehovah's Witnesses think is the evidence for 607 BCE as the year of the destruction of Jerusalem? Please note, there are two kinds of evidence I consider acceptable: Biblical evidence and extra-Biblical evidence. It is really fine if only Biblical evidence is offered, but in such a case please indicate why you think the JW interpretation is correct. The case for a non Jehovah's Witness date of 586 BC or 587 BC is asked for here: https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/78711/evangelical-christians-claim-jerusalem-was-destroyed-in-either-587-or-586-bce-w

The law of noncontradictions states that two contradictory positions cannot be true at the same time in the same sense (e. g. the two propositions "p is the case" and "p is not the case" are mutually exclusive.) But the propositions "Christ is God" and "Christ is human" are both true according to Christian theology, meaning "p is the case (Christ is God)" and "p is not the case (Christ is human)" would not be mutually exclusive. Is it thus contradictory to claim that Christ was both fully man and fully God at the same time? If not, why? Sources for further reading would be greatly appreciated!

Whereas Jehovah's Witnesses believe Jerusalem was destroyed in 607 BC, historians, many evangelical Christians, and most others who write on such things believe it was destroyed in either 587 or 586 BCE: this is the general consensus outside of the confines of the JW world. Is there any Biblical evidence to support either of the two dates 587/586? What other evidence supports either of these dates? Please give evidence, either Biblical or extra-Biblical, not just statements of belief. All except JWs are invited to answer - JWs have their own related question - https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/78706/23657 - as long as you declare your doctrinal/denominational position. Even a reference to your stack exchange profile would be fine, as long as the profile describes your doctrinal/denominational position. A question asking for evidence in favour of 586 BC rather than 587 BC, or vice versa, is asked here: https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/96158/was-the-destruction-of-the-first-temple-in-586-bc-or-587-bc

What is the current growth or statistics of the house church movement in the US, or the West in general? I suppose they don't exist in the UK or Europe. I have heard that this type of church model exists in China and in some poor countries due to an organic need arising from the political situation. However, to see this trend going in the West rich nations is very interesting, where they are moving away from the institutional church model. The house church model also rejects the Pastor system or a senior Pastor system in the structure of church; and they are smaller size to avoid expense of building and maintenance. Are there some government data that shows surveys of believers to give a good estimate, and how to find it? If you have other basic related information about their structure and whether certain traditional churches have condemned them as heretics, share them as well.

Christians believe that Jesus, the Messiah, is God. My question is: What is the biblical basis in the messianic prophecies and other passages in the Old Testament for the belief that the Messiah must be God? I have read this: "https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/7531/why-does-the-messiah-have-to-be-god " But I'm looking for the biblical basis in the OT of the belief that Jesus must be God.

I have never read in the bible whether eating of unclean meat as described in the Old Testament where it is allowed to eat "unclean meat" or unclean meat is now clean meat. Except for one vision from Peter where the vision orders him to "eat unclean meat" however, this is clearly not literal as the context is for Peter to preach unto the Gentiles: > Acts 10: > > (17) While Peter was wondering about the meaning of the vision, the men > sent by Cornelius found out where Simon’s house was and stopped at the > gate. (18) They called out, asking if Simon who was known as Peter was > staying there. > > (22) The men replied, “We have come from Cornelius the centurion. He is > a righteous and God-fearing man, who is respected by all the Jewish > people. A holy angel told him to ask you to come to his house so that > he could hear what you have to say.” (23) Then Peter invited the men > into the house to be his guests. Other verses in the bible tells "all foods are clean" however we should take note that it says nothing about "all meats are clean", food is totally different word from meat. **Was the vision literal or not? If it's literal what is the biblical proof? Why are people lead into concluding that this vision is to be taken literally?** **UPDATE:** And what could be it's relation to Isaiah 66:17 which states: > Those who sanctify themselves and purify themselves, To go to the > gardens After an idol in the midst, Eating swine’s flesh and the > abomination and the mouse, Shall be consumed together,” says the LORD. (NKJV) Which by deduction *swine flesh* as described in this verse refers to unclean meat, and the verse says, those who eat these *Shall be consumed together* which by deduction again means, AFAIK, refers to the end of the world. So in other words, those who consume unclean meat shall perish together in the end of the world, which basically puts the interpretation of Acts 10:17-118, 22-23 in question: "It's okay to eat unclean meat as interpreted in the vision but doing so will cause you perish in the end" -- a questionable argument. **So I have two concrete questions here:** 1. Was the vision literal or not? If it's literal what is the biblical proof? Why are people lead into concluding that this vision is to be taken literally? 2. *Why are people lead into concluding that this vision is to be taken literally* and eating unclean meat is okay as it is already clean when there is verse in Isaiah 66:17 which conflicts with the interpretation? Answers in the views of [protestantism] would be appreciated.

