Another way to look at who Jesus really is
We are given actual names for the 2nd Person of the Godhead so we can relate to Him
"... you shall call His name Jesus, for He will save His people from their sins.
There are folks here who think along those lines. I'm not one of them but they are here.
: John Zain Sat Nov 05, 2011 - 13:05:05
Another way to look at who Jesus really is
We are given actual names for the 2nd Person of the Godhead so we can relate to Him
"... you shall call His name Jesus, for He will save His people from their sins.
: Insight Sun Nov 06, 2011 - 17:02:43
: John Zain Sat Nov 05, 2011 - 13:05:05
Another way to look at who Jesus really is
We are given actual names for the 2nd Person of the Godhead so we can relate to Him
"... you shall call His name Jesus, for He will save His people from their sins.
I am not Non-trinitarian - it is a blasphemous doctrine of demons.
: Sinead Sun Nov 06, 2011 - 23:45:32
I am not Non-trinitarian - it is a blasphemous doctrine of demons.
Yes indeed I think I may get to agree with you on quite a few things on here Sinead. Not only is it blasphemous, but you called it a doctrine of demons. These Oneness and anti-Christ heretics(I don't mean to offend anyone here)have been trying to displace Christ from his heavenly throne for centuries. To deny that Jesus Christ came in the flesh is to make you anti-Christ. And to deny the Godhood of Jesus Christ is to deny the Christian doctrine altogether. I know we are not supposed to call people on here heretics, but if there be divisions among you there must surely be heresies.
: fish153 Sun Nov 06, 2011 - 23:08:08
: Insight Sun Nov 06, 2011 - 17:02:43
: John Zain Sat Nov 05, 2011 - 13:05:05
Another way to look at who Jesus really is
We are given actual names for the 2nd Person of the Godhead so we can relate to Him
"... you shall call His name Jesus, for He will save His people from their sins.
: Insight Tue Nov 08, 2011 - 00:05:27
: fish153 Sun Nov 06, 2011 - 23:08:08
: Insight Sun Nov 06, 2011 - 17:02:43
: John Zain Sat Nov 05, 2011 - 13:05:05
Another way to look at who Jesus really is
We are given actual names for the 2nd Person of the Godhead so we can relate to Him
"... you shall call His name Jesus, for He will save His people from their sins.
: fish153 Tue Nov 08, 2011 - 14:01:36
: Insight Tue Nov 08, 2011 - 00:05:27
: fish153 Sun Nov 06, 2011 - 23:08:08
: Insight Sun Nov 06, 2011 - 17:02:43
: John Zain Sat Nov 05, 2011 - 13:05:05
Another way to look at who Jesus really is
We are given actual names for the 2nd Person of the Godhead so we can relate to Him
"... you shall call His name Jesus, for He will save His people from their sins.
: fish153 Tue Nov 08, 2011 - 16:01:54
Well of course, I'd have to disagree with you there. Those who deny that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh (The Word who is God became flesh) are of the spirit of antichrist. That is a denial of the divinity of Christ. Those are the true apostates. ("even denying the very Lord that bought them"--denying that Jesus is God is a very serious offense).
I have seen this stated a number of times in this forum and is certainly a misconception among TB's. Your Holy Trinity confines you to believe Jesus shared a divine nature, right!
I wonder who it is then that actually "denies that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh"?
Maybe you should ask yourself why the Apostles spoke so much about his human nature and not once about him having divine nature.
Maybe then you will start to understand the real Jesus Christ and not a three headed monster.
Insight
: Insight Tue Nov 08, 2011 - 16:52:36
: fish153 Tue Nov 08, 2011 - 16:01:54
Well of course, I'd have to disagree with you there. Those who deny that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh (The Word who is God became flesh) are of the spirit of antichrist. That is a denial of the divinity of Christ. Those are the true apostates. ("even denying the very Lord that bought them"--denying that Jesus is God is a very serious offense).
I have seen this stated a number of times in this forum and is certainly a misconception among TB's. Your Holy Trinity confines you to believe Jesus shared a divine nature, right!
I wonder who it is then that actually "denies that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh"?
Maybe you should ask yourself why the Apostles spoke so much about his human nature and not once about him having divine nature.
Maybe then you will start to understand the real Jesus Christ and not a three headed monster.
