"In Christ" - the gospel explained

[Guest]

He does have a point there Sonny.

[Twilight II]

Originally Posted By: miz3

The text is correct because it says that God "laid" on Jesus Christ our sins. It did not say that God "infused" our nature into Jesus Christ.

Heb 2:16,17 For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the nature of Abraham. Therefore in all things he had to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people.

Why do you keep ignoring these texts miz3? It proves that what you are saying here is wrong.

My own view (I cannot speak for miz3 here), is that this is referring to Christ taking on a post fallen human body, with all its inherent weaknesses.

[Guest]

It doesn't say body, it says nature. Big difference. And Ellen White agrees:

It would have been an almost infinite humiliation for the Son of God to take man’s nature, even when Adam stood in his innocence in Eden. But Jesus accepted humanity when the race had been weakened by four thousand years of sin. 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 to share our sorrows and temptations, and to give us the example of a sinless life. {CSA 6.7}

[Sonny]

Sonny,

The Bible is not using a metaphor in Isaiah 53:6.

Really? So the next time you get a speeding ticket and it comes time for you to go to court and pay it, just ask the judge to lay this sin on you.

So yes, Is 53:6 is using a metaphor. This metaphor points to a truth. The truth is "you died to the law in the body of Christ".

[Sonny]

Originally Posted By: Sonny

miz3, did your life die "in Christ"?

YES! ON THE CROSS ONLY!

Of course your life died on the cross, but the big question is when did Christ, as the Son of God, assume your humanity that stood condemned?

[Sonny]

By their fruits you shall know them Sonny.

If you really want to present what you have as the truth, then you must have the spirit that comes with the truth.

Otherwise no-one will ever accept what you have to say, because they will not be able to see beyond the incorrect attitude.

Mark :-)

If you want to use this as an excuse to turn your ears from truth, be my guest....IT's not about me, or my rough edges, it's about the gospel.

[Musicman1228]

Originally Posted By: miz3

You have no Biblical support for your Incarnation theory.

That statement is untrue. Both John and I have given overwhelming proof that Christ, as the Son of Man, was a descendent of Abraham. You chose to ignore it.

Your father Abraham rejoiced that he would see my day. He saw it and was glad.”   (57) So the Jews said to him, “You are not yet fifty years old, and have you seen Abraham?”   (58) Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am.” John 8:56-58.

Jesus, as God, came before Abraham, and also came after him in human form. Not as a descendent but as THE Son of God configured as the son of man-meaning 'in human form'.

Jesus as the Son of God had to have TWO parents both of whom were God. This is shown in the following text:

And the angel answered her, “The Holy Spirit [1] will come upon you, and the power of the Most High [2] will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be called holy—the Son of God.  Luke 1:35.

The only way for Mary to have been involved in the conception of Jesus would be if God the Father had impregnated her. The ONLY way this would/could have happened is if God the Father had married Mary, otherwise Jesus would truly have been a bastard/illegitimate child, and the Pharisee's would have been correct in their accusation that Jesus was just that.

It is clear that God the Father already had a wife in the form of the Holy Spirit (ref. Rev.12) and therefore would have been illegal in 'having sexual relations' with Mary in order to produce a son. (Unlike Abraham having illicit sexual relations with Haggar to produce an illegitimate heir to the promise.)

As it is God the Father and the Holy Spirit (God the Mother) got together and produced the human genetic material (DNA) that was placed in Mary's womb as a surrogate mother, and nine months later she gave birth to a fully human baby boy that was in every way both God and man. This is why Jesus was named the Son of God AT HIS BIRTH.

A not so minor point:

Paul said that Jesus was conceived in the 'natural' way as a descendent of David, meaning normal sexual relations between Joseph and Mary, and was declared to be the 'son of God' AT THE RESURRECTION FROM THE DEAD and not from His birth. Just another proof that Paul is not sent from the God of Creation.

. . . concerning his Son, who was descended from David according to the flesh   (4) and was declared to be the Son of God in power according to the Spirit of holiness by his resurrection from the dead, Jesus Christ our Lord, (Rom. 1:3-4).

[Sonny]

I see no reason to call this a metaphor whatsoever.

"The LORD hath laid on Him the iniquity of us all"

Laid: simple past tense and past participle of lay

Lay: to put or place in a horizontal position or position of rest; set down

Sins are acts and thoughts. They aren't items that have mass that you can lay on a person. It's a metaphor.

[Sonny]

Jesus, as God, came before Abraham, and also came after him in human form. Not as a descendent but as THE Son of God configured as the son of man-meaning 'in human form'.

So God is playing pretend? He didn't really place you into Christ at the incarnation and therefore you really didn't die in the body of Christ? God's joking, right?

