miz3 Posted June 22, 2011 Posted June 22, 2011 But when Christians claim that because we are tempted (succesfully by Satan), based on what James said, then go on to claim that Jesus also was tempted the same way, then they are indeed saying what Miz3 has objections to. Consider this (incorrect) reasoning John317: 1. We are tempted because we have sin in us (James and Rom 7). 2. Christ was tempted the same way (Heb). 3. Therefore Christ had sin "in Him". This is the conclusion many Adventists come to and indeed teach. In fact some are so vocal as to say that if you do not agree with this you are teaching the doctrines of Anti-christ. But what Miz3 is objecting to, (as I understand it), is that this, what appears logical, path actually has some information missing and should actually be reasoned like this: 1. We are succesfully tempted because we have sin in us that has not been dealt with by God (James and Rom 7), we are powerless against it. 2. Christ was tempted by Satan externally, in all points, but Satan was unsuccesful. (Heb). 3. Christ had no sin "in Him" (1 John), nothing to respond to Satans suggestions. 4. Therefore Christ had a human body, but the lusts and desires of the flesh, were absent, He came with Adams pre-fallen moral and spiritual nature, but with Adams post fallen Body, but that body had no sinful propensities in it. 5. Christ was tempted exactly the same way Adam was tempted "pre-fall", but was disadvantaged in that He had a fallen human body that had been ravaged by millenia of sin. That I believe is the scriptural truth of the matter, it is the only answer where all the math adds up... Now I am not asking you to accept this, but just asking whether you understand the point I am making? :-) Which basically is this: Christ was spiritually tempted as Adam was Pre-fall. But He had a fully human body that was post fall. But that post fall body had no sin in it. You nailed it!
miz3 Posted June 22, 2011 Posted June 22, 2011 Both Romans 6:6, Romans 7:4 tells us that OUR OLD LIFE died when Christ died. That's clear. The question is from where did Christ receive our humanity? Answer: It had to be from the womb of Mary. Otherwise it makes no sense why Mary was involved. The Cross Sonny, the Cross!
Sonny Posted June 22, 2011 Posted June 22, 2011 Born of a woman indeed says that Jesus Christ was a human being. That is not in dispute. However, it does not say that Jesus Christ received any genetic material from any woman! Come on...that's crazy. Christ was a human, but He didn't get His humanity from Mary.
Sonny Posted June 22, 2011 Posted June 22, 2011 Have you never heard of skin, liver, stomach, muscles, etc. these are all parts of the human OUTER BODY (the physical). The "INNER NATURE" is what 1Corinthians chapter two calls the "spirit of the human"(it is something that is NOT PHYSICAL, because it is intangible). The spirit of man resides in the inner mind. That's where the Spirit resides upon belief in Christ. It's the inner mind. Christ assumed the whole man, yet His mind was born spiritually alive - meaning that our nature never controlled His mind.
Sonny Posted June 22, 2011 Posted June 22, 2011 Originally Posted By: Sonny Both Romans 6:6, Romans 7:4 tells us that OUR OLD LIFE died when Christ died. That's clear. The question is from where did Christ receive our humanity? Answer: It had to be from the womb of Mary. Otherwise it makes no sense why Mary was involved. The Cross Sonny, the Cross! No, that's where our humanity actually died in Christ. In order for our humanity to be in Christ at the cross it goes without saying He assumed us before the cross. That would be the incarnation. Proof: heb 10:5 Therefore when he comes into the world, he says, "Sacrifice and offering you didn't desire, But a body did you prepare for me Christ came into the world through the incarnation. The body He assumed was our body...our humanity. It's not that complicated, unless you go through all sorts of contortions to get around it.