I know a bit about classical apologetics (e.g the works of Richard Swinburne and W.L Craig) and evidential apologetics (e.g Gary Habermas, Mike Licona). Overall, I think the reasoning is clear. What I found a bit confusing is presuppositional apologetics. Consider this: > You take the teachings of Scripture and act as if they are true > (which, of course, they are), even if they contradict what your > discussion partner is telling you. In this way of apologetics, you > let Scripture tell you what is true about the unbeliever, his > challenges, what he already knows, and the whole conversation. And you > view the whole conversation through the lens of Scripture. > > https://thethink.institute/articles/presupvsevidential I remember learning some methods of proof on Discrete Math class many years ago, and one of them was proof by contradiction . If you want to prove Christianity is true, then start at the assumption that Christianity is false, and see if the consequence support that. So, I wonder if the presuppositional folks are doing circular reasoning. Perhaps I misunderstand something about their approach, though.

I believe that after years of church going, one knows enough. Action is therefore key. Love and serve others as you would the Lord. That is my current stance. To me (protestant), pastors are historians. Once you know the ebbs and flows of the Bible, all the rest is reminding. Which is a good thing. Nonetheless, it is not enough, one must act. Love and serve. Am I wrong? I do value church, but I have Church. So, is there a point where going to church to learn is enough? I am guessing that church is more of a community of people striving for the same ideal. Refining oneself to love and serve better others as one would the Lord.

I was recently gifted a medal with an ex indumentis relic. Now, the red protection has been lost and I'm not sure if the white in my medal is the relic itself or some base... How are medal relics made? I'm really worried for this...

> **[Exodus 20:9–11](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus+20%3A9%E2%80%9311&version=ESV)** (ESV)
> Six days you shall labor, and do all your work, but the seventh day is > a Sabbath to the LORD your God. On it you shall not do any work, you, > or your son, or your daughter, your male servant, or your female > servant, or your livestock, or the sojourner who is within your gates. > For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that > is in them, and rested on the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed > the Sabbath day and made it holy. What is an **overview of Protestant views on the Sabbath**? (Caveat: I'm not interested in the Seventh Day Adventist position.)

After the Fall of Adam and Eve, we can see in Genesis3:14, that God immediately cursed the serpent, showing that the serpent had done an action contrary to the Will of God, and since angel have superb intellect, they have no excuse for ignorance that it is not against the Will of God. Satan indwelling a Serpent had "touched" Eve. We can infer that Satan untame when he enters the garden, "touches" Eve, harming a part of her, that was sacred in the eyes of God, like her pure womb. Why her pure womb? Because the punishment of Eve in Genesis3:16 is about child-bearing. After God cursed the serpent, removing some of its powers, as some theologians and biblical scholars saw the Serpent, have arms,legs and wings. All of this capabilities were removed by God, and cursed the Serpent to crawl on its bellies. From Serpent to snake, is the cursed. https://answersingenesis.org/genesis/garden-of-eden/did-the-serpent-originally-have-legs/ And because of this, we can see a tamed Satan in the Book of Job, asking God first the limits, because another action that contradict the Will of God, will be the end of Satan. And so, God set the clear limits for Satan to follow. >"The LORD said to the satan, “Very well, all that he has is in your power; only do not lay a hand on him.” So the satan went forth from the presence of the LORD."-Job1:12 Job1:12 is a great relief for all mankind, knowing that Satan cannot do anything, that God won't allow, in every man. Going back to Genesis3:15. After cursing the Serpent, God the Father immediately declared a WAR, a perennial enmity between Woman vs. Satan. If God was the one who declared a war, what is the role and power, God had in mind, when He uttered the word "Woman"? Is there a Church Father's teachings, theologians and biblical scholars who explain the role and power that God will give to a Woman. In reference to John2:4, it would seem, that the Woman role, is a powerful Intercessor. In reference to Canticle6:10, the Woman is a powerful Warrior. John2:4 and Canticle6:10 showed that the Woman's role and power is, a powerful Warrior and Intercessor. Is there a Church Father's Teachings, Theologians or Biblical Scholars who had described the role and power of the Woman? Although, Catholicsm is the preferred answer, if there are credible sources, outside Catholicism, like Jewish biblical scholars interpretation and Christian commentaries, answers will be appreciated.no