If your humanity didn't die "in Christ" then you are still under law. Do you know what the law says to those who are under it?

Gal 3:10 "Cursed is everyone who does not continue to do everything written in the Book of the Law."

If you've sinned, and "all have sinned" - then you've had it. Your choice. You can accept the gospel where you died to the law in the humanity of Christ, or you can present your righteousness before the law and try to redeem yourself. Of course that last part isn't the gospel - it's what Paul calls "another gospel"!

[Sonny]

The only way for Mary to have been involved in the conception of Jesus would be if God the Father had impregnated her. The ONLY way this would/could have happened is if God the Father had married Mary, otherwise Jesus would truly have been a bastard/illegitimate child, and the Pharisee's would have been correct in their accusation that Jesus was just that.

Oh stop it....Stop thinking you know everything about the incarnation and can speak for God. It's a mystery how God, through the Spirit, united Christ with our fallen life from Adam in the womb of Mary.

First of all God is Spirit. He doesn't procreate. He is neither male or female, but I'm not going to call Him "it" because that sounds disrespectful. God can create, but He Himself doesn't procreation. So no marriage needed.

Somehow God took the divine life of Christ, which is Spirit, and united that with our life from Mary. Since we all share one life, the fallen life of Adam, Mary's humanity is our humanity.

[Twilight II]

It doesn't say body, it says nature. Big difference. And Ellen White agrees:

It would have been an almost infinite humiliation for the Son of God to take man’s nature, even when Adam stood in his innocence in Eden. But Jesus accepted humanity when the race had been weakened by four thousand years of sin. 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 to share our sorrows and temptations, and to give us the example of a sinless life. {CSA 6.7}

But what does Ellen White mean when she uses the term "nature"?

Does she use it the way many assume, that it included sin in the flesh as outlined by Paul?

Consider this clear counsel:

Do not set Him before the people as a man with the propensities of sin. He is the second Adam. The first Adam was created a pure, sinless being, without a taint of sin upon him; he was in the image of God. He could fall, and he did fall through transgressing. Because of sin his posterity was born with inherent propensities of disobedience. But Jesus Christ was the only begotten Son of God. He took upon Himself human nature, and was tempted in all points as human nature is tempted. He could have sinned; He could have fallen, but not for one moment was there in Him an evil propensity. He was assailed with temptations in the wilderness, as Adam was assailed with temptations in Eden. {5BC 1128.4}

Notice the nature of temptation that Christ suffered.

He suffered "pre-fall" temptation:

He was assailed with temptations in the wilderness, as Adam was assailed with temptations in Eden.

Whereas James discusses "post-fall" temptation that we experience.

Also note that:

not for one moment was there in Him an evil propensity

How did Ellen White use the term propensity, what did she link it to:

We need not retain one sinful propensity.... As we partake of the divine nature, hereditary and cultivated tendencies to wrong are cut away from the character,

So hereditary and cultivated tendencies to wrong are "propensities" in Ellen Whites writings.

So she is saying that Christ did not have "sin" in him, as John stated in the bible.

He did not "inherit" sinful propensities.

So Christ, was clothed with a post fallen nature or "body", but that "body" had no sin in it.

This is my understanding and I have yet to find one argument that is biblical to actually reject it. :-)

[Sonny]

Do not set Him [Christ] before the people as a man with the propensities of sin. ....but not for one moment was there in Him an evil propensity.

We need not retain one sinful propensity.

Okay, she explains herself. Ellen White is saying we don't have to sin. While I don't want get into that debate I will say that the Holy Spirit can defeat indwelling sin, but we would be the last to think we are living without sin.

The point here is EGW is stating that "We need not retain one sinful propensity". It can't mean nature, for as long as life shall last we will have "sin in the flesh" - i.e., our bent to self. If not then you could claim holy flesh.

Conclusion: Having "an evil propensity" means sinning. Christ never sinned, yet He had to deal with our bent to self, indwelling sin.

[Gerr]

It's a metaphor!!!! Come on!!!

If the laying of our iniquity on Christ is a metaphor, what then is being "in Christ?"

[Musicman1228]

Originally Posted By: Musicman1228

The only way for Mary to have been involved in the conception of Jesus would be if God the Father had impregnated her. The ONLY way this would/could have happened is if God the Father had married Mary, otherwise Jesus would truly have been a bastard/illegitimate child, and the Pharisee's would have been correct in their accusation that Jesus was just that.

Oh stop it....Stop thinking you know everything about the incarnation and can speak for God. It's a mystery how God, through the Spirit, united Christ with our fallen life from Adam in the womb of Mary.