Sonny Posted June 22, 2011 Posted June 22, 2011 He came with Adams pre-fallen moral and spiritual nature, but with Adams post fallen Body.... Sorry, I don't have a pre-fall nature although I do have a post fall body. What I received from Adam was a post-fall nature and a body that is mortal - hence a post-fall body. That's who Jesus came to save. Save us from what? "The curse of the law". You see when the law curses you, you go away forever. That's the 2nd death. No hope of a resurrection. So Christ came to save sinners from the law and not some weird conglomeration of post & pre-fall. He came to save sinners from under law, but Christ had to redeem us within the framework of the law. The law can't curse Christ because Christ isn't the sinner. The law says to you and me, well, let me quote Ellen White: "God’s law is the rule of His government. He says, “This do, and thou shalt live.” But to the disobedient He says, “Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things written in the book of the law to do them.” “The soul that sinneth, it shall die.” God has given the promise that those who obey His law will be rewarded, not only in the present life, but in the life to come. He declares just as decidedly that those who do not obey His requirements shall not see life, but the wrath of God abideth on them. By lips that never lie the obedient are blessed, and the disobedient are pronounced guilty." So the law can't curse Christ because He's not the sinner. The only way Christ could legally save the fallen race would be to work within the framework of His own law. If not, then Christ should have just done away with His law. So you guys are still presenting an unjust & therefore unethical gospel. In a nutshell it's silly and legalistic. Why legalistic? Because if Christ didn't work within the framework of His own law that justly condemns sinners then sinners, through their own diligent effort, must keep the law so they can redeem themselves.
miz3 Posted June 22, 2011 Posted June 22, 2011 Sonny, We have been all through this before. I have shown you where you are conclusively wrong. However, you are free to believe what Jack S. preaches even though in this case he is wrong. I will grant you that not all of your (Jack S.) position is wrong. As I said before, the only place in which you err is in mixing the Incarnation with the Cross in regard to where and when Jesus Christ received our sins. Unfortunately, that error is so big that it cannot be ignored! The True Gospel puts our sins on Jesus Christ at the Cross, ONLY!
Sonny Posted June 23, 2011 Posted June 23, 2011 Sonny, We have been all through this before. I have shown you where you are conclusively wrong.
Sonny Posted June 23, 2011 Posted June 23, 2011 The True Gospel puts our sins on Jesus Christ at the Cross, ONLY! You can't place sins on a person, even Christ. It's a metaphor. Let's say I covet something, or I hate my brother. These sins don't have substance...there's no matter. There's nothing you can place on a person. It's silly and unbelievers would think we're a bunch of nuts talking such nonsense.
miz3 Posted June 23, 2011 Posted June 23, 2011 You can't place sins on a person, even Christ. It's a metaphor. Let's say I covet something, or I hate my brother. These sins don't have substance...there's no matter. There's nothing you can place on a person. It's silly and unbelievers would think we're a bunch of nuts talking such nonsense. Yes you can and God did that. Whether want sins to be intangible or tangible makes no difference. God indeed placed our sin on Jesus Christ. Paul says so and we have conclusively shown that throughout this discussion. Go back and look. Apparently you have it wrong Sonny, I am the one preaching what Paul preached and you do not. 1. Paul preached that God placed our sin on Jesus at the Cross. 2. Paul DID NOT PREACH that God placed sin on Jesus at the Incarnation. 3. It is the Cross. The Cross and only the Cross is the Central Message of the Gospel. 4. The Incarnation is NOT the central point of the gospel. NO METAPHOR! JUST STRAIGHT UP FACT!
Members phkrause Posted June 23, 2011 Members Posted June 23, 2011 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` phkrause When the righteous are in authority, the people rejoice; But when a wicked man rules, the people groan. Proverbs 29;2
WayneV Posted June 23, 2011 Posted June 23, 2011 Thanks PK. However, it seems from the continued debate that few were in agreement. 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 23, 2011 Posted June 23, 2011 OK, Sonny. You are free to deal in metaphors. As for me I deal only in Biblical FACT!
Moderators John317 Posted June 23, 2011 Author Moderators Posted June 23, 2011 Originally Posted By: John317 Does Ellen White teach that Jesus had lusts of the flesh? No. Neither am I. Jesus did not have the same passions that sinners have, because Jesus never sinned. We know that He was tempted - severely at that - by our human nature, but He didn't even respond to it by a thought. That last part is EGW paraphrased. Exactly. And praise God for that, because if He had responded to the temptations, we would all be doomed to eternal death. John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.
