"In Christ" - the gospel explained

[Aliensanctuary]

In order for a proper resurrection to occur, there must be a record of the thoughts and actions of an individual, plus, a genetic record connected to the memories of an individual. If this were not true, it may be possible for an individual to be resurrected and downloaded with the wrong memories. The Spirit of God is responsible for the resurrection/re-incarnation of the dead, among other things.

The genealogies of Jesus Messiah in the NT list both Joseph's and Mary's line of descent, more or less. If he were only a step-child, or adopted, he would be unrelated genetically, and these genealogies would be meaningless.

If the HS merged the genetic data, or genetic material, of both Joseph and Mary, and maybe even David, to create an artificial conception within the body of Mary, then the records of descent would be true. If the HS was ultimately responsible for the healings and "miracles" that Jesus "performed", it would not be a difficult matter for God to create a life-form in-utero using the power of the HS.

I suspect something may have been altered to enable Jesus to communicate with his Father from the Sky, YHVH. Compared to him, we are all deaf, dumb, and blind.

Adam, too, is listed as a son of God (Luke 3:38), but he was not born of a woman. Thus, Jesus was the only human-born (only begotten) son of God, not necessarily the only son of God. Perhaps Jesus, the son of David, is only an expression, perhaps it is really true.

[miz3]

The genealogies of Jesus Messiah in the NT list both Joseph's and Mary's line of descent, more or less. If he were only a step-child, or adopted, he would be unrelated genetically, and these genealogies would be meaningless.

1. Only Joseph's genealogy is listed. Luke chapter three.

2. There is no genealogy listed for Mary.

3. He was unrelated genetically to Joseph because his sperm was not used! However, Jesus was related to Joseph "LEGALLY"!

4. Thus, I guess you disagree with Luke concerning the genealogy of Joseph. Luke thought such a genealogy was meaningFUL!

5. According to Matthew the chapter one only the Holy Spirit was involved in the Incarnation.

Those are the straight up facts!

[miz3]

Quote:

"Every year his parents went to Jerusalem for the Feast of the Passover. 42 When he was twelve years old, they went up to the Feast, according to the custom. 43 After the Feast was over, while his parents were returning home, the boy Jesus stayed behind in Jerusalem, but they were unaware of it. 44 Thinking he was in their company, they traveled on for a day. Then they began looking for him among their relatives and friends. 45 When they did not find him, they went back to Jerusalem to look for him. 46 After three days they found him in the temple courts, sitting among the teachers, listening to them and asking them questions. 47 Everyone who heard him was amazed at his understanding and his answers. 48 When his parents saw him, they were astonished. His mother said to him, “Son, why have you treated us like this? Your father and I have been anxiously searching for you.”

49 “Why were you searching for me?” he asked. “Didn’t you know I had to be in my Father’s house?” 50 But they did not understand what he was saying to them.

51 Then he went down to Nazareth with them and was obedient to them. But his mother treasured all these things in her heart. 52 And Jesus grew in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and men."

Luke 2:41-52.

1. Notice the underlined parts above from Luke chapter two. It appears that even though Joseph contributed "no sperm", Joseph was considered by the Bible, also by Jesus Christ Himself and Christ's human contemporaries as the father of Jesus Christ!

2. The Bible also states that Mary also did not contribute any genetic material either. (See Matthew chapter One----She was the incubator for what the Holy Spirit conceived). Mary too just like Joseph was considered by the Bible, human contemporaries and Jesus Christ Himself as the mother of Jesus Christ.

3. Jesus Christ was "obedient to them" also means although they contributed no genetic material to Jesus Christ, He still considered them as His earthly parents and treated them as such.

It was "legal"! You can belong to a family and have ancestors without receiving any "genetic" material. It happens all the time. It also happened in the Life of Jesus Christ on earth. Thus, Jesus Christ was the "LEGAL" SON of both Joseph and Mary! Certainly, Luke states that this is so!

LEGAL NOT GENETIC!