First of all God is Spirit. He doesn't procreate. He is neither male or female, but I'm not going to call Him "it" because that sounds disrespectful. God can create, but He Himself doesn't procreation. So no marriage needed.

Somehow God took the divine life of Christ, which is Spirit, and united that with our life from Mary. Since we all share one life, the fallen life of Adam, Mary's humanity is our humanity.

Sonny, I don't often stoop to this but in your case I will make an exception based on your 'propensity' toward ridicule and distain; you are acting like a fool (I did not call you a fool, I said you are acting like one) when you imply that I don't have the right to express my opinion about the incarnation or any other subject we discuss here on this forum. I have never said that you or anyone must believe what I say or you will not be saved. All I am doing is letting you know what I have learned over the last 15 years of intense Bible study; what you do with it is up to you.

That being said here is my response to your attempt at demeaning me and my positions: You said that it is a mystery TO YOU as to how God united us to Christ in Mary's womb. That sentence by itself is ludicrous, and show a distinct lack of understanding. But wait, you did say you don't understand. What you implied is that because you don't understand that NO ONE can understand; this is a fallacy based in hubris. I DO understand.

Of course God procreates; He is a spirit therefore He procreates spirit. Please read carefully John 3:1-21 and Rev. 12. Who is it that gives new birth to the remnant? The same God that gave birth to Jesus Christ, the Woman, the Holy Spirit (Rev.12:17). Human birth requires conception between a mother and a father, just as spirit birth requires 'conception' between God the Father and the Holy Spirit (Mother).

If God does not procreate the WHERE DID ADAM COME FROM? Who was his mother and father? Did not God the Father and the Holy Spirit supply the DNA which created Adam (Gen. 2:7), without the physical presence of a human female? And did not this same Father and Mother give birth in spirit to Jesus Christ (the 2nd Adam), just as Mary gave birth to His physical form?

Read again Gen. 1:26-27 and then tell me that God does not contain BOTH masculine and Feminine characteristics, just as the Image of God, human beings, contains both male and female beings. if marriages are made in Heaven then what part of Heaven are they made in? Does the Godhead represent a 'family'. If so, what type? I suppose you believe that the relationship between the Godhead is homosexual in nature - with God the Father (male), God the Son (male), and God the Holy Spirit (also Male). This is also ridiculous, and demonstrate a misogeny that would make Paul proud.

Was Mary sinful? Of course she was, even this I am sure you will not deny. Does God have sin in Him/Them? Of course not. So please tell me how would God who is sinless be able to combine Their sinless nature with that of a sinful woman which would create the Son of God?. This is impossible as neither God the Father, the Holy Spirit, or the Son has any sin in them. if they did then they could not be God. The only reason why jesus came up from the grave is because He was sinless (innocent of sin/blameless) when He went into the grave. If Mary had anything to do with His genetic material then jesus would have had sin in Him at His death and could not have been resurrected.

Please give this some additional thought before you chastise me or anyone else for simply disagreeing with you.

[Sonny]

what then is being "in Christ?"

Good question. Well, it's a phrase, I wouldn't call it a metaphor, but I could see some calling it this.

Please read the following. I think I will help you to understand what it means:

read me

[John317]

...A not so minor point:

Paul said that Jesus was conceived in the 'natural' way as a descendent of David, meaning normal sexual relations between Joseph and Mary, and was declared to be the 'son of God' AT THE RESURRECTION FROM THE DEAD and not from His birth. Just another proof that Paul is not sent from the God of Creation.

. . . concerning his Son, who was descended from David according to the flesh   (4) and was declared to be the Son of God in power according to the Spirit of holiness by his resurrection from the dead, Jesus Christ our Lord, (Rom. 1:3-4).

This is yet another example of misunderstanding of Paul's message.

Paul's statement in Romans 1: 3 that Christ was a descendent of David doesn't necessitate sexual relations between Joseph and Mary in order to conceive Jesus. All that is necessary is for Jesus to obtain his human inheritance from his mother, Mary.

And the word "declared to be" [Gk horizo, Strongs #3724] simply means "to set forth distinctly," "to characterize with precision." So in the case of Romans 1: 4, it is saying that Christ's resurrection proved or demonstrated beyond all doubt that Christ is the Son of God. Before that, there had been some doubt in people's minds, but after Christ's resurrection and appearances, there was no question of who He is.

[Sonny]

If God does not procreate then WHERE DID ADAM COME FROM?

[John317]

...

As it is God the Father and the Holy Spirit (God the Mother) got together and produced the human genetic material (DNA) that was placed in Mary's womb as a surrogate mother, and nine months later she gave birth to a fully human baby boy that was in every way both God and man. This is why Jesus was named the Son of God AT HIS BIRTH.

