The Sabbath: Is it only a shadow???

January 30, 2009

The man Jesus Christ was truly tempted to sin and he could have sinned.

Jesus, just prior to the incarnation, handed over the independent use of His Divinity to God the Father. You could say that His Divinity lay dormant in our humanity. That's why the Bible says He knew nothing unless the Father revealed it to Him.

Rob

January 30, 2009

Originally Posted By: John317

The man Jesus Christ was truly tempted to sin and he could have sinned.

Jesus, just prior to the incarnation, handed over the independent use of His Divinity to God the Father. You could say that His Divinity lay dormant in our humanity. That's why the Bible say He knew nothing unless the Father revealed it to Him.

I agree.

January 30, 2009

The word "became" flesh.

January 30, 2009

Ellen White says dozens of times that Jesus Christ became a man.

Well, maybe, but she states things differently in other areas. In with the good, out with the error.

Rob

January 30, 2009

God made him [Jesus as God] who had no sin to be sin [as man] for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.

January 30, 2009

Originally Posted By: John317

The word "became" flesh.

In what sense? Answer: He tabernacled among us. He clothed His Divinity with our corporate humanity. It wasn't His humanity that He came to save, it was our humanity. Otherwise it makes no sense.

Quote:

2 John 7 says that Jesus is still in the flesh and that it's the spirit of antichrist that rejects this truth.

No, John, it doesn't say that.

And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.

Every human that denies that Christ took upon himself our humanity is of the antichrist.

Parse the words used-- erxomenon en sarki

participle present middle accusative singular masculine

How should that be translated and what does the present participle mean?

"comes in the flesh" or "Jesus Christ continues coming in human form"

Ask any teacher of Koine Greek. It means he is in human form today. This is supported by Ellen White and by 1 Tim 2: 5. The God-Man serves right now as our High Priest. Hebrews 4: 14-16.

2 John 1:7 (Young's Literal Translation)

7 because many leading astray did enter into the world, who are not confessing Jesus Christ coming in flesh; this one is he who is leading astray, and the antichrist.

Notice it is present tense-- he is NOW in the flesh.

If it meant "Jesus came in the flesh," it would be an aorist. But it it not an aorist; it is a present participle.

More evidence--

Home > Commentaries > Robertson's Word Pictures > 2 John >

Chapter 1 > Verse 7

Robertson's Word Pictures of the New Testament

...... That Jesus Christ cometh in the flesh (Ihsoun Criston ercomenon en sarki). "Jesus Christ coming in the flesh." Present middle participle of ercomai treating the Incarnation as a continuing fact which the Docetic Gnostics flatly denied. In 1 John 4:2 we have elhluqota (perfect active participle) in this same construction with omologew, because there the reference is to the definite historical fact of the Incarnation.

January 31, 2009

Originally Posted By: John317

Ellen White says dozens of times that Jesus Christ became a man.

Well, maybe, but she states things differently in other areas. In with the good, out with the error.

Rob

How wide is the contrast between the divinity of Christ and the helpless infant in Bethlehem's manger! How can we span the distance between the mighty God and a helpless child? And yet the Creator of worlds, He in whom was the fullness of the Godhead bodily, was manifest in the helpless babe in the manger. Far higher than any of the angels, equal with the Father in dignity and glory, and yet wearing the garb of humanity! Divinity and humanity were mysteriously combined, and man and God became one.The Faith I Live By (1958), page 48, paragraph 5

Christ was not two persons; he was One person. What do you call someone who is God and man? The God-Man.

She doesn't contradict herself.

Where does she ever say anything showing clearly that she does not think that Jesus Christ became a man?

January 31, 2009

he is NOW in the flesh.

So Jesus took sinful, human flesh to heaven?

January 31, 2009

Christ was not two persons; he was One person.

Jesus IS GOD!!!!!! That's one deity.

Jesus assumed humanity!!!!!! That's all people.

You see when Christ's assumed humanity died, all men died in Him!

Proof:

2 Cor 5:15 one died for all, and therefore all died.

Rom 7:4 So, my brothers, you also died to the law [it demanded your death] in the body of Christ....

Rob

January 31, 2009

She doesn't contradict herself.

Then she is infallible!

January 31, 2009

Originally Posted By: John317

he is NOW in the flesh.

So Jesus took sinful, human flesh to heaven?

No, neither will we. His body was glorified. He has a glorified, immortal, sinless human body now, the same as Enoch, Elijah, and Moses. Don't you agree?

It is important to know that He is both God and Man because when He returns He will return in the flesh just like He went away in the flesh. He does not come as an invisible spirit-being like some teach. It is how we know He will come visibly, as one of the human race. He does not come as an outsider but as One of us.

January 31, 2009

Originally Posted By: John317

She doesn't contradict herself.

Then she is infallible!

How so? Paul is not infallible but He does not contradict Himself. Why not? Because he is delivering not his own messages but God's messages.

The prophet is a fallible human being, right?

The reason you can depend on the prophet's message is not because the prophet is infallible but because the message is from an infallible God.

