miz3 Posted June 21, 2011 Posted June 21, 2011 Originally Posted By: SonnyChrist, as God, was united to our corporate life in the womb of Mary. NOT BIBLICAL! Here is clear evidence of you adding to the plain word of God! The Bible never says this nor does the Bible infer this in regard to the incarnation! The Holy Spirit is the only entity involved in the formation of Jesus Christ in Mary's womb. Mary was an incubator. The Bible does not say she contributed anything to the Incarnation of Jesus Christ! Any other Gospel concerning this point is false and heretical! It don't care what big brain person says different or what writings you produce which you call "inspired" that would say different. If it says different, then it is not Biblical, it is not "inspired by God (Holy Spirit), it is not logical, it is not scholarship, it is not anything but garbage! The only time Jesus Christ ever was made "sinful" was on the Cross! That and that alone is Biblical and it is the Gospel and it is the Truth! Anything else, then: it is not Biblical, it is not "inspired by God (Holy Spirit), it is not logical, it is not scholarship, it is not anything but garbage!
Sonny Posted June 21, 2011 Posted June 21, 2011 Mary was the Mother of "God" in that Jesus was absolutely "GOD"... Mary is the mother of the Son of Man. God already existed. Hebrews 10:5 Therefore, when He comes into the world, He says, "SACRIFICE AND OFFERING YOU HAVE NOT DESIRED, BUT A BODY YOU HAVE PREPARED FOR ME.... Notice a "body" was prepared for ME (God). God is Spirit - He is immortal, but at the incarnation the Son of God was joined up with our humanity in Mary's womb.
miz3 Posted June 21, 2011 Posted June 21, 2011 NO Sonny! Nothing of Mary was in Jesus Christ. It was only the Holy Spirit that was involved in the Incarnation.
Sonny Posted June 21, 2011 Posted June 21, 2011 Nothing of Mary was in Jesus Christ. Romans 1:1 From Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle and appointed to spread the Good News of God. 2 God had already promised this Good News through his prophets in the Holy Scriptures. 3 This Good News is about his Son, our Lord Jesus Christ. In his human nature he was a descendant of David. 4 In his spiritual, holy nature he was declared the Son of God. This was shown in a powerful way when he came back to life. [GW]
Sonny Posted June 21, 2011 Posted June 21, 2011 Originally Posted By: miz3 Nothing of Mary was in Jesus Christ. Romans 1:1 From Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle and appointed to spread the Good News of God. 2 God had already promised this Good News through his prophets in the Holy Scriptures. 3 This Good News is about his Son, our Lord Jesus Christ. In his human nature he was a descendant of David. 4 In his spiritual, holy nature he was declared the Son of God. This was shown in a powerful way when he came back to life. [GW] Gal 3:16 Now, God made his promises to Abraham and to his descendant. The scripture does not use the plural "descendants," meaning many people, but the singular "descendant," meaning one person only, namely, Christ. [GNTA] God made promises both to Abraham and to his descendant. God did not say, "and to your descendants." That would mean many people. But God said, "and to your descendant." That means only one person; that person is Christ. [NCV] Now to Abraham and to his descendant the promises were spoken. It does not say, "and to descendants," as concerning many, but as concerning one, "and to your descendant," who is Christ. [LEB]
Sonny Posted June 21, 2011 Posted June 21, 2011 Nothing of Mary was in Jesus Christ. Timothy 2:8 Remember Jesus Christ, who was raised from death, who was a descendant of David, as is taught in the Good News I preach. [GNT] Hebrews 2:17 Therefore, He had to be made like His brethren in all things, so that He might become a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people. [NAS]
Sonny Posted June 21, 2011 Posted June 21, 2011 Originally Posted By: miz3 Nothing of Mary was in Jesus Christ. Timothy 2:8 Remember Jesus Christ, who was raised from death, who was a descendant of David, as is taught in the Good News I preach. [GNT] Hebrews 2:17 Therefore, He had to be made like His brethren in all things, so that He might become a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people. [NAS] Phil 2:5 Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: 6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: 7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: 8 And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient to death, even the death of the cross.
miz3 Posted June 21, 2011 Posted June 21, 2011 In his human nature he was a descendant of David. This is only true because of the genealogy of Jesus Christ through his father, Joseph! See Matthew chapter one and Luke chapter three. Since none of Joseph's sperm was involved it is not possible for Jesus Christ to have inherited by blood the fallen nature of any of His ancestors. The genealogy of Jesus Christ as the descendant of David is not through "sperm" or "any genetic material" but only as the legal son of Joseph! Thus, your text is a legal reference not a "genetic" reference! Sorry Sonny!
miz3 Posted June 21, 2011 Posted June 21, 2011 Sonny, All your texts refer to Jesus Christ's OUTER NATURE! NOT CHRIST'S "INNER NATURE"!