Moderators John317 Posted June 23, 2011 Author Moderators Posted June 23, 2011 ...Both Romans 6:6, Romans 7:4 tells us that OUR OLD LIFE died when Christ died. That's clear. The question is from where did Christ receive our humanity? Answer: It had to be from the womb of Mary. Otherwise it makes no sense why Mary was involved. Excellent point. If Jesus didn't receive humanity from Mary, why didn't God simply place Jesus on this earth apart from being in Mary's womb? He could easily have done so if He had wanted to. But the Bible distinctly and clearly teaches that the Messiah would be from the body of King David. That is obviously speaking of more than legal descent from David. The only way God could fulfill this promise to David is by placing the embryo in the uterus of a woman who was a descendant of David. That is clearly what the NT shows God did. John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.
Moderators John317 Posted June 23, 2011 Author Moderators Posted June 23, 2011 I agree with this post, Gustave. :-) John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.
Sonny Posted June 23, 2011 Posted June 23, 2011 OK, Sonny. You are free to deal in metaphors. As for me I deal only in Biblical FACT! You are impossible. It's like a game to you.....You twist...you distort and now you are telling me that I'm dealing in Metaphors when it's you. I think all you want to do is win an argument no matter what it takes....
Sonny Posted June 23, 2011 Posted June 23, 2011 Originally Posted By: Sonny ...Both Romans 6:6, Romans 7:4 tells us that OUR OLD LIFE died when Christ died. That's clear. The question is from where did Christ receive our humanity? Answer: It had to be from the womb of Mary. Otherwise it makes no sense why Mary was involved. Excellent point. If Jesus didn't receive humanity from Mary, why didn't God simply place Jesus on this earth apart from being in Mary's womb? He could easily have done so if He had wanted to. But the Bible distinctly and clearly teaches that the Messiah would be from the body of King David. That is obviously speaking of more than legal descent from David. Right....
Moderators John317 Posted June 23, 2011 Author Moderators Posted June 23, 2011 You have quoted an awful lot of material from Scripture about Jesus Christ being a descendent. However none of those texts state that Jesus Christ was a descendent in the sense that Jesus received their genetic material. Jesus Christ was the LEGAL DESCENDENT of all those you have named. Jesus Christ was NOT A GENETIC DESCENDENT of any human being. Can you deal with God's promise-- which God swore never to turn back from-- that the Messiah would be from the body of King David? Please discuss this. It is very clear from all the verses that I quoted that much more is involved than Christ's being a legal descendent. If that were the case, Romans 1: 3 wouldn't say that the human nature of the God-man was "born of the seed of David." If you don't believe Jesus was related to human beings through His mother Mary, where do you believe Jesus received His human nature? And if Jesus couldn't recieve any DNA from Mary, why did God go to all the trouble of putting the fetus into Mary's womb? An angel could simply have given Mary a baby instead of having her carry a developing fetus for nine months. John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.
Moderators John317 Posted June 23, 2011 Author Moderators Posted June 23, 2011 1) "And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and HER SEED [the Messiah]; He [Eve's seed] shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise His [Eve's seed] heel." Gen. 3: 15 Originally Posted By: miz3 NO! NO! NO! God was speaking to Adam You sure about that? Wanna take a second look? Go back and re-read the passage of Scripture. Verse 14 says plainly God spoke these words to the serpent (i.e., Satan). Of course Adam and Eve were listening, so it was also for them. It was a promise that one day a descendant of Eve would be victorious over the Serpent, or Satan. John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.