For instance, we don't think for a minute that Paul was an infallible man. He could make mistakes, and he was certainly a sinner. The reason we trust what Paul says is that Paul passes the test of a true prophet or messenger of God. He gave us God's messages. That is what makes his messages trustworthy. The messages aren't trustworthy because we think Paul was infallible but because of Who is behind the messages.

January 31, 2009

God made him [Jesus as God] who had no sin to be sin [as man] for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.

If you won't me to say that Christ became a man (while remaining Himself) then as the Son of Man He was a sinner. By this I don't mean He sinned, but rather the human Christ was born condemned because of indwelling sin.

But Jesus was unlike us because He was born spiritually alive. That means that His mind was under the control of God's Spirit. He never knew sins slavery.

Now I quoted Paul (see above). Paul said that Christ as man was "made sin". And A.T. Jones goes further:

He was made "under the law," because they are under the law whom He would redeem, and as He was made a curse, because they are under the curse whom He would redeem, and as He was made sin, because they are sinners—"sold under sin"—whom He would redeem, precisely so He must be made flesh and "the same" flesh and blood, because they are flesh and blood whom He would redeem and must be made "of a woman," because sin was in the world first by and in the woman. [Jones - Chapter 6 — Made of a Woman]

Do you agree?

January 31, 2009

Originally Posted By: Robert

Then she is infallible!

How so? Paul is not infallible but He does not contradict Himself. Why not? Because he is delivering not his own messages but God's messages.

The prophet is a fallible human being' date=' right? [/quote']

You are trying to put Ellen on the same level as Paul. Paul is the NT theologian. Without him there would be very little understanding of the gospel. I will not place EGW as his equal. You are going to far here, John.

January 31, 2009

Christ as man was "made sin"

We must establish one thing first or everything else doesn't matter.

Having a sinful nature makes you a sinner in and of itself. The Bible is clear on this:

"Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood [our humanity] cannot inherit the kingdom of God; nor does corruption inherit incorruption."

Then how are we permitted in heaven?

51 Behold, I tell you a mystery: We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed-- 52 in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed. 53 For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality.

Mortality is associated with death and sin. The wages of sin is death. That is to say sin pays in death. If we are mortal we are sinners.

Now you insist that the last generation will be perfectly reflecting Christ. They will be without fault before God's throne. Well, even if you reached perfection, your nature still makes you a sinner. Hence you are still mortal.

So, at the 2nd coming, you are changed - your humanity from Adam is instantly shed and Christ clothes you with a glorified humanity free from indwelling sin. Then, and only then, can you say I am sinless!

But the point is if Christ became a man, after the fall, He was made "sin" - meaning He was condemned by the law. Gal 4:4 states this....

Yes?

Rob

January 31, 2009

You are trying to put Ellen on the same level as Paul. Paul is the NT theologian. Without him there would be very little understanding of the gospel. I will not place EGW as his equal. You are going to far here, John.

I'm simply saying she was a true prophet. A true prophet is a true prophet. That doesn't mean she is Scripture. The canon is closed. Ellen White must be judged and tested by the canon. But if we find that she is a true prophet, we can't dismiss her because she is not part of the canon.

I think the key is recognizing that there aren't degrees of inspiration when it comes to prophets of God. Either they are or aren't. Of course Paul and the rest of the writers of the Bible have the greater authority. All prophets coming after the canon was closed must be tested by the Bible. We don't allow the prophet, whether Ellen White or anyone else, to change the Bible or test the Scripture. She is tested by the Scriptures for sure.

Ellen White quotes Acts 3: 19 as using the word "when," whereas the Greek word is "so that" [hopos]. I accept the evidence of the Greek word. I believe the translation "when" is a mistake. It doesn't make a great deal of difference to the significance of the text, but it does show how I accept the Bible as the authority.

January 31, 2009

Gal 4:4 But when the fullness of the time had come, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the law, 5 to redeem those who were under the law

Note a few phrases:

a] "born of a woman"

b] "born under the law"

c "to redeem those...under the law"

Now, we both agree that Christ is God. He has always been God, but at the incarnation something mysteriously happened. He, Jesus as God, either assumed our humanity or He was both God and man. If the latter is true then here's the ultimate conclusion:

1] If Christ, as a man, was born of a fallen woman (Mary) then He "was sinful at birth, sinful from the time [His] mother conceived [him]." Compare Ps 51:5 NIV

2] If He, as a man, was born of a woman then He was "born under the law" because the law condemns all imperfection. Not only does the law demand perfect righteousness, but it also demands perfect justice and perfection of nature. If the last point isn't true then we should be allowed to enter heaven with our sinful natures.

3] Note that Christ was made these things to "redeem" those who were already under the curse of the law. If we are under the law because of the fall, then if Christ became a man He too came under the curse of the law.

January 31, 2009

I think the key is recognizing that there aren't degrees of inspiration when it comes to prophets of God.

John, I am not fully convinced she is a prophet of God....She had insights from God, but prophet...???