WayneV Posted June 21, 2011 Posted June 21, 2011 Tomato vs Tomahto. WayneV Just remember these words of warning, for they will come to pass all too soon: If you are ever flying through the desert and your canoe breaks down, remember that it takes three pancakes to lift the doghouse, because there ain't nary a bone in ice cream!
miz3 Posted June 21, 2011 Posted June 21, 2011 Tomato vs Tomahto. I am sorry but you are not correct! The difference between the two views is as far apart as the east is from the west. It makes a huge difference as to whether Jesus Christ was born as I believe with a "sinless nature" or as Sonny believes a "sinful nature". It also makes a huge difference as to whether God placed the "sins of the whole world" on Jesus Christ as Sonny believes at the Birth of Jesus Christ or whether God placed the "sins of the whole world" on Jesus Christ as I believe only on the Cross! So it is not "tomato vs tomahto" at all!
WayneV Posted June 21, 2011 Posted June 21, 2011 Originally Posted By: WayneV Tomato vs Tomahto. I am sorry but you are not correct! The difference between the two views is as far apart as the east is from the west. It makes a huge difference as to whether Jesus Christ was born as I believe with a "sinless nature" or as Sonny believes a "sinful nature". It also makes a huge difference as to whether God placed the "sins of the whole world" on Jesus Christ as Sonny believes at the Birth of Jesus Christ or whether God placed the "sins of the whole world" on Jesus Christ as I believe only on the Cross! So it is not "tomato vs tomahto" at all! If you say so. It just seems sad to me that, in order to make sure that we do not agree, we have been reduced to arguing over what happened in Mary's womb. Why can't we admit that we weren't there in the womb and have no idea how God accomplished what He did "in Christ"; accept the miracle of redemption "in Christ" by faith, and thank God for what he has done for us "in Christ"? It is somewhat like arguing over the temperature of the grill that cooked our food (yes, past tense) instead of enjoying the food (present tense) - in UNITY! What do you think? Agape` WayneV Just remember these words of warning, for they will come to pass all too soon: If you are ever flying through the desert and your canoe breaks down, remember that it takes three pancakes to lift the doghouse, because there ain't nary a bone in ice cream!
miz3 Posted June 21, 2011 Posted June 21, 2011 WayneV, I see your point and while it has some merit the conflicts remain that need to be resolved because such "facts" are vital to our enjoyment of what Christ has done. I have not taken this subject into the realm of "speculation" but have only looked at what Scripture states and stayed within the boundaries of those Scriptures. I have not added or subtracted from the Scripture in any way! I invite you to look at previous posts between Sonny and myself to view the exchange for yourself and come to your own conclusions. It is not necessary for you to mediate between us. There is much of what Sonny asserts about the Gospel that I agree with wholeheartedly.
Sonny Posted June 21, 2011 Posted June 21, 2011 Thus, your text is a legal reference not a "genetic" reference! "who was a descendant of David"
WayneV Posted June 21, 2011 Posted June 21, 2011 miz3, It was not my intent to be a mediator, but a peacemaker. When all is said and done, it does not really matter what happened in the womb, or if it happened in the womb or on the cross. What matters is that Jesus came to redeem us, and according to Scripture, accomplished that mission. Now, if we confess with our mouth that Jesus is Lord, and believe in our heart that God raised Him from the dead, we will be saved (see Romans 10:9). There is nothing there about having to believe a certain way about the human nature of Jesus. Regardless of whether Jesus took on our fallen nature or just our flesh, it was sufficient! That is what is important. AMEN? Agape` WayneV Just remember these words of warning, for they will come to pass all too soon: If you are ever flying through the desert and your canoe breaks down, remember that it takes three pancakes to lift the doghouse, because there ain't nary a bone in ice cream!