For a working definition of *Christian Mysticism* I'd like to quote the [top answer](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/2819/61679) to https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/1942/61679 : > Christian Mysticism has a long and honourable tradition. You can read > the histories of many holy Christian mystics. [Wikipedia] will give > you a good starting point. Meditation is only one aspect. For a > working definition, try: ""that part, or element, or Christian belief > and practice that concerns the preparation for, the consciousness of, > and the effect of [...] a direct and transformative presence of [the > Christian] God" (Bernard McGinn). In effect mystics are those who make > real and experience for themselves things that many Christians take as > theoretical or abstract - e.g. the presence of God, union with God, > the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. > > Here are some well-known people and practices that form part of the > Christian Mystic tradition: > > - Spiritual Exercises of St. Ignatius Loyola > - Meister Eckhart > - Brother Lawrence > - Julian of Norwich > - Teresa of Avila > - St John of the Cross > - Thomas Merton > > : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_mysticism I also recently asked another question, https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/98040/61679 , and according to the answers posted so far I've been pleasantly surprised by the fact that the pursuit of a profoundly mystical union with God is highly regarded in Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, Oriental Orthodoxy, and arguably even in some branches of Protestantism ([this answer](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/98044/61679) makes a case for mysticism in Protestantism specifically). What is the biblical basis for Christian Mysticism?

The background of this question is in the conversation Abraham and God has over the inhabitants of Sodom. God is focusing on whether anyone within the city of Sodom is **good or righteous**, God doesn't care if they know him. You have most probably seen lots of people who are non-believers engage in humanitarian works of charity that supercede those of regular Christians. If God is to use the same criteria he used with the inhabitants of Sodom, can we be assured that these non-believers will be deemed good and worthy of heaven? Jesus said when you did it to them you did it to me, so aren't these non-believers doing good to Jesus, who will send them to life?

The following comes from a book by Jason Meyer, *The End of the Law: Mosaic Covenant in Pauline Theology*, pages 2 & 3 (B&H 2010). It was about historical digging into those O.T. and N.T. themes. The quote that seems to have come down to today is: > Run, John, run, the Law commands, But gives us neither feet nor > hands. Far better news the Gospel brings, It bids us fly and gives > us wings. An earlier version of this is in Charles Spurgeon’s writings, *The Salt-Cellars: Being a Collection of Proverbs, Together with Homely Notes Thereon*, page 200 (London, Passmore & Alabaster, 1889) It goes: > Run, John and work, the Law commands, yet finds me neither feet nor > hands. But sweeter news the Gospel brings; it bids me fly and lends me > wings!” Spurgeon attributes this to an **English revivalist and hymn writer, John Berridge (1716 – 1793)**. The third quote, however, is: > A rigid matter was the Law, demanding brick, denying straw. But when > with Gospel tongue it sings, it bids me fly and gives me wings. This is ascribed to **17th-18th Century Scottish preacher, Ralph Erskine (1685 – 1752)**. I note its reference to the Israelites in Egypt being commanded to increase their brick-production, but this time they had to find their own straw to do so. **My question is two-fold: (1)** to ask if anybody with knowledge of religious quotes from that era to clarify what would have been the original quote, and who originated that quote. Even if that cannot be done, **I further ask (2)** what would the quote actually mean to Protestant Christians from the end of the 17th century to the end of the 18th?

I am not entirely convinced that the idea of marriages being divinely blessed or preferable of a Christian life is entirely Christian. It seems, aside from Matthew 19, that Christ is entirely unconcerned with the concept of marriage and teaches that a chaste life is the ideal Christian life. Most of the sentiment around marriage in Christian life seems to come from Pauline writings. Are there any other examples of Christ discussing the topic of erotic love/marriage aside from this discussion around divorce/eunuchs?