Insight
You are completely incorrect Insight. The Gospel of John was expressly written to show the Divinity of Jesus. That is why it is unique and begins with
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, AND THE WORD WAS GOD" (John 1:1)
You'd have to be wearing spiritual blinders not to see many, many references to the Divinity of Christ made by the Apostles. You are looking at things naturally, in your own understanding--so of course, just like others using their own finite understanding (like the JW's) speak of a "3 headed monster". Jude says this:
"
Yet these people slander whatever they do not understand, and the very things they do understand by instinct—as irrational animals do—will destroy them". (Jude 10)
"These are the people who divide you, who follow mere natural instincts and do not have the Spirit". (Jude 19)
: Insight Tue Nov 08, 2011 - 16:52:36
: fish153 Tue Nov 08, 2011 - 16:01:54
Well of course, I'd have to disagree with you there. Those who deny that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh (The Word who is God became flesh) are of the spirit of antichrist. That is a denial of the divinity of Christ. Those are the true apostates. ("even denying the very Lord that bought them"--denying that Jesus is God is a very serious offense).
I have seen this stated a number of times in this forum and is certainly a misconception among TB's. Your Holy Trinity confines you to believe Jesus shared a divine nature, right!
I wonder who it is then that actually "denies that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh"?
Maybe you should ask yourself why the Apostles spoke so much about his human nature and not once about him having divine nature.
Maybe then you will start to understand the real Jesus Christ and not a three headed monster.
Insight
What do you believe then? Who do you believe Jesus is or was? Also, why and how do you believe you have greater insight that most other people on this subject?
: Insight Tue Nov 08, 2011 - 16:52:36
: fish153 Tue Nov 08, 2011 - 16:01:54
Well of course, I'd have to disagree with you there. Those who deny that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh (The Word who is God became flesh) are of the spirit of antichrist. That is a denial of the divinity of Christ. Those are the true apostates. ("even denying the very Lord that bought them"--denying that Jesus is God is a very serious offense).
I have seen this stated a number of times in this forum and is certainly a misconception among TB's. Your Holy Trinity confines you to believe Jesus shared a divine nature, right!
I wonder who it is then that actually "denies that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh"?
Maybe you should ask yourself why the Apostles spoke so much about his human nature and not once about him having divine nature.
Maybe then you will start to understand the real Jesus Christ and not a three headed monster.
Insight
You might like to show us where John speaks of Jesus having a divine "nature". That is Jesus sharing in Yahweh's Immortal Essence? ::shrug::
I said...
I have seen this stated a number of times in this forum and is certainly a misconception among TB's. Your Holy Trinity confines you to believe Jesus shared a divine nature, right!
And you took off like a Trinitarian rocket to John 1:1. Maybe you should read the posts more carefully next time. ::headscratch::
The irony in you quoting Jude at me, is found in your inability to reconcile and explain coherently how Jesus, being in sins flesh (Rom 8:3), and yet also simultaneously "dwelling in light unapproachable which no man has seen or can see 1 Tim 6:16 ::pondering::
Maybe after your attempt to show that which cannot be explained or understood; go back to Jude and take personal heed to its warning.
May you be given ears to hear.
Insight
Romans 8:3 says the "likeness of sinful flesh" not "sins flesh". That does not mean that Jesus had "sinful" flesh. If one is to state that this "likeness" is the same as saying Jesus had "sinful" flesh, then couldn't we also say that man, created in the "likeness of God" is God? But we know that "likeness" is not "equality", so Romans 8:3 doesn't prove that Jesus' flesh was "sinful".
In truth, the fact that Romans 8:3 states only that Jesus was created in the likeness of sinful flesh and not simply sinful flesh strongly implies that Jesus' flesh was not sinful at all, but rather flesh free from sin.
: John Zain Sat Nov 05, 2011 - 13:05:05
Another way to look at who Jesus really is
We are given actual names for the 2nd Person of the Godhead so we can relate to Him
"... you shall call His name Jesus, for He will save His people from their sins. (Matthew 1:21)
This "Jesus" is the Giver of eternal life (John 4:14, 5:21, 6:27, 10:27-28, 11:25, 14:6, 17:2, etc.).
"... (He) will be called the Son of the Highest" (Luke 1:32)
"... that Holy One who is to be born will be called the Son of God." (Luke 1:35)
"... His name is called the Word of God." (Revelation 19:13)
From the beginning, before the world was created, Jesus was with Father God
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through Him ...
He was in the world, and the world was made through Him ...