Sonny Posted June 21, 2011 Posted June 21, 2011 If it's that simple...if it really doesn't matter what gospel you believe, then why did Paul state the following? Gal 1:6 I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you by the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel-- 7 which is really no gospel at all. Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ. 8 But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned! 9 As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let him be eternally condemned! According to Paul the gospel is, Rom 1:1 Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, set apart for the gospel of God, 2 which he promised before through his prophets in the holy Scriptures, 3 concerning his Son, who was born of the seed of David according to the flesh, 4 who was declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead, Jesus Christ our Lord,
Sonny Posted June 21, 2011 Posted June 21, 2011 3 concerning his Son, who was born of the seed of David according to the flesh, What does "seed" mean? Let's use Genesis 38:8,9 for an example: Judah said to Onan, "Go in to your brother's wife, and perform the duty of a husband's brother to her, and raise up seed to your brother." Onan knew that the seed wouldn't be his; and it happened, when he went in to his brother's wife, that he spilled his seed on the ground, lest he should give seed to his brother. "Seed" refers to sperm.
Sonny Posted June 21, 2011 Posted June 21, 2011 According to Paul the gospel is, Rom 1:1 Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, set apart for the gospel of God, 2 which he promised before through his prophets in the holy Scriptures, 3 concerning his Son, who was born of the seed of David according to the flesh, 4 who was declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead, Jesus Christ our Lord, I've got to go with the Bible. It's clear, statement after statement, that Christ was born of the seed of David according to the flesh. The Holy Spirit mysteriously united or blended the Deity of Christ with our fallen humanity. How? The Bible doesn't say. It's probably too complicated for us to understand.
WayneV Posted June 21, 2011 Posted June 21, 2011 Sonny, Concerning Gal. 1:6-9: you know as well as I do that Paul spends the bulk of Galatians explaining why he stated such about "another Gospel", or more correctly a perversion of the Gospel. Some were requiring the gentile Christians to submit to the Jewish laws, particularly that of circumcision, in order to be saved. In other words, they were adding requirements to those that were mentioned in Romans 10:9. This is something that you yourself preach against in this forum. Is it not? So, it remains as simple as "confessing" and "believing". Now, when we add the requirement that you must believe a certain way regarding the human nature of Jesus, are we not preaching "another Gospel"? Concerning Rom. 1:1-4: There are two possibilities aside from the singular perspective you are using to interpret the passage. One of those possibilities is that Paul is simply pointing out that according to the world (flesh), Jesus would be seen as a descendant of David. The other possibility is illustrated by reading the same passage in the NASB, particularly v. 3; "concerning His Son, who was born of a descendant of David according to the flesh". This can be understood to mean that Jesus was born to parents who were descendants of David, which both Mary and Joseph were. And, let's face it, whether or not Mary's DNA was included as part of Jesus' conception, she did give birth to Him. In any case, there is no need to make this passage from Paul contradict 10:9 further on in Romans. Once again, it remains as simple as "confessing" and "believing". Why do we want to complicate the simplicity of the Gospel? Agape` WayneV Just remember these words of warning, for they will come to pass all too soon: If you are ever flying through the desert and your canoe breaks down, remember that it takes three pancakes to lift the doghouse, because there ain't nary a bone in ice cream!
Gustave Posted June 21, 2011 Posted June 21, 2011 The Holy Spirit mysteriously united OR blended the Deity of Christ with our fallen humanity. How? The Bible doesn't say. It's probably too complicated for us to understand. The theological problem incepts PRIOR to the false equivolency you made with "united" & "blended"... ...It starts with a horrific mutation of what God is. God is that essence, substance or Nature which is equally owned and intrinsically part of each Person of the Trinity... ...As such, what it is that makes the Father, Son & Holy Spirit "God" is NOT subject to being lost. ...Ellen White was explicit that Christ's diety COULD BE LOST and also that the Pre-Incarnate Christ. ...RISKED / Staked His "FUTURE" eternal existence on the conflict with Lucifer. In the SDA godhead rubric the Father ( or simply "God" ) was a "PERSONALITY"... ..."Personality" simply meaning that the Father ( God ) had a literal body. ...Therefore ONLY the Father was God in the ultimate sense. ...And as a natural result of the Father being the ONLY one who was naturally immortal. ...The Son of God COULD loose his conferred diety AND cease to exist permanently. In the SDA godhead rubric the Son of God was also a "Personality" as was Lucifer.... ...Both Lucifer and the Son of God COULD loose their conferred immortality. ...This is where the problem starts whereas "God" is concerned. In the SDA Incarnation the "conditional diety" of the Personality of Christ became flesh.... ...This conditional diety was required to continue to meet the conditions of it's diety. ...Or the diety ( which could not die ) would be stripped, leaving the subsequent helpless husk in a mortal state. Adam had sinless flesh w/out concupiscence and God Manifested Himself in the Person of the Son... ...In SINLESS flesh of a body that could get sick, hurt and die w/out Concupiscence. ...Christ went through trials of the body past that which we have been exposed to. ...When Scripture says there was NO SIN in Christ that also extends to His flesh. Because Ellen was Arian in theology she was forced to concoct a Christ which could both sin and ceast to exist HAD HE SINNED. In this rubric only a conferred diety to a pre-incarnate creature would be able to provide the sacrifice needed to "Vindicate the holy law of God".
