"In Christ" - the gospel explained

[miz3]

How can one be polite in the face of total nonsense?.

Does this mean you are calling Matthew, and Luke nonsense? You reject their clear unambiguous statements.

Does this mean you are calling John the Beloved who wrote 1,2,and 3 gospel of John nonsense? You reject his statements too.

Does this mean you are calling the writer of Hebrews nonsense? You reject his/her statements too.

Does this mean you are calling Paul and his writings nonsense? Most shockingly you reject Paul's statements too.

You must because you misquote, take out of context, twist there clear intended meanings, and you add your words and the words of Jack S. to their writings and to their Gospel.

On the other hand, Twilight and I have been honest and truthful with the writings of Matthew, Luke, John the Beloved, and Paul as well as the writer of Hebrews. Twilight and I support the Gospel of Jesus Christ. This thread and the Creeds thread are full of the evidence that what I am saying is the Truth!

Maybe you should change your position concerning the Gospel! Come and enjoy the Truth, like many of us do!

[Musicman1228]

Miz3 said, "1. Notice the Gospel Paul preached was revealed to Paul by JESUS CHRIST! Dr. Rich you left this part in your post. How convenient?"

The problem with this statement is that you can't prove that it was the true Jesus Christ that spoke to Paul on the road to Damascus, nor can you prove that Jesus Christ revealed anything to Paul including the gospel that Paul preached that was different from the gospel that Jesus taught to His own disciples, the Gospel of the Kingdom.

All you have is Paul's own words about what happened, you don't have any corroborating witnesses that what Paul said really happened.

[miz3]

Miz3 said, "1. Notice the Gospel Paul preached was revealed to Paul by JESUS CHRIST! Dr. Rich you left this part in your post. How convenient?"

The problem with this statement is that you can't prove that it was the true Jesus Christ that spoke to Paul on the road to Damascus, nor can you prove that Jesus Christ revealed anything to Paul including the gospel that Paul preached that was different from the gospel that Jesus taught to His own disciples, the Gospel of the Kingdom.

All you have is Paul's own words about what happened, you don't have any corroborating witnesses that what Paul said really happened.

I hate to break this to you, but someone must. What you have stated about Paul and his writings, and his Damascus experience is also true of absolutely every single word in the Bible, from Genesis to Revelation.

We accept these things to be true by FAITH!

It is by this same FAITH, that we accept the entire Bible from Genesis to Revelation as being the absolute Word of God.

The Eyewitnesses you and Dr. Rich claim as your Authority is also made by FAITH on your part. You cannot absolutely prove what you claim as truth any more than any other human can on this planet Earth.

If your human. (I assume that you and Dr. Rich are) what constitutes Authority as being authoritative only happens because you have FAITH that it is!

This is true now, has always been true, and will continue to be true forever.

Every human, that has ever lived, is now living, and who will yet live, will never ever escape the "FAITH" Box no matter what you do!

Thus, your statement about having proof fails because you are in the same boat so to speak as the rest of us humans.

Now if you and Dr. Rich want to claim to be something other than human we might have a debate depending on what your claim is!

[John317]

Sky is quoting from 2 John 1:7

For many deceivers have gone out into the world, those who don't confess that Jesus Christ came in the flesh. This is the deceiver and the Antichrist.

What "flesh" was the apostle John writing about? Obviously the same flesh that fallen humans have. There were false teachers claiming that Christ came in flesh that is different from the rest of humanity. These false teachers had no problem with Christ coming in flesh per se but they objected to His coming in sinful, fallen flesh like real human beings have. Christ is a real man, not like sinless Adam but rather like the fallen, sinful people He came to save. Christ condemned sin in the likeness [NOT unlikeness] of sinful flesh.

"Inasmuch then as the children have partaken of flesh and blood, He Himself likewise shared in the same..." Heb 2: 14

What flesh do the children partake of? Answer: Fallen flesh. Then since Christ shared in the same flesh, what flesh did Christ have? Answer: Fallen Flesh.