4. The part in Blue above states clearly that Jesus Christ KNEW THAT GOD WAS HIS FATHER!

The Bible does not say when this knowledge was acquired. It also does not say that this knowledge that God was Jesus Christ's Father gradually dawned on Him. In fact the Bible is SILENT ON THIS FACT!

Thus, any expressions that would assert that this knowledge came on Jesus Christ "gradually" would be an assertion NOT SUPPORTED BY THE SCRIPTURES!

Also, any assertions that this knowledge was known only when Jesus Christ came to Jerusalem at twelve years old is also NOT SUPPORTED BY THE SCRIPTURE!

[John317]

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.

The title "Father" for God is not literal any more than the title "Son of God." It's amazing how many people are confused about this. Son of God= order of God. It's not intended to refer to the beginning of Christ's existence or point to how He came out of the Father's being. Neither does "Father" refer to all aspects of Fatherhood. All metaphors break down if pushed beyond what they are intended to represent or teach us. Stories of male and female gods having sex and producing babies are common among some societies. But we Christians should have nothing to do with such immoral myths and fictions, and we certainly ought not to be a part of those who construct such pagan teachings about out of their imaginings.

The fact that there are male and female humans doesn't mean that there's a male and female God. If we follow that reasoning-- as certain peoples have-- we will decide that the gods are like people in many other ways, including the practice of homosexuality or bisexuality. God making mankind as male and female in His image simply means that God has both male and female (non-sexual) characteristics, which is why it takes both male and female together to constitute mankind. Neither man by himself nor woman by herself is in the full image of God. The full image of God is best represented in husband and wife together as one flesh. Why is that? It is because God intends the husband and wife to love each other-- and to be in relationship with one another-- in a way that is similar to the loving relationship between the 3 persons of the Godhead.

Two men together or two women together constitute counterfeit images of God. God didn't make the male to submit to another male, nor did He intend for females to be united to other females. Such relationship are outside the will of God because they pervert the image of God in mankind and do spiritual and psychological harm to the individuals who participate in them.

[John317]

The genealogies of Jesus Messiah in the NT list both Joseph's and Mary's line of descent, more or less. If he were only a step-child, or adopted, he would be unrelated genetically, and these genealogies would be meaningless.

Yes, I agree. They are actually proof that Jesus of Nazareth was the Messiah. If it could be proved that Jesus of Nazareth was descended from King Saul, it would certainly prove that He wasn't the fulfillment of biblical prophecy about the coming Messiah. It is very likely that Mary and Joseph were distant relatives, belonging to the same tribe, something that occurs often in the Mideast cultures.

[Sonny]

Originally Posted By: Sonny

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!

The cross answers only the justice of God's law. Christ's life answered the other half.

Rom 5:10 For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, much more, having been reconciled, we shall be saved by His life (i.e., not only His death).

[John317]

Perhaps Jesus, the son of David, is only an expression, perhaps it is really true.

The Bible distinctly says that God made a solemn promise to David that the Messiah would be from David's body, that is, a descendent of the king. Why would "the Son of David" be only an expression? What would it convey if we said that Christ was a descentant of David when He really was not? Couldn't we just as well say that the statement that the Messiah would be from the tribe of Judah is only an expression? Or how about the verse that says He would be born of a virgin? Or the one that says He would be born in Bethlehem of Judea?

It is actually far more likely that these characteristics of the Messiah was God's way of making sure Satan could not successfuly counterfeit the coming of the Messiah. Remember that Daniel 9: 24-27 actually gives us the very year when the Messiah would appear. Jesus' death took place the very hour and on the very day that the Scriptures prophecied it would occur hundreds of years ahead of time. God's true Messiah would have to fulfill all of those marks of identity, something that would be absolutely impossible to counterfeit.

Adam and Eve heard God say that a descendent of Eve would eventually defeat the serpent (Satan), and we see in Luke that Christ's genealogy is traced all the way back to Eve, through David and Abraham and Noah. The only reason anyone has to doubt that these things are literal is that they don't want to believe them.

[John317]

He was unrelated genetically to Joseph because his sperm was not used! However, Jesus was related to Joseph "LEGALLY"!

Originally Posted By: miz3

5. According to Matthew the chapter one only the Holy Spirit was involved in the Incarnation.

Those are the straight up facts!