Sonny Posted June 21, 2011 Posted June 21, 2011 Sonny,Concerning Gal. 1:6-9: you know as well as I do that Paul spends the bulk of Galatians explaining why he stated such about "another Gospel", or more correctly a perversion of the Gospel.
Sonny Posted June 21, 2011 Posted June 21, 2011 Q1) Why did Christ have to die the 2nd death as the last Adam?
WayneV Posted June 21, 2011 Posted June 21, 2011 So how did Christ do this? It's called the gospel! This is where we differ. I don't care "how". All that matters is "Who", and that He did it. I praise God for that, teach it, and preach it. You may be perfectly right in your understanding of "how". But, does it really matter? Because of our difference in focus, you spend a lot of your time arguing with our Christian brothers and sisters about "how". Wouldn't time, treasure, and talents, be better spent in sharing "Who" with those that don't know about Jesus or that don't know Him personally? Just askin' Agape` WayneV Just remember these words of warning, for they will come to pass all too soon: If you are ever flying through the desert and your canoe breaks down, remember that it takes three pancakes to lift the doghouse, because there ain't nary a bone in ice cream!
Gustave Posted June 21, 2011 Posted June 21, 2011 Sonny, Christ did NOT die the second death - this is simply more Arianism. Ellen White, 1T, 533.1 The Sabbath was made for the benefit of man; and to knowingly transgress the holy commandment forbidding labor upon the seventh day is a crime in the sight of heaven which was of such magnitude under the Mosaic law as to require the death of the offender. But this was not all that the offender was to suffer, for God would not take a transgressor of His law to heaven. He must suffer the second death, which is the full and final penalty for the transgressor of the law of God Youth Instructor, 1969, Volume 117 NO 52 The fact is, Jesus died the "second death," and thus tasted death for everyman." Hope of reward may have shone brightly in His human soul throughout the sunlit hours of His earthly life but during those hours of darkness on the cross hope fled Sabbath School quarterly study guide 2001 November 4 At the cross, Jesus died the "second death" (Rev. 20:14; 21:8). It couldn't have been the first death, because all of us, Christians or non-Christians, face that death. Nothing Jesus did atCalvary changes the fact that all of us will die or (as the Bible in numerous places says it) "sleep." Instead, to spare us the "second death"—the death by fire, the death that comes from God's righteous indignation over sin—Jesus hung on the cross, because He Himself, at the cross, suffered that second death in our stead Same Sabbath School study guide Questions for discussion 2. Discuss more this idea that Christ died the "second death" at the Cross. How does His dying that death offer us the chance to be spared it? General Conference of SDA, 1996 But in order for the covering to be provided the Lamb had to die. Jesus is not only the Good Shepherd who came looking for His sheep. He is not only represented by the woman looking for her coin. He is the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world. The death He suffered was not JUST the dying of the sick and aged around him - the natural death of infected flesh. IT WAS THE SECOND DEATH - the payment of blood that grants full justification...... The second death is classified as Hell from which there is no escape.... ...It's place in timing is subsequent to the General Judgment NOT prior to it. Revelation 21,8 But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which IS the second death The reasoning behind the SDA requirement that Christ die the second death stems from the SDA teaching on soul sleep.... ...Under this rubric God ( who is only the Father ) was wounded in the universe because Satan charged that God's law was unreasonable. ...Therefore God's law had to be "Vindicated" so Michael the archangel steaked his future eternal existence. ...That He would be able to Vindicate God's holy law. Because SDA theology requires that NOTHING remains after the death of the body... ...And God said that the wages of sin is death - than Christ was required to die the 2nd death. ...Otherwise God's holy law would not be vindicated.
miz3 Posted June 21, 2011 Posted June 21, 2011 Keep also in mind that the Trinity is neither male nor female. They are Spirit. So it wasn't anything to do with procreation. All we know is the Holy Spirit, who is God, mysteriously united Christ's Deity with the humanity from Mary's womb. It doesn't explain how the sperm was combined with Mary's egg or how the Holy Spirit united Christ's Deity to this egg & sperm. That's not for us to know apparently The Bible says nothing about uniting with Mary's humanity in any way! You are adding that to the Scripture.
Recommended Posts