"In all things He had to be made like His brethren..." Heb. 2: 17

"...[Christ] was in all points tempted as we are, yet without sin." Heb. 4: 15

NOTICE THAT HE WAS TEMPTED IN ALL POINTS AS WE ARE, NOT AS UNFALLEN ADAM WAS. HE WAS ALSO MADE LIKE HIS BRETHREN, NOT LIKE ADAM BEFORE THE FALL.

[Twilight II]

Originally Posted By: Twilight II

Labelling those things you do not agree with as "anti-christ", "an attack on the gospel" without showing that with scripture (Jones isn't scripture I might add), does not give your argument any credibility.

Sky is quoting from 2 John 1:7

For many deceivers have gone out into the world, those who don't confess that Jesus Christ came in the flesh. This is the deceiver and the Antichrist.

Jesus came in the flesh, I have never stated anything other.

But claiming that flesh had "sin in it", or "lusts and desires" is not biblical.

Wouldn't that then be "Anti-Christ"?

Anyone can wave that banner around Sonny, doesn't mean it should be waved.

It concerns me that when someone differs, rather than show them from scripture their point of view, they have this spirit of condemnation and want to label everyone who does not agree as a "heretic".

If your reasoning is sound from the scriptures, I will change my position.

But labelling my view (incorrectly), as "anti-christ", is not going to change my position.

The spirit behind this concerns me.

[Twilight II]

2 John 1:7 must be read with Rom.1:3 and Heb.2:14 and Heb.4:15.

These passages make it clear that the teaching that Christ did not take upon Himself our sinful flesh is the doctrine of antichrist.

sky

Try expounding your argument Sky.

If your theology is correct or indeed incorrect, then the posting up of scripture and claiming, "I am right and you have the spirit of "anti-christ", will not help others to ascertain why.

You must also share your reasoning.

But if you are not able to do that, then what you are displaying is an immature handling of truth.

Yes.

It is immature spiritually to "claim truth" and denounce others without sharing "your reasoning".

If you cannot do that, then you have no right to claim you "have the truth" and everyone else has the spirit of "Anti-Christ".

Let me see some Christian maturity here Sky...

Show us your reasoning.

Mark.

[Twilight II]

The problem with this statement is that you can't prove that it was the true Jesus Christ that spoke to Paul on the road to Damascus, nor can you prove that Jesus Christ revealed anything to Paul including the gospel that Paul preached that was different from the gospel that Jesus taught to His own disciples, the Gospel of the Kingdom.

The early apostles accepted Paul.

They had sat at the feet of Jesus and been taught personally.

I would suggest that is proof enough.

But if your mind is committed to a false gospel of salvation by works, then you have to reject Paul, who explains righteousness by faith.

Paul warns against us being ignorant of Gods righteousness and going about to establish our own righteousness.

Which you are attempting to do.

How is that going by the way?

As Jesus is the only person I have ever read of in the bible that has walked perfectly righteously, then you must have attained to a higher state of righteousness than all the other biblical greats?

After all, they all failed, but you are claiming victory, is that not correct?

Are you obeying the commandments of God perfectly MM?

[Twilight II]

Originally Posted By: Sonny

Sky is quoting from 2 John 1:7

For many deceivers have gone out into the world, those who don't confess that Jesus Christ came in the flesh. This is the deceiver and the Antichrist.

What "flesh" was the apostle John writing about? Obviously the same flesh that fallen humans have. There were false teachers claiming that Christ came in flesh that is different from the rest of humanity. These false teachers had no problem with Christ coming in flesh per se but they objected to His coming in sinful, fallen flesh like real human beings have. Christ is a real man, not like sinless Adam but rather like the fallen, sinful people He came to save. Christ condemned sin in the likeness [NOT unlikeness] of sinful flesh.

"Inasmuch then as the children have partaken of flesh and blood, He Himself likewise shared in the same..." Heb 2: 14

What flesh do the children partake of? Answer: Fallen flesh. Then since Christ shared in the same flesh, what flesh did Christ have? Answer: Fallen Flesh.