I know that the term *Magisterium* is relatively recent---it refers to the Teaching Authority of the Catholic Church. It seems that full length books (a few hundred pages or more) devoted to this topic are relatively rare; and moreover, I have not been able to find a single one written (in English) that is in the public domain in the United States. There are some fairly recent ones such as [*Magisterial Authority*](https://www.amazon.com/Magisterial-Authority-Fr-Chad-Ripperger/dp/1503022420/ref=pd_sim_d_sccl_2_1/133-7348727-5417360?pd_rd_w=JEoWE&content-id=amzn1.sym.fc475966-e837-48fc-9ed0-f4ca6ae9337b&pf_rd_p=fc475966-e837-48fc-9ed0-f4ca6ae9337b&pf_rd_r=N6WM7AFHKA4RPVC1K6F0&pd_rd_wg=CW6eo&pd_rd_r=68188b91-fd2c-48ac-981f-3c479a3d31da&pd_rd_i=1503022420&psc=1) by Fr. Ripperger, but it only contains 62 pages. QUESTION: Can anyone point me to a book(s) devoted to the Magisterium of the Catholic Church that was (were) published in English prior to 1929? It seems to me that there should be some, but I have not yet discovered any. Thank you.

Recently, I heard a pastor in a meeting use the term "negative prophecy", who immediately started listing examples to justify it (like a 5-second conversation SysTheo summary). He said that "negative prophecy" was limited to the Old Testament, but was not in the New Testament, and that Jesus's negative statements were only against Pharisees and a secular Jewish government. That seemed like strange reasoning, but that is background, not my question. I'm curious about the actual concept and term "**negative prophecy**". *Is **negative prophecy** even a real term used in any actual tradition's teaching?* I had never heard of "negative prophecy" in any Christian teaching before, so I did some search with Google, and these were from top results: # Examples - Negative prophecies shall fail. > Every negative word spoken against you; every negative prophecy concerning you, your life, your destiny; shall fail;, they will not stand in Jesus mighty name! Amen... - HOW TO CANCEL NEGATIVE PROPHECIES AND DREAMS > Vision can be canceled by prayer and saturated with the word of God. - REJECT NEGATIVE PROPHECIES > THOUGHT FOR THE DAY: Never respect anyone enough to allow them drive your destiny in a negative direction. ...the “prophet” in question said something negative concerning our going to that country for the crusade. It was a negative prophecy and according to them, the so-called prophet usually prophesied accurately. - YOU WILL NOT FULFIL (sic) NEGATIVE PROPHECIES > There are both positive and negative prophecies in the Bible. Some people fulfilled good prophecies while some fulfilled bad prophecies. Also, nowadays, some prophets and those who claim to be prophets give positive and negative prophecies. In the past, some people have fulfilled positive prophecies while others have fulfilled negative prophecies. - What do I do if I get a negative Prophetic word for someone? > ...what you do when you get something negative is to switch the thought 180 degrees. He replied that he couldn’t flip it to a positive as it was just so black and dark. ...the person... was having a psychotic episode during the weekend and was admitted to a psychiatric ward. That is an extreme when I talk about getting a negative word for someone. - NEGATIVE PROPHECY > Friend, hear me as I hear the Lord: you will not fulfill negative prophecies. You will not be an example of one who suffered a disaster that was foretold. You will not be an example of those who experienced negativity. You will not be an example of those whose lives turned upside down as a result of negativities that were foretold. You will not be swallowed by negative experiences. You will not be a partaker of future negativity. - Video: Pray for the continent of Asia! When there is a negative prophecy, it is revealed by God so the church can pray and annul it. > I've seen something in the Spirit: I see a disease coming... It's coming... Let's pray: Divine protection... This disease coming to the earth, Lord, keep your people. Protect your own, in the name of Jesus Christ. I pray for those in Asia, this break, this break, this war with water, with nature, with ground opening, this eruption... They will lay human beings as dogs, we pray for protection of lives... I pray a protection upon you... These reflect the same context in which the pastor used the term during that meeting. The pastor and these search results having used the term consistently, I am curious where so many people got this term? Did they get it from a church tradition's teaching? Or, did these authors and speakers merely get it from each other? ___ # The alternatives? It seems this may be a *homily* instead of a *theology* or *doctrine*. It only seems to appear in blogs and sermons, rather than actual statements of