Anyway it doesn't matter. It's not an issue to me. The measuring stick is the Bible....

Rob

January 31, 2009

1] If Christ, as a man, was born of a fallen woman (Mary) then He "was sinful at birth, sinful from the time [His] mother conceived [him]." Compare Ps 51:5 NIV

And of course this is the view of Roman Catholics and why they insist that Mary was born without sin. To say that, they must also make Mary's mother born without sin, and so forth.

I have to go somewhere but will continue this when I get back.

January 31, 2009

Originally Posted By: John317

I think the key is recognizing that there aren't degrees of inspiration when it comes to prophets of God.

John, I am not fully convinced she is a prophet of God....She had insights from God, but prophet...???

Anyway it doesn't matter. It's not an issue to me. The measuring stick is the Bible....

Yes, of course the Bible is the measuring stick.

Have you talk personally with Jack Sequeira about these things? Doesn't he believe she is a true prophet?

January 31, 2009

God made him [Jesus as God] who had no sin to be sin [as man] for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.

when the fulness of the time came, God sent forth his Son, born of a woman, born under the law, 5 that he might redeem them that were under the law

Again, I am trying to compromise with you on this God-man issue. If Jesus became what He was not, while still remaining Himself (i.e., God), then the human Christ was "made sin" because He was "born of a woman" and hence He, as a man, came "under it's curse."

Now I am sure I like this view, but maybe I can accept it keeping in mind the following:

A] Jesus is God. He never ceased to be God. That's what the Bible means when it says, "that Holy thing" That verse is referring to His deity.

B] Jesus, while remain Himself, became what He was not by divine right - i.e., a man after the fall.

C] Jesus, as man, was only "made sin" during His life. At the resurrection He was raised with a glorified humanity free from indwelling sin. He left sin in the grave.

Rob

January 31, 2009

Have you talk personally with Jack Sequeira about these things? Doesn't he believe she is a true prophet?

No! And I won't because her teaching are not a major issue to me. I can take her or leave her.

Let's talk about the incarnation....

January 31, 2009

Again, I am trying to compromise with you on this God-man issue. If Jesus became what He was not, while still remaining Himself (i.e., God), then the human Christ was "made sin" because He was "born of a woman" and hence He, as a man, came "under it's curse."

January 31, 2009

A] Jesus is God. He never ceased to be God. That's what the Bible means when it says, "that Holy thing" That verse is referring to His deity.

B] Jesus, while remain Himself, became what He was not by divine right - i.e., a man after the fall.

C] Jesus, as man, was only "made sin" during His life. At the resurrection He was raised with a glorified humanity free from indwelling sin. He left sin in the grave.

This is according to what I believe the Bible to be saying. This is why I believe that Christ knows from experience what it means to be tempted the same way we are tempted. He never sinned and therefore he never had to overcome a sinful habit, but He knows what it is like to have a desire to go our own way.

January 31, 2009

Originally Posted By: Robert

1] If Christ, as a man, was born of a fallen woman (Mary) then He "was sinful at birth, sinful from the time [His] mother conceived [him]." Compare Ps 51:5 NIV

And of course this is the view of Roman Catholics and why they insist that Mary was born without sin. To say that, they must also make Mary's mother born without sin, and so forth.

I have to go somewhere but will continue this when I get back.

The RCC teaches original sin, which simply means that since we are Adam's children we are guilty of his sin. That's not Biblical.

However, the Bible does teach that when God made Adam he created all men in that one man. Hence, "in Adam all men die."

Since our lives are derived from Adam's life, multiplied many times over through procreation, we share Adam's fallen life. Because of this we stand condemned because we share his fallen life and we stand guilty due to our personal sins.

Proof:

Romans 5:12 Therefore, as through one man sin [iniquity - the love of self] entered into the world [the human race], and death through sin;

Paul teaches that because of Adam sin entered the human race (humanity). That's because when God created Adam He was creating all men in one man. Since Adam, our father was made defective by the fall, anything that came out of him (via procreation) had to be faulty.

and so death passed unto all men, for that all sinned [past tense]:--

All sons and daughters of Adam die. Why? Are we guilty of Adam's sin? No:

13 for until the law sin was in the world; but sin is not imputed when there is no law.

The fallen human race was dying, but not because they were guilty of transgression. The vast amount of folks didn't know of God's law. So they weren't being condemned to death by the law. Then why were they dying?

Because Adam passed on to us a humanity indwelt with the principle of sin or self-love. "The wages of sin (singular) is death"

14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the likeness of Adam's transgression....

Death reigned because humanity was indwelt by sin (the sin nature), even those folks didn't sin after the likeness of Adam's sin.

Rob

Sign In

The Sabbath: Is it only a shadow???

Recommended Posts

Robert

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

John317

Robert

Robert

Robert

John317

John317

Robert

Robert

Robert

John317

John317

Robert

Robert

Robert

John317

Robert

Robert

John317

John317

Robert

Robert

guibox

John317

Robert

Join the conversation

Browse

Activity