"In all things He had to be made like His brethren..." Heb. 2: 17

"...[Christ] was in all points tempted as we are, yet without sin." Heb. 4: 15

NOTICE THAT HE WAS TEMPTED IN ALL POINTS AS WE ARE, NOT AS UNFALLEN ADAM WAS. HE WAS ALSO MADE LIKE HIS BRETHREN, NOT LIKE ADAM BEFORE THE FALL.

[Sonny]

Jesus came in the flesh, I have never stated anything other.

[Sonny]

Jam 1:14 But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed.

Where in the above text does it mention Jesus Christ?

The subject in your quote is mankind, not Christ. As to Christ: "For we do not have a high priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but One who has been tempted in all things as we are, yet without sin."

Let's look at James 1:13 Let no one say when he is tempted, "I am being tempted by God "; for God cannot be tempted by sin, and He Himself does not tempt anyone.

Clearly God cannot be tempted, but as one of us He could be tempted.

14 But each one is tempted, when he is drawn away by his own lust (indwelling sin), and enticed. 15 Then the lust, when it has conceived, bears sin....

Before continuing keep in mind one thing: It's our human nature...not Christ's. As EGW stated, He "took OUR sinful nature". So we can't say Christ had a sinful nature. He took our life indwelt with sin and lived a perfect life to God in it. So Christ's mind was tempted by our sinful nature just as we are, yet without sin.

[Sonny]

So what is it John317?

Is it the case that Christ had:

1. No sin in Him.

2. Sin in Him.

Do you hold that these two contradictions are true?

You keep jumping back to a verse that is not clear....I guess you find comfort here because you can bend it to the way you think. I've given you my take on it, but you reject it.

Paul teaches that the humanity Christ came to save (that's you and me) has in it indwelling sin. Christ, as God, took this life into Himself and rewrote our history. Where we disobeyed Christ, in us, obeyed. And because our humanity is polluted with sin, Christ - in us - took that humanity to the grave forever.

In place of it Christ was raised with a glorified humanity - free from sin. By faith we can claim His humanity as our own, for it is, except glorified.

"In Christ" we are complete because God actually redeemed us in Himself. This truth answers the law - yours doesn't. Hence yours is a pretend redemption. Christ saved the already saved humanity of Adam before the fall.

[Twilight II]

Originally Posted By: Twilight II

Jesus came in the flesh, I have never stated anything other.

Mark, there's only one type of flesh. Christ didn't come to save Adam before the fall - He came to save sinners under the condemnation of the law.

Quote:

But claiming that flesh had "sin in it", or "lusts and desires" is not biblical.

It's very Biblical.

[Twilight II]

Originally Posted By: Twilight II

Jam 1:14 But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed.

Where in the above text does it mention Jesus Christ?

The subject in your quote is mankind.

[Twilight II]

Originally Posted By: Twilight II

So what is it John317?

Is it the case that Christ had:

1. No sin in Him.

2. Sin in Him.

Do you hold that these two contradictions are true?

Christ, as God, took this life into Himself

[miz3]

Twilight,

Again, you have done a terrific job!

Of course it is not because you and I are so smart. It is because God and His Word is True! We are only quoting and stating what the Bible actually says.

The Word is Jesus Christ (John chapter one)! As in the parable of the wise and foolish builders (Matthew chapter 7). We build our views on the Nature of Jesus Christ on the Rock, Jesus Christ. We do not build on the sands of our own devising or on the sands of other human's devising.

[Sonny]

Quote:

2 Cor 5:4 For the love of Christ controls us, having concluded this, that one died for all, therefore all died;

So I cannot accept this usage of this verse as proving the point you are trying to make Sonny.

Who died in Christ? We did. Do we have sinful natures in our humanity? Yes. Where were we when we died? In outer space? No! Then where? "In Christ".

[Sonny]

So the body that Christ had did not belong to Him?

[miz3]

Sonny,

You have not yet answered Twilight's questions.

Second, Sonny our sins were placed on Jesus Christ:

AT THE CROSS!

[Twilight II]

Twilight,

Again, you have done a terrific job!

Of course it is not because you and I are so smart. It is because God and His Word is True! We are only quoting and stating what the Bible actually says.