And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us ..." (John 1:1-14)
"And now, O Father, glorify Me together with Yourself,
with the glory which I had with You before the world was." (John 17:5)
"That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes,
which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, concerning the Word of life
... that eternal life which was with the Father and was manifested to us" (1 John 1:1-2)
Also before the world was created, God's elect were chosen
"... He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world ..." (Ephesians 1:4)
"... God from the beginning chose you for salvation ..." (2 Thessalonians 2:13)
"... who has saved us and called us with a holy calling ... according to His own purpose
and grace which was given to us in Christ Jesus before time began ..." (2 Timothy 1:9)
And at some point, Father God gives the elect to Jesus ...
"No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him" (John 6:44)
(Also see John 6:37, 6:39, 6:45, 6:65, 10:29, 17:2, 17:24, Matthew 15:13.)
A plural God created everything
"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. ...
Then God said, Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness" (Genesis 1:1, 26)
Was there a "Royal We of Majesty" during Moses' time, which led him to use this terminology?
If so, the King would have been referring to himself, his family, his court, etc.
But, what does this have to do with God? ... Why would He use such a majestic plurality?
Who would a totally montheistic God be referring to? ... He and His angels? Ridiculous.
Therefore, Genesis 1:26 must be referring to a plural God.
Father God created "all things" through Jesus (i.e. it was Jesus who actually did the creating)
"... God who created all things through Jesus Christ ..." (Ephesians 3:9)
"All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made." (John 1:3)
"He was in the world, and the world was made through Him ..." (John 1:10)
"His Son ... through whom also He (Father God) made the worlds" (Hebrews 1:2)
"... one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things" (1 Corinthians 8:6)
"For by Him (Jesus Christ) all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth
... All things were created through Him and for Him." (Colossians 1:16)
"But to the Son He (Father God) says:
'Your throne, O God, is forever and ever ...
... Therefore God, Your God, has anointed You ...
... You, LORD, in the beginning laid the foundation of the earth, and the heavens
are the work of Your hands. They will perish, but You remain ...' " (Hebrews 1:8-11)
"(You Jews) killed the Author (beginning, originator, source) of life" (Acts 3:15)
Jesus is the Sustainer of "all things" now (present tense)
"And He is before all things, and in Him all things consist (are held together)." (Colossians 1:17)
"... upholding (sustaining) all things by the word of His power" (Hebrews 1:3)
Beyond all of the above ...
There are approximately 20 verses where Jesus (and others) said that He is equal to Father God,
and Jesus warned, "If you do not believe that I AM (i.e. God), you will die in your sins." (John 8:24).
(Note: There is no "he" after "I AM" in any Greek manuscript.)
Some people refuse to believe all of the dozens of verses which point to the fact that Jesus is God.
Truly, they might just as well throw their Bibles in the trash can and ride off into the sunset,
and continue to hope that their future in eternity will be a pleasant one.
Just to add to your post, I would give my witness. Jesus personally told me he is God.
There are many anti-Trinitarians,
but who among them will claim the Scriptures were altered to teach the Trinity?
These people need to show alteration, or just thrown their Bibles in the trash can.
Never any response to this challenge ... anywhere.
Only more excuses and more arguing.
Hint to you people ... Just because you can't understand the Trinity desn't mean it is wrong.
"For My thoughts are not your thoughts,
nor are your ways My ways
: Insight Wed Nov 09, 2011 - 05:27:09
: Insight Tue Nov 08, 2011 - 16:52:36
: fish153 Tue Nov 08, 2011 - 16:01:54
Well of course, I'd have to disagree with you there. Those who deny that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh (The Word who is God became flesh) are of the spirit of antichrist. That is a denial of the divinity of Christ. Those are the true apostates. ("even denying the very Lord that bought them"--denying that Jesus is God is a very serious offense).
I have seen this stated a number of times in this forum and is certainly a misconception among TB's. Your Holy Trinity confines you to believe Jesus shared a divine nature, right!
I wonder who it is then that actually "denies that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh"?
Maybe you should ask yourself why the Apostles spoke so much about his human nature and not once about him having divine nature.
Maybe then you will start to understand the real Jesus Christ and not a three headed monster.
Insight
You might like to show us where John speaks of Jesus having a divine "nature". That is Jesus sharing in Yahweh's Immortal Essence? ::shrug::
I said...
I have seen this stated a number of times in this forum and is certainly a misconception among TB's. Your Holy Trinity confines you to believe Jesus shared a divine nature, right!