faith, confessions, or catechisms. I can't even find books about "negative prophecy" searching on Amazon or Barnes & Noble . I would think that if this is a real thing, some publisher would have agreed. Not finding the term in doctrine or even book stores, what is the purpose for using it? ## Scope This term specifically applies to beliefs within Continuationism . This term would not apply to Cessationism , which generally rejects any and all forms of prophecy, among other things, after the Apostolic Age . ## Application & usage It seems that the term "negative prophecy" creates a logical category of a specific type of prophecy for the purpose of 1. identifying a given prophecy as falling within a sub-category of prophecy in order to 2. respond to that specific prophecy so-placed within this sub-category. From the use and literature I can find, these responses are only one of the following two: - Reject as invalid - Pray against *Across the board, responses specifically **do not** include, and may even reject, any suggestion of:* - *Call to new/change action* - *Call to repentance for sinful causes* - *Call to trust/thank God for protecting/chastening* - *Call to courage/patience to endure* Where this term "negative prophecy" is used, the driving purpose seems to reflect a utilitarian intent to make a categorical denial of what the prophecy claims. ## Where the term is used It seems to be used wherever the writer or speaker is attracting views, readers, shares, likes, parishioners, donations, book sales (from the author), and other things affected by marketing. So, the term almost seems to be part of a non-profit/church marketing strategy (viz *craft your message* and *selling points* ). Is it? ## Motive for teaching such non-doctrine Is this really nothing more than fancy Bible-ish jargon meant to drive sales, views, and donations? That would be a wild claim, but I can't find any other demonstrable purpose driving its wide-spread use. Nor, can I find any doctrinal origin. If it isn't a church teaching anywhere, why are Christian bloggers and speakers using the term? *(This question is genuinely asking for any alternate explanation.)* It is interesting to consider the two categories of scope because the Cessationist can easily dismiss any prophecy, merely on the basis of it being a prophecy. But, the Continuationist using the term "negative prophecy" may like the idea of God talking, as long as "the prophecy doesn't have a 'negative' mental attitude"—both uses of "negative" being extrabiblical concepts, and seemingly extra-doctrinal as well. Is that all this is about? I am stretching to find some other explanation, but can't. This almost seems as if the term "negative prophecy" is a tool for people with passive aggression to dismiss ideas they don't like , as if they need a have your cake and eat it too tool: *they believe in God speaking through prophecy, but they want a seemingly-academic reason to dismiss a prophecy they disagree with, even if the prophecy may be otherwise legitimate*. ___ # So, what is "Negative Prophecy"? This question has two parts. 1. Primarily: Does this term originate from any church traditional doctrine? 2. Secondarily: If not, is there another explanation? - Is the term a pop-culture homily geared toward "positive mental attitude " -driven marketing? - Or, is this something else?

In Matthew when Jesus and Satan interacted, in one of the temptations given by Satan we get the sense that he has authority over all nations : > Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their glory. And he said to him, “All these I will give you, if you will fall down and worship me.” ‭‭Matthew‬ ‭4‬:‭8‬-‭9‬ ‭ESV‬ However, it is mentioned in the Old Testament that wars and conflicts do exist between nations, such as Babylon coming to destroy Egypt. > Thus says the Lord God: “I will put an end to the wealth of Egypt, by the hand of Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon. He and his people with him, the most ruthless of nations, shall be brought in to destroy the land, and they shall draw their swords against Egypt and fill the land with the slain.” ‭‭Ezekiel‬ ‭30‬:‭10‬-‭11‬ ‭ESV‬‬ But later in Matthew, Jesus uses the argument that Satan's kingdom can’t be divided. > “Knowing their thoughts,” he said to them, “Every kingdom divided against itself is laid waste, and no city or house divided against itself will stand. And if Satan casts out Satan, he is divided against himself. How then will his kingdom stand?” ‭‭Matthew‬ ‭12‬:‭25‬-‭26‬ ‭ESV‬‬ My question is: given that Satan has/had authority over the nations in the past as well as these satanic nations then conquering one another as shown in Ezekiel, how does Jesus’s argument hold up that Satan's kingdom can’t be divided? Is he speaking only spiritually or something else?