We know two facts:

1) Jesus was a descendent of David; as God promised, "from [fruit of] the body of David." Notice that God made this promise with an oath. Are we to believe that God did not fulfill His promise to David?

2) Mary became pregnant as a result of the Holy Spirit. What was conceived in her was "out of," "from" or "through" (Gk ek) the Holy Spirit. Matt. 1: 18, 21.

Significantly, Mary's cousin Elizabeth refers to Jesus as "the fruit [Gk. karpos] of Mary's womb" (Luke 1:43). Since Mary is a descendent of David, her baby would quite naturally be of the fruit of David's body.

[Sonny]

Significantly, Mary's cousin Elizabeth refers to Jesus as "the fruit [Gk. karpos] of Mary's womb" (Luke 1:43). Since Mary is a descendent of David, her baby would quite naturally be of the fruit of David's body.

Excellent!

[John317]

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?

I have never said that Christ had sin in Him or on Him. Christ was perfect and without sin. He never committed sin against God.

I am saying the same thing that the Bible and Ellen White teach. Do you remember what Ellen White teaches regarding the human nature of Christ?

Being tempted from within by His own inclinations-- yet not responding to those temptations-- is not sin.

Originally Posted By: Musicman1228

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).

I don't believe this last paragraph at all. I don't see that it's in harmony with either Scripture or the SOP.

If Christ was not killed by the weight of sin, why did He die so quickly? Most people who died by crucifixion lived many times longer than Jesus did. Notice that Pilate was very surprised to learn that Christ died already. There's also the testimony of John that when the soldier pierced Christ's side, there came forth blood and water. Jesus never said that His Father would execute Him on the cross.

There's nothing in the Bible that teaches us that God "executed His beloved Son." Did Jesus cry out, "My God, my God, why are you executing Me?" No, he asked, "My God, why have you abandoned Me?" So God abandoned Christ. That is quite different from executing Him.

[Sonny]

There's nothing in the Bible that teaches us that God "executed His beloved Son." Did Jesus cry out, "My God, my God, why are you executing Me?" No, he asked, "My God, why have you abandoned Me?" So God abandoned Christ. That is quite different from executing Him.

Good stuff.

[miz3]

It is very likely that Mary and Joseph were distant relatives,

The Bible does not tell us Mary's genealogy. The Bible gives us ONLY JOSEPH'S GENEALOGY! Since no sperm of Joseph was involved in the Incarnation then Jesus Christ could not be "genetically" linked to Joseph or any of Joseph's ancestors.

However, Jesus Christ was the LEGAL SON of Joseph and Mary. We have already shown this to be true from Luke chapter two.

Jesus Christ was NOT GENETICALLY LINKED to either Joseph or Mary as Matthew chapter one points out. Christ was conceived by the Holy Spirit! The Bible makes nary a mention of any other entity being involved in the Incarnation.

There is not a shred of evidence in the Bible that Mary and Joseph were related.

[miz3]

Since Mary is a descendent of David, her baby would quite naturally be of the fruit of David's body.

This conclusion of yours is NOT SUPPORTED BY THE BIBLE!

You are using human logic which is not supported by the Bible.

There is no genealogy for Mary and thus any conclusion that Mary and David were related is pure NONBIBLICAL assumption on your part.

In other words your logic is not based on Biblical fact! It is based on human assumptions only!

[miz3]

Quote:

Rom 5:10 For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, much more, having been reconciled, we shall be saved by His life (i.e., not only His death).

This text does claim or prove in any way shape or form that Jesus Christ had a "sinful nature" like you and I.

If anything it shows that the "sinless nature" of Jesus Christ became our life too.

Jesus Christ was only made "sinful" at the Cross!

[miz3]

What is supported by the Bible, John317 and Sonny, is that Jesus Christ is the LEGAL "fruit of David's body".

There is no "genetic" link. Nor does there have to be. There is definitely a LEGAL LINK but quite clearly there is no "genetic link".