And you took off like a Trinitarian rocket to John 1:1. Maybe you should read the posts more carefully next time. ::headscratch::
The irony in you quoting Jude at me, is found in your inability to reconcile and explain coherently how Jesus, being in sins flesh (Rom 8:3), and yet also simultaneously "dwelling in light unapproachable which no man has seen or can see 1 Tim 6:16 ::pondering::
Maybe after your attempt to show that which cannot be explained or understood; go back to Jude and take personal heed to its warning.
May you be given ears to hear.
Insight
Insight----
John 1:1 and John 1:14 clearly state that God became a man. 99% of Bible scholars, commentators and Christians in general can agree on this point. It is so clear it is not really arguable. Unless you have more "insight" than spiritually taught believers do--which you apparently think you have.
Yes---I quoted Jude to you because it applies to you. You are "teaching" on this board with your doctrine. And you slander and mock that which your finite brain cannot grasp. None of us can "grasp" the Trinity----it is something we believe now, and which will be revealed to all one day. But when you call the Trinity a "three-headed monster" you are mocking the exalted and awesome God of eternity, and actually fulfilling what Jude 10 states fales teachers do--they slander things they do not understand.
Unfortunately you fall into the category of a false teacher.
INSIGHT- If you do not believe that Jesus was God manifest in the flesh, if you do not believe in the deity of Jesus, then you are od the devil.
I rebuke you in the name of Jesus and I pray that you will becomed saved from hell.
: fish153 Wed Nov 09, 2011 - 10:11:06
Insight----
John 1:1 and John 1:14 clearly state that God became a man.
Your error continues – If you are going to quote the Bible do so correctly.
"The Logos became Flesh
: Insight Wed Nov 09, 2011 - 21:29:16
: fish153 Wed Nov 09, 2011 - 10:11:06
Insight----
John 1:1 and John 1:14 clearly state that God became a man.
Your error continues – If you are going to quote the Bible do so correctly.
"The Logos became Flesh
: Catholica Wed Nov 09, 2011 - 06:45:07
Romans 8:3 says the "likeness of sinful flesh" not "sins flesh". That does not mean that Jesus had "sinful" flesh. If one is to state that this "likeness" is the same as saying Jesus had "sinful" flesh, then couldn't we also say that man, created in the "likeness of God" is God? But we know that "likeness" is not "equality", so Romans 8:3 doesn't prove that Jesus' flesh was "sinful".
In truth, the fact that Romans 8:3 states only that Jesus was created in the likeness of sinful flesh and not simply sinful flesh strongly implies that Jesus' flesh was not sinful at all, but rather flesh free from sin.
What did he overcome? ::shrug::
: fish153 Wed Nov 09, 2011 - 22:52:05
Insight--
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God". (John 1:1)
The JW's have their own Bible and they change to "and the Word was a god". Are you going to do the same Insight?
No
No knowledgeable Bible scholar would ever alter this verse of scripture---it says what it says.
Agreed
The JW's can't do anything with John 20:28 however, and have to leave what Thomas says alone: "My Lord and my God".
Yes, Thomas understood Jesus perfectly manifested the Father representing His Father on Earth.
God told Israel to accept the angel that went before them as Yahweh also because God's name was in him.
Of course Jesus at that point in time was greater than the angles BUT not the Father of course.
They try to say "well, Thomas wasn't ACTUALLY calling Him God---he meant "you are like a God to me" or some other such nonsense.
NO, Thomas was calling him God that is very clear. It appears you are struggling with the why.
Jesus accepted the worship by the way, which only God should do.
Worshipping Jesus does not imply that he is God or that he pre-existed. Only that due to the Glory which his Father gave him he is worthy to be praised.
Being in the minority on something isn't always good Insight. You can point to Elijah---but when you deny the clear, written word of God, and take away the Divinity of Jesus Christ Insight, you join the Jehovah's Witnesses, the Way International, Jim Jones, etc, etc, all cults who taught, or teach Jesus is not God. They are the minority, and they are wrong.
Well it depends upon ones perception.
Jesus will barely find the faith when he comes, that we do know. Of all the Apostate Christians in the world how many of them will understand the true Jesus Christ?
That's right...only a minority.
It's always been the case.
I wanted share something I recently read:
"It is difficult, if not impossible, to explain what the word Person means as applied to the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. We are accustomed to think of persons as individual human beings, and we know that three persons cannot be one being. The Persons of the Godhead are clearly distinguished from one another in many passages of Scripture; yet they cannot be separated. This truth is beyond complete understanding by our finite minds.