The Word is Jesus Christ (John chapter one)! As in the parable of the wise and foolish builders (Matthew chapter 7). We build our views on the Nature of Jesus Christ on the Rock, Jesus Christ. We do not build on the sands of our own devising or on the sands of other human's devising.

This thread has been very helpful.

As I analyse the argument that Christ had sin in Him and compare it to scripture, I begin to see why those that apply James 1 to Christ have to split Christ into two.

They need two Christ's because they have Christ with contradictory positions in regard to His sinful state.

We call this "mental gymnastics".

But I hope to show those that have this view the illogical nature of this.

If I am missing something, I am very open to correction, but so far, this idea that Christ has to be split into two I find unacceptable.

It is the mistaken theology that requires this, not the Bible.

[miz3]

heb 10:5 Therefore when he (the Son of God) comes into the world, he says, "Sacrifice and offering you didn't desire, But a body did you prepare for me

Did you notice the text says, "body"! That means a human covering of flesh!

This text does not say that a "sinful nature" was prepared for Jesus Christ! (Inner Nature where the lusts reside)!

This means you cannot use this text to show that Jesus Christ was "indwelt with our sin" at the Incarnation.

[Twilight II]

Originally Posted By: Twilight II

2 Cor 5:4 For the love of Christ controls us, having concluded this, that one died for all, therefore all died

So I cannot accept this usage of this verse as proving the point you are trying to make Sonny.

Who died in Christ? We did. Do we have sinful natures in our humanity? Yes. Where were we when we died? In outer space? No! Then where? "In Christ".

This is dealing with the point of Christ's death.

All "died" in Christ.

It does not say anything about us "all being in Christ at the incarnation".

In fact this unequivocally supports the view that at the crucifixion our sins were "placed on Christ".

The point of time this refers to is the crucifixion, not the incarnation, so I reject your usage of it here Sonny, upon that basis.

Mark :-)

[Sonny]

Did you notice the text says, "body"! That means a human covering of flesh!

Where did YOU die? Answer: In the body of Christ. This body, which is our body, died....What type of body do you have? Here's Paul:

Rom 7:17 So now it is no more I that do it, but sin which dwells in me....22 For I delight in God's law after the inward man, 23 but I see a different law in my members (my humanity), warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity under the law of sin which is in my members.

[Twilight II]

Originally Posted By: Twilight II

So the body that Christ had did not belong to Him?

It belonged to us....

Quote:

He was not accountable for the sin dwelling in it, is that what you are saying Sonny?

It wasn't His nature...it was ours. Just like the Holy Spirit resides in you. He resides in a body that has in it a sinful nature, yet it's not His.

Quote:

That it was not really "His" body?

What does Paul say?

heb 10:5 Therefore when he (the Son of God) comes into the world, he says, "Sacrifice and offering you didn't desire, But a body did you prepare for me

So to put sin into Christ, you have to state that His body was not His, but ours.

You have to remove Christ from that body somehow.

So the body did not "belong" to Christ.

Are you absolutely sure you want to take that position Sonny?

[Twilight II]

Originally Posted By: Sonny

heb 10:5 Therefore when he (the Son of God) comes into the world, he says, "Sacrifice and offering you didn't desire, But a body did you prepare for me

Did you notice the text says, "body"! That means a human covering of flesh!

This text does not say that a "sinful nature" was prepared for Jesus Christ! (Inner Nature where the lusts reside)!

This means you cannot use this text to show that Jesus Christ was "indwelt with our sin" at the Incarnation.

I think this ties into the idea of Christ "clothing" Himelf with a fallen human body.

But it does not support the idea that the sinful human nature was "inserted" into Christ.

I think this is an important disctinction.

[Sonny]

It does not say anything about us "all being in Christ at the incarnation".

Who cares right now....The point is that you were "in Christ"....Forget time right now, you were in Christ when you died. What type of humanity do you have? A fallen life, indwelt with a sin nature. Where were you when you died? In Christ. So "in Christ" your humanity existed, which has a fallen nature. That humanity died forever. Now, you have a sinless humanity "in Christ" in the heavenly places. The old died 2000 years ago.