Jesus prayed (Jn 17:21) that “they may be one in us as you are in me and I am in you.” (Easier to comprehend if *in* means *in union with*.) This is the original sense of at-one-ment. “We also joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have now received the atonement.” (Ro 5:11; KJV uses atonement) Here’s what happened: Adam and Eve’s sins (and mine) separated me from God and put me on a different path. So God put Adam and Eve (and all their descendants) out of Paradise to learn how to choose between good and evil. At first, we were at-one with God. And then not. Our sins have put us on a path different from God’s. “Give ear and come to me; listen, that you may live. I will make an everlasting covenant with you,” (Isa 55:3a,b). "This is the covenant I will make with the people of Israel after that time," declares the LORD. "I will put my law in their minds and write it on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my people.” (Jer 31:33) It's a given that atonement cannot be accomplished by my efforts alone; otherwise, Jesus would not have had to undergo His passion and death. But if atonement brings God and me together, isn’t it I, not God, who must change? What must be done to bring about atonement? A beautiful metaphor in Hebrews identifies Jesus as High Priest of His own death, recalling the holy Temple offerings to God. But the death of Jesus was not a suicide, and was *not demanded* by God. Our God is not like the pagan gods which delighted in human sacrifice; this is proved by the binding of Isaac. The death of Jesus was caused by *corrupt human powers of the time*. This is what God did: Jeremiah prophesied (31:31) that Yahweh would write a new covenant on His people’s hearts and forgive their iniquity and never call their sin to mind. God said to Isaiah,“Give ear and come to me; listen, that you may live. I will make an everlasting covenant with you.” (55:3) This new covenant would be our atonement - if only we listened to our hearts and let it happen. But we have free will; perhaps more exactly, we have *free choice*. God always lets us choose to *desire* this or that. Atonement is not done *to me* or *for me* without my involvement, but rather, is the result of the covenant relationship that I am offered. But distractions always pop up. But something can begin within us, which then allows us to make a choice: the death of Jesus could elicit compassion from even the hardest heart. It’s part of being human. If I don’t resist it, I would be drawn to feel compassion, not only for Jesus, but also for God the Father, who is suffering the torture and murder of His beloved Son. This compassion that suffers with Jesus could be a response to the covenant God offers. Paul went further: if we are … *baptized into his death* (Ro 6:3 NIV), *united with Him in a death like His … [then we will be] certainly also united with Him in a resurrection like His* (v5). This surely implies more than just sprinkling with water and words; it must mean being immersed into His agony, by a natural compassion that leads to a mystical union with Him. *Immersed into His death.* My compassion, love, turns toward my Father in Heaven as well as toward His Son Who died to get my attention… *to forgive me*. As I become immersed into the passion of Jesus, I realize that I am not the innocent, compassionate bystander, but at the heart of the matter, *I’m* guilty of the death of Jesus. His death tears me apart while His Holy Spirit wants to cry out in my heart, “Abba, Father.” After being brought before the throne of God, I hope to hear again, “Father, forgive him - he’s a friend of mine.” ***What other verses (or wisdom) from the Bible might support the idea of a continuing covenant, with my active involvement, rather than a one-time event, without my active participation, with regard to the atoning death of Jesus?***

I have have read the posts related to this question, but they do not tackle this issue from the same angle. For the related questions i have seen, the focus was only on why we inherit Adam's sins. **I flip and ask why we don't inherit Adam's good deeds**? For those that may say we inherited his "sinful nature" or capacity to do evil but not the original sin itself, that doesn't tally well with the Protestant concept that flows from "we (including children), have all sinned and fallen short of the glory of God". **Personally, I believe children come from God pure and without sin.** **I believe Adam's sins were his own sins (the "original" and any other sins), and I should not be asked about them; because Adam was a human being with his own issues, and I have mine**. To argue otherwise is to contradict Ezekiel 18:19-21 **"The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not bear the guilt of the father, nor the father bear the guilt of the son**. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself.."