No illustration of the Trinity will suffice to explain this relationship, but we can perhaps get some help by trying to express the relationship mathematically. Men would ordinarily say of the Persons: one plus one plus one equals three. But it would be more accurate to say: one times one times one equals ONE, for each of the Persons is fully God in the absolute sense, and the three together are the one self-same God".
Mathematics play a huge part in all that goes on around us. It is very interesting that when one multiplies 1X1X1 = 1
We cannot explain the Trinity with our finite minds, but perhaps seeing that mathematically (3) ones when multiplied equal
ONE gives us a bit of a glimpse into the meaning of the Trinity--though still far beyond our finite understanding.
: Insight Thu Nov 10, 2011 - 20:52:54
: Catholica Wed Nov 09, 2011 - 06:45:07
Romans 8:3 says the "likeness of sinful flesh" not "sins flesh". That does not mean that Jesus had "sinful" flesh. If one is to state that this "likeness" is the same as saying Jesus had "sinful" flesh, then couldn't we also say that man, created in the "likeness of God" is God? But we know that "likeness" is not "equality", so Romans 8:3 doesn't prove that Jesus' flesh was "sinful".
In truth, the fact that Romans 8:3 states only that Jesus was created in the likeness of sinful flesh and not simply sinful flesh strongly implies that Jesus' flesh was not sinful at all, but rather flesh free from sin.
What did he overcome? ::shrug::
No comment on what I wrote?
Could you quote the scripture that you are referring to that says "Jesus overcame"? Then we can analyze it.
: fish153 Wed Nov 09, 2011 - 22:52:05
Insight--
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God". (John 1:1) The JW's have their own Bible and they change to "and the Word was a god". Are you going to do the same Insight? No knowledgeable Bible scholar would ever alter this verse of scripture---it says what it says. The JW's can't do anything with John 20:28 however, and have to leave what Thomas says alone: "My Lord and my God". They try to say "well, Thomas wasn't ACTUALLY calling Him God---he meant "you are like a God to me" or some other such nonsense. Jesus accepted the worship by the way, which only God should do.
Being in the minority on something isn't always good Insight. You can point to Elijah---but when you deny the clear, written word of God, and take away the Divinity of Jesus Christ Insight, you join the Jehovah's Witnesses, the Way International, Jim Jones, etc, etc, all cults who taught, or teach Jesus is not God. They are the minority, and they are wrong.
Point of fact, on the chance that you and your readers weren't aware, regarding Jehovah's Witnesses' "New World Translation" Bible and its rendering of John 1:1, it may interest you to know that, in support and explanation of their wording of this verse (especially within the third clause with "a god"), there is soon to be published a 20+ year study (as of 11/2011), a thoroughly researched reference work - an historical analysis & exhaustive annotated bibliography - it will be entitled, "What About John 1:1?"
To learn more of its design and expected release date, you are invited to search on the Internet and visit:
Good Companion Books
When finally published, apart from discussing many of the other topics and scriptures often related to the man-made Trinity doctrine, you will also discover that we have collected information on about 430+ scholarly reference works (mostly Trinitarian) which, throughout the centuries, had opted to say something other than, "and the Word was God," and that, included among them are over 120 which had chosen to use "a god" within the third clause of their renderings.
As you might expect, we are very excited at the opportunity to share such findings with others.
Furthermore, a separate publication, that is, representing an indepth analysis of Thomas' statement at John 20:28, will also be forthcoming, proving beyond a shadow of a doubt that this was not an address to Jesus as God.
Agape, JohnOneOne.
: JohnOneOne Fri Nov 11, 2011 - 11:12:54
: fish153 Wed Nov 09, 2011 - 22:52:05
Insight--
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God". (John 1:1) The JW's have their own Bible and they change to "and the Word was a god". Are you going to do the same Insight? No knowledgeable Bible scholar would ever alter this verse of scripture---it says what it says. The JW's can't do anything with John 20:28 however, and have to leave what Thomas says alone: "My Lord and my God". They try to say "well, Thomas wasn't ACTUALLY calling Him God---he meant "you are like a God to me" or some other such nonsense. Jesus accepted the worship by the way, which only God should do.