Moderators John317 Posted June 23, 2011 Author Moderators Posted June 23, 2011 Originally Posted By: John317 11) "Now to Abraham and his Seed were the promises made. He does not say, 'And to seeds,' as of many, but as of one,'And to your Seed,' who is Christ." Gal. 3: 16. (Compare 3: 19) Notice that the word "seed" in the above is the Greek word "sperma," i.e., sperm. The Messiah was to come from Abraham's sperm, or literal descendants. As Gen.: 15 and Ps. 132: 11 teach, the Messiah would come out of the woman (Eve) and out of the body of David. You are a good Bible Student. As such you ought to know that when Paul talks about "seed" in reference to Abraham, Paul is speaking Spiritually. In other words, Paul is saying that the link between Abraham and those who belong to Abraham's family as descendants are the "Spiritual Children" of Abraham. Paul says that the being a blood descendent is worthless. When in Galatians 3: 16 the apostle Paul speaks of "seed" (singular) in reference to Christ, he's talking about Christ being a literal descendent of Abraham, not a spiritual descendent. Believers become Abraham's "seed" through faith by their connection to Christ. Gal. 3: 29. We are indeed spiritual "seed," but Christ is literally of the "seed of Abraham." Similarly, Romans 3: 1 says that as to his human nature, Christ was of the seed of David. Paul is certainly NOT saying that Christ was of the spiritual seed of David. Christ is a literal descendent of David. As God Himself promised and swore to David, the Messiah was to come out of David's body. There is only one way that could happen: the fetus that was Jesus would have to be placed in the uterus of a female descendent of David. That is exactly what happened to the virgin Mary. Gal. 4: 4 makes that point plainly: Christ was "born of a woman," which means Christ was a real human. Concomitantly, Jesus was the real, literal heir of God (if there ever was one!), and believers become the spiritual heirs through faith in the literal heir, Jesus. I'm sure you can see how it wouldn't do to make Christ a spiritual heir, any more than it would be to make Christ a spiritual seed. The vocabularly used-- particularly when it comes to God's promise to David that the Messiah was to come out of David's body--- shows without doubt that it's referring to a literal descendent of David and Abraham. Finally, please notice that this verse has no connection with Gen. 3: 15. Paul's discussion does not involve the "seed of the woman." It must be obvious to any but the most superficial reader of that verse that it has reference to Christ as the descendent of Eve, for only Christ defeated and destroyed (or will destroy) the serpant, the Devil. The Church never did defeat Satan, and therefore the "woman" and the woman's seed cannot have reference to the church. John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.
Bill Cork Posted June 23, 2011 Posted June 23, 2011 "Jesus Christ was NOT A GENETIC DESCENDENT of any human being." That's something that you would have to prove from an explicit statement of Scripture. Hebrews 2:14 seems pretty clear to me: "Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same." Not a different flesh and blood, but the same flesh and blood. And Ellen White makes the same point, "Like every child of Adam He accepted the results of the working of the great law of heredity. What these results were is shown in the history of His earthly ancestors. He came with such a heredity." Can't have heredity without genetics.
miz3 Posted June 23, 2011 Posted June 23, 2011 Excellent point. If Jesus didn't receive humanity from Mary, why didn't God simply place Jesus on this earth apart from being in Mary's womb? He could easily have done so if He had wanted to. But the Bible distinctly and clearly teaches that the Messiah would be from the body of King David. That is obviously speaking of more than legal descent from David. The Bible does not teach that Jesus Christ came genetically from David. 1. The stated genealogy in the Bible is about Joseph and that his sperm was not used. Luke chapter three. 2. If God had wanted to show a genetic connection with Mary then the Bible would have given her genealogy also. The Bible does not give such a genealogy. In fact the Bible purposefully leaves out Mary's genealogy. On such a critical point Luke would have done so to demonstrate the genetic link. The omission of her genealogy speaks volumes as to her lack of genetic connection to Jesus Christ. The Bible did not overlook anything! However, the Bible uses Joseph's genealogy to actually EMPHASIZE THE FACT: NO GENETIC MATERIAL WAS USED AT ALL!
miz3 Posted June 23, 2011 Posted June 23, 2011 I think all you want to do is win an argument no matter what it takes.... I believe you are describing yourself!
Recommended Posts