[miz3]

Quote:

"Every year his parents went to Jerusalem for the Feast of the Passover. 42 When he was twelve years old, they went up to the Feast, according to the custom. 43 After the Feast was over, while his parents were returning home, the boy Jesus stayed behind in Jerusalem, but they were unaware of it. 44 Thinking he was in their company, they traveled on for a day. Then they began looking for him among their relatives and friends. 45 When they did not find him, they went back to Jerusalem to look for him. 46 After three days they found him in the temple courts, sitting among the teachers, listening to them and asking them questions. 47 Everyone who heard him was amazed at his understanding and his answers. 48 When his parents saw him, they were astonished. His mother said to him, “Son, why have you treated us like this? Your father and I have been anxiously searching for you.”

49 “Why were you searching for me?” he asked. “Didn’t you know I had to be in my Father’s house?” 50 But they did not understand what he was saying to them.

51 Then he went down to Nazareth with them and was obedient to them. But his mother treasured all these things in her heart. 52 And Jesus grew in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and men."

Luke 2:41-52.

1. Notice the underlined parts above from Luke chapter two. It appears that even though Joseph contributed "no sperm", Joseph was considered by the Bible, also by Jesus Christ Himself and Christ's human contemporaries as the father of Jesus Christ!

2. The Bible also states that Mary also did not contribute any genetic material either. (See Matthew chapter One----She was the incubator for what the Holy Spirit conceived). Mary too just like Joseph was considered by the Bible, human contemporaries and Jesus Christ Himself as the mother of Jesus Christ.

3. Jesus Christ was "obedient to them" also means although they contributed no genetic material to Jesus Christ, He still considered them as His earthly parents and treated them as such.

It was "legal"! You can belong to a family and have ancestors without receiving any "genetic" material. It happens all the time. It also happened in the Life of Jesus Christ on earth. Thus, Jesus Christ was the "LEGAL" SON of both Joseph and Mary! Certainly, Luke states that this is so!

LEGAL NOT GENETIC!

4. The part in Blue above states clearly that Jesus Christ KNEW THAT GOD WAS HIS FATHER!

The Bible does not say when this knowledge was acquired. It also does not say that this knowledge that God was Jesus Christ's Father gradually dawned on Him. In fact the Bible is SILENT ON THIS FACT!

Thus, any expressions that would assert that this knowledge came on Jesus Christ "gradually" would be an assertion NOT SUPPORTED BY THE SCRIPTURES!

Also, any assertions that this knowledge was known only when Jesus Christ came to Jerusalem at twelve years old is also NOT SUPPORTED BY THE SCRIPTURE!

[Musicman1228]

Thank you, Miz3, for expressing so clearly what is so true about the nature of Jesus Christ and His incarnation.

I am not the natural born son of my father, I am adopted. But I am the natural born son of 'a' father; who that is I do not know. The operative word is 'natural born'. I am the 'legal' son of my father.

Jesus was born of a human woman but was not the natural offspring of either Joseph of Mary. He was the offspring of God Almighty and the Holy Spirit (according to Scripture). He was the 'legal' son of Joseph and Mary, but He was also the 'lawful' Son of God, because God is His parents.

The only reason to not accept this is because you want to bring Jesus Christ down to the natural human level for the purpose of discounting what He came to do: that is, to testify to the truth. If Jesus is merely human, what He says has the same authority as any other human. If He is the Son of God His testimony has the authority of God. Some people prefer the former to the later.

[Dr. Rich]

Thank you, Miz3, for expressing so clearly what is so true about the nature of Jesus Christ and His incarnation.

I am not the natural born son of my father, I am adopted. But I am the natural born son of 'a' father; who that is I do not know. The operative word is 'natural born'. I am the 'legal' son of my father.

Jesus was born of a human woman but was not the natural offspring of either Joseph of Mary. He was the offspring of God Almighty and the Holy Spirit (according to Scripture). He was the 'legal' son of Joseph and Mary, but He was also the 'lawful' Son of God, because God is His parents.

The only reason to not accept this is because you want to bring Jesus Christ down to the natural human level for the purpose of discounting what He came to do: that is, to testify to the truth. If Jesus is merely human, what He says has the same authority as any other human. If He is the Son of God His testimony has the authority of God. Some people prefer the former to the later.