Being in the minority on something isn't always good Insight. You can point to Elijah---but when you deny the clear, written word of God, and take away the Divinity of Jesus Christ Insight, you join the Jehovah's Witnesses, the Way International, Jim Jones, etc, etc, all cults who taught, or teach Jesus is not God. They are the minority, and they are wrong.
Point of fact, on the chance that you and your readers weren't aware, regarding Jehovah's Witnesses' "New World Translation" Bible and its rendering of John 1:1, it may interest you to know that, in support and explanation of their wording of this verse (especially within the third clause with "a god"), there is soon to be published a 20+ year study (as of 11/2011), a thoroughly researched reference work - an historical analysis & exhaustive annotated bibliography - it will be entitled, "What About John 1:1?"
To learn more of its design and expected release date, you are invited to search on the Internet and visit:
Good Companion Books
When finally published, apart from discussing many of the other topics and scriptures often related to the man-made Trinity doctrine, you will also discover that we have collected information on about 430+ scholarly reference works (mostly Trinitarian) which, throughout the centuries, had opted to say something other than, "and the Word was God," and that, included among them are over 120 which had chosen to use "a god" within the third clause of their renderings.
As you might expect, we are very excited at the opportunity to share such findings with others.
Furthermore, a separate publication, that is, representing an indepth analysis of Thomas' statement at John 20:28, will also be forthcoming, proving beyond a shadow of a doubt that this was not an address to Jesus as God.
Agape, JohnOneOne.
If it is from the Jehovah's Witnesses we can expect it to fall in line with their other literature--altered information, changed dates, the authority of a few men in Brooklyn New York rather than reputable Bible Scholars. I look forward to this momentous work. ::smile:: ::smile::
Insight without your clarification what did Thomas mean when he said "my Lord and my God." I think from this reading that he meant to call Jesus his Lord and his God. As if he really meant that Jesus Christ was indeed his God. ::headscratch:: Hmm If Adam was created in the image of God did that make him worthy of worship too? I wot not. But I will also tell you that God does not share his glory with any man. So either Jesus was and is God or he was a liar or a lunatic. What do you say he was Insight?
: JohnOneOne Fri Nov 11, 2011 - 11:12:54
Point of fact, on the chance that you and your readers weren't aware, regarding Jehovah's Witnesses' "New World Translation" Bible and its rendering of John 1:1, it may interest you to know that, in support and explanation of their wording of this verse (especially within the third clause with "a god"), there is soon to be published a 20+ year study (as of 11/2011),
a thoroughly researched reference work - an historical analysis & exhaustive annotated bibliography -
it will be entitled, "What About John 1:1?"
One reason this study of yours was a waste of time is that ...
the Trinity doctrine does not stand or fall with John 1:1.
There are 70+ verses which point to the fact that Jesus was/is part of the Triune Godhead.
Anyone not believing these verses must believe they were added at some point.
These people need to produce some kind of evidence of this ... because ...
their (and everyone else's) opinions, feelings, biases, etc. are worthless.
: Catholica Fri Nov 11, 2011 - 05:58:45
: Insight Thu Nov 10, 2011 - 20:52:54
: Catholica Wed Nov 09, 2011 - 06:45:07
Romans 8:3 says the "likeness of sinful flesh" not "sins flesh". That does not mean that Jesus had "sinful" flesh. If one is to state that this "likeness" is the same as saying Jesus had "sinful" flesh, then couldn't we also say that man, created in the "likeness of God" is God? But we know that "likeness" is not "equality", so Romans 8:3 doesn't prove that Jesus' flesh was "sinful".
In truth, the fact that Romans 8:3 states only that Jesus was created in the likeness of sinful flesh and not simply sinful flesh strongly implies that Jesus' flesh was not sinful at all, but rather flesh free from sin.
What did he overcome? ::shrug::
No comment on what I wrote?
Could you quote the scripture that you are referring to that says "Jesus overcame"? Then we can analyze it.
It concerns me you do not know these Scriptures.
: Insight Sun Nov 13, 2011 - 20:31:26
: Catholica Fri Nov 11, 2011 - 05:58:45
: Insight Thu Nov 10, 2011 - 20:52:54
: Catholica Wed Nov 09, 2011 - 06:45:07
Romans 8:3 says the "likeness of sinful flesh" not "sins flesh". That does not mean that Jesus had "sinful" flesh. If one is to state that this "likeness" is the same as saying Jesus had "sinful" flesh, then couldn't we also say that man, created in the "likeness of God" is God? But we know that "likeness" is not "equality", so Romans 8:3 doesn't prove that Jesus' flesh was "sinful".