There is no "God the Mother". Besides, your theory contradicts the Bible testimony that the Messiah would be "of the fruit of David's body" and a descendent of Adam and Eve and of Abraham. The Bible teaches that Christ received the human nature of His mother. It is the only way in which Christ can be "our elder Brother." Jesus shares our humanity-- not the humanity of unfallen Adam. Heb. 2: 14. He was made like his brothers in every way in order to help Abraham's descendents. Heb. 2: 16, 17. He is one of us. He could not be one of us if He didn't inherit anything human from other human beings.

The Bible is clear on this and so is the Spirit of prophecy, but since you have rejected the SOP, you appear to be wandering off into your own theories.

[Sonny]

There is no "God the Mother".

Bingo!

[John317]

..

Of course God procreates; He is a spirit therefore He procreates spirit. Please read carefully John 3:1-21 and Rev. 12. Who is it that gives new birth to the remnant? The same God that gave birth to Jesus Christ, the Woman, the Holy Spirit (Rev.12:17). Human birth requires conception between a mother and a father, just as spirit birth requires 'conception' between God the Father and the Holy Spirit (Mother).

If God does not procreate the WHERE DID ADAM COME FROM?

God creates. That is different from procreating. Procreating means to beget or produce or conceive offspring. To my knowledge God has never produced offspring in the sense of procreation. God made Adam by forming him from the soil and then breathing into him the breath of life and Adam became a living person.

God's way of creating humans has nothing whatever to do with the human way of reproducing through sex.

[Sonny]

[miz3]

Quote:

Originally Posted By: RLH

Quote:

Originally Posted By: miz3

The text is correct because it says that God "laid" on Jesus Christ our sins. It did not say that God "infused" our nature into Jesus Christ

.

Heb 2:16,17 For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the nature of Abraham. Therefore in all things he had to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people.

Why do you keep ignoring these texts miz3? It proves that what you are saying here is wrong.

My own view (I cannot speak for miz3 here), is that this is referring to Christ taking on a post fallen human body, with all its inherent weaknesses.

In this case my own view is the same as the view expressed by Twilight!

[miz3]

So yes, Is 53:6 is using a metaphor.

See Twilight's response to this metaphor business you keep hiding behind.

Twilight is correct that when you have no fact answer you hide behind it by calling it a metaphor.

[miz3]

Of course your life died on the cross, but the big question is when did Christ, as the Son of God, assume your humanity that stood condemned?

Again Sonny:

ON THE CROSS AND ONLY ON THE CROSS!

[Musicman1228]

It is evident that neither Sonny or John317 read what I wrote or even made an honest effort to understand it.

If you say there is no Mother God then there is also no Father God. I am not the one that said that God made mankind in His image, male AND FEMALE made He them (Gen. 1:26-27), God Themselves said that.

John, either Jesus was the Passover Lamb or He wasn't. If He was then there is no possible way for Him to have ANY sin of ANY kind in Him or on Him because the Passover Lamb had to be perfect, spotless, and blameless. What is so difficult about this understanding? The weight of sin did not kill Jesus, nor did the Jews, nor did the cross - Jesus was executed by His Father (as Abraham was to execute Isaac), to pay the penalty of disobedience of the Kingdom of Heaven (not of the world).

Jesus Christ either is the Son of God or He isn't. If He is then as God He does not have sin anywhere in Him or around Him (Matt.5:48, John 17:21). There is NO SIN allowed in Heaven, which is why Michael cast Satan and his evil angels off of Heaven to the earth (Rev.12:7-9), where they have been wreaking havoc on humanity. As God, Jesus could not sin, it is impossible. If He could potentially sin then He could not be God. It is a lie that Jesus took on sinful human nature when He was born of Mary. Again, if this was the case then He could not have fulfilled His role as the Passover Lamb. Ergo, He did fulfill His duty as Passover Lamb therefore He did not have any sin in His human nature (Rev.5:9-10).

Our goal as human beings and servants of Jesus Christ is to develop a nature just like His nature; e.g. become sinless and righteous as is He (John 17:19). This is the purpose of the process of sanctification, which when entered and then guided by the Holy Spirit, we learn to overcome sin as did He (John 17:17). This overcoming is expressed in our obedience to the Covenant of the Kingdom of Heaven (Deut. 4:13). It is only then that the sacrifice that Jesus made on the cross pays the penalty for that sin of disobedience, wherein we gain the RIGHT to eternal life (Rev. 3:21).

This is the gospel of the Kingdom of Heaven which Jesus said will be preached in all the world as a testimony to all nations, and THEN the end will come (Matt. 24:14). Part of the reason we are still here on this evil old world is that we have been preaching the wrong gospel for centuries.