Yes, this is all true. There was a real reason why Jesus called Mary "Woman", because to Him she was just a "Woman". Jesus' parents are Go the Father and the Holy Spirit as the Mother.

Yes, Jesus was born of a human 'mother', but was still Michael the Prince of the KOH. As such he had NO DNA from Mary or Joseph but legally was called a decendant of David.

[Sonny]

Jesus Christ was only made "sinful" at the Cross!

So Jesus was a sinner at the cross? I can play your game too....

[Sonny]

There is definitely a LEGAL LINK but quite clearly there is no "genetic link".

Repeating a lie doesn't make it true, expect for the one repeating it....

[Sonny]

The only reason to not accept this is because you want to bring Jesus Christ down to the natural human level for the purpose of discounting what He came to do:

Do you even have a clue why Christ came?

Gal 3:22 But the Scripture declares that the whole world is a prisoner of sin, so that what was promised, being given through faith in Jesus Christ, might be given to those who believe.

23 Before this Jesus came, we were held prisoners by the law, locked up until Jesus should be revealed. 24 So the law was put in charge until Christ that we might be justified by faith. 25 Now that faith has come, we are no longer under the law.

So Christ came to save sinners from under the law that justly condemns them!

What does the law demand of you and me?

Answer: Perfect obedience!

And since all of us have failed it requires OUR death.

Christ isn't the sinner. The law can't condemn an innocent man. The law condemns us...you and me.

Not only that, but you can't transfer righteousness. If you are a life long criminal and I've lived a perfect life, my righteousness can't be transferred to you.

There's only one gospel that answer the law. It's the one I've been presenting from Paul. All other gospels make God out to be a liar....

Here it is in a nutshell:

Romans 7:4...you also were made to die to the Law through the body of Christ...6 But now we have been released from the Law, having died to that by which we were bound....

[skyblue888]

No genetic link on the human side!!!

This idea is so preposterous!!!!

sky :)

[Sonny]

No genetic link on the human side!!!

This idea is so preposterous!!!!

sky

It's a lie...isn't it?

[skyblue888]

Satan's lie, to be sure.

No offense meant but it is the lie of Satan for if Jesus in his humanity did not have a genetic link to humanity, to fallen, sinful flesh, he could not be a Saviour.

"He was made to be sin that we might become the righteousness of God in Him" 2 Cor.5:21.

Just as there was no sin in Him and yet was made to be sin, there is no righteousness in us and yet in Him we are made the righteousness of God.

sky

[Dr. Rich]

Originally Posted By: Musicman1228

The only reason to not accept this is because you want to bring Jesus Christ down to the natural human level for the purpose of discounting what He came to do:

Do you even have a clue why Christ came?

Gal 3:22 But the Scripture declares that the whole world is a prisoner of sin, so that what was promised, being given through faith in Jesus Christ, might be given to those who believe.

23 Before this Jesus came, we were held prisoners by the law, locked up until Jesus should be revealed. 24 So the law was put in charge until Christ that we might be justified by faith. 25 Now that faith has come, we are no longer under the law.

So Christ came to save sinners from under the law that justly condemns them!

What does the law demand of you and me?

Answer: Perfect obedience!

And since all of us have failed it requires OUR death.

Christ isn't the sinner. The law can't condemn an innocent man. The law condemns us...you and me.

Not only that, but you can't transfer righteousness. If you are a life long criminal and I've lived a perfect life, my righteousness can't be transferred to you.

There's only one gospel that answer the law. It's the one I've been presenting from Paul. All other gospels make God out to be a liar....

Here it is in a nutshell:

Romans 7:4...you also were made to die to the Law through the body of Christ...6 But now we have been released from the Law, having died to that by which we were bound....

Now read John 18:37 "For this reason I was born, and for this I have come into the world to bear witness to the truth. Everyone who is OF the truth hears My voice.".

What we have here is a disconnect. Do you believe Paul's words or do you believe in the words of Jesus? Your choice! They are NOT the same!