In truth, the fact that Romans 8:3 states only that Jesus was created in the likeness of sinful flesh and not simply sinful flesh strongly implies that Jesus' flesh was not sinful at all, but rather flesh free from sin.
What did he overcome? ::shrug::
No comment on what I wrote?
Could you quote the scripture that you are referring to that says "Jesus overcame"? Then we can analyze it.
It concerns me you do not know these Scriptures.
It concerns me that you do not quote them.
: Swiss_Guard Sun Nov 13, 2011 - 23:09:36
: Insight Sun Nov 13, 2011 - 20:31:26
: Catholica Fri Nov 11, 2011 - 05:58:45
: Insight Thu Nov 10, 2011 - 20:52:54
: Catholica Wed Nov 09, 2011 - 06:45:07
Romans 8:3 says the "likeness of sinful flesh" not "sins flesh". That does not mean that Jesus had "sinful" flesh. If one is to state that this "likeness" is the same as saying Jesus had "sinful" flesh, then couldn't we also say that man, created in the "likeness of God" is God? But we know that "likeness" is not "equality", so Romans 8:3 doesn't prove that Jesus' flesh was "sinful".
In truth, the fact that Romans 8:3 states only that Jesus was created in the likeness of sinful flesh and not simply sinful flesh strongly implies that Jesus' flesh was not sinful at all, but rather flesh free from sin.
What did he overcome? ::shrug::
No comment on what I wrote?
Could you quote the scripture that you are referring to that says "Jesus overcame"? Then we can analyze it.
It concerns me you do not know these Scriptures.
It concerns me that you do not quote them.
Maybe you should cease from asking unlearned questions and obey Christs example:
And they that are Christ's have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts. Gal 5:24
And you ask follishly what did Jesus overcome?
Insight
: Insight Sun Nov 13, 2011 - 23:31:57
: Swiss_Guard Sun Nov 13, 2011 - 23:09:36
: Insight Sun Nov 13, 2011 - 20:31:26
: Catholica Fri Nov 11, 2011 - 05:58:45
: Insight Thu Nov 10, 2011 - 20:52:54
: Catholica Wed Nov 09, 2011 - 06:45:07
Romans 8:3 says the "likeness of sinful flesh" not "sins flesh". That does not mean that Jesus had "sinful" flesh. If one is to state that this "likeness" is the same as saying Jesus had "sinful" flesh, then couldn't we also say that man, created in the "likeness of God" is God? But we know that "likeness" is not "equality", so Romans 8:3 doesn't prove that Jesus' flesh was "sinful".
In truth, the fact that Romans 8:3 states only that Jesus was created in the likeness of sinful flesh and not simply sinful flesh strongly implies that Jesus' flesh was not sinful at all, but rather flesh free from sin.
What did he overcome? ::shrug::
No comment on what I wrote?
Could you quote the scripture that you are referring to that says "Jesus overcame"? Then we can analyze it.
It concerns me you do not know these Scriptures.
It concerns me that you do not quote them.
Maybe you should cease from asking unlearned questions and obey Christs example:
And they that are Christ's have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts. Gal 5:24
And you ask follishly what did Jesus overcome?
Insight
That quote is refering to 'those that are Christ's' and not Christ Himself. Being God incarnate, Himself didn't have trouble with lusts and that sort of thing.
I will let others more patient than I deal with your folly!
It appears you captain-less!
I doubt you will understand the phrase nor make the connection...but maybe one wiser than I could expound this for you.
::shrug::
: Insight Mon Nov 14, 2011 - 00:03:38
I will let others more patient than I to deal with your folly!
It appears you captain-less!
I doubt you will understand the phrase nor make the connection...but maybe one wiser than I could expound this for you.
::shrug::
You know, I think you'd be more comfortable with the Muslims over in THEIR forum. They're non-Trinitarians too. Don't worry, no one here will miss you.
: Swiss_Guard Mon Nov 14, 2011 - 00:10:56
: Insight Mon Nov 14, 2011 - 00:03:38
I will let others more patient than I to deal with your folly!
It appears you captain-less!
I doubt you will understand the phrase nor make the connection...but maybe one wiser than I could expound this for you.
::shrug::
You know, I think you'd be more comfortable with the Muslims over in THEIR forum. They're non-Trinitarians too. Don't worry, no one here will miss you.
Swiss, this is the Non-Traditional Theology section maybe your above comment was not as approprate as you may first thought.
I will leave you with defining what it is that Jesus overcame and what it is he wants you to overcome.
To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne. (Revelation 3:21)
Insight
You'll have to forgive me, the terminology "overcome" and "overcame" is not used in the Bible version that I commonly use. I thought you had a particular verse in mind. I wasn't trying to challenge you, I was just trying to understand where you were coming from so we could have a real conversation.
: Insight Mon Nov 14, 2011 - 06:08:40
I will leave you with defining what it is that Jesus overcame and what it is he wants you to overcome.
To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne. (Revelation 3:21)
Insight
We have three enemies, the world, the flesh and the devil. I see justification in the Bible that Jesus overcame the world and the devil. John 16:33 quotes Jesus has overcome "the world". That is the only thing that the Bible says that Jesus overcame. I can see some justification that Jesus overcame the devil, and the sins of others, but nothing that says Jesus overcame "sinful flesh".
Surely we are to overcome our own fallen nature, but that does not imply, even with Rev. 3:21, that Jesus did also. It says
that Jesus overcame, and we must also, but it does not say
what Jesus overcame and that we must also only overcome those things, but simply that we must overcome and Jesus will grant that we sit upon his throne.
In that verse it does not make sense that, if Jesus is just as one of us, that it would be
Jesus who would grant that we sit upon His throne. I'd assume that if Jesus were just another one of us, that it would be
God who would allow us to sit upon the throne God made for men. Jesus seems to have some authority to grant that someone sit upon this throne.
Do you have any verse that more directly suggests that Jesus overcame sinful flesh?
: Insight Mon Nov 14, 2011 - 06:08:40
: Swiss_Guard Mon Nov 14, 2011 - 00:10:56
: Insight Mon Nov 14, 2011 - 00:03:38
I will let others more patient than I to deal with your folly!
It appears you captain-less!
I doubt you will understand the phrase nor make the connection...but maybe one wiser than I could expound this for you.
::shrug::
You know, I think you'd be more comfortable with the Muslims over in THEIR forum. They're non-Trinitarians too. Don't worry, no one here will miss you.
Swiss, this is the Non-Traditional Theology section maybe your above comment was not as approprate as you may first thought.
I will leave you with defining what it is that Jesus overcame and what it is he wants you to overcome.
To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne. (Revelation 3:21)
Insight
Denying the Divinity of Christ is beyond just "non-Traditional"; it's non-Christian.
And that quote you provided doesn't define anything; it simply says that Jesus overcame something----it doesn't say what it is.
: Swiss_Guard Mon Nov 14, 2011 - 08:44:53
: Insight Mon Nov 14, 2011 - 06:08:40
: Swiss_Guard Mon Nov 14, 2011 - 00:10:56
: Insight Mon Nov 14, 2011 - 00:03:38
I will let others more patient than I to deal with your folly!
It appears you captain-less!
I doubt you will understand the phrase nor make the connection...but maybe one wiser than I could expound this for you.
::shrug::
You know, I think you'd be more comfortable with the Muslims over in THEIR forum. They're non-Trinitarians too. Don't worry, no one here will miss you.
Swiss, this is the Non-Traditional Theology section maybe your above comment was not as approprate as you may first thought.
I will leave you with defining what it is that Jesus overcame and what it is he wants you to overcome.
To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne. (Revelation 3:21)
Insight
Denying the Divinity of Christ is beyond just "non-Traditional"; it's non-Christian.
And that quote you provided doesn't define anything; it simply says that Jesus overcame something----it doesn't say what it is.
It appears you are the self appointed gatekeeper here Swiss.
Maybe you would like to define Rev 3:21
What do we need to overcome________________
What did Jesus overcome__________________
We could play a game of hangman if it would help?
Insight
: Catholica Mon Nov 14, 2011 - 07:40:18
You'll have to forgive me, the terminology "overcome" and "overcame" is not used in the Bible version that I commonly use. I thought you had a particular verse in mind. I wasn't trying to challenge you, I was just trying to understand where you were coming from so we could have a real conversation.
: Insight Mon Nov 14, 2011 - 06:08:40
I will leave you with defining what it is that Jesus overcame and what it is he wants you to overcome.
To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne. (Revelation 3:21)
Insight
We have three enemies, the world, the flesh and the devil. I see justification in the Bible that Jesus overcame the world and the devil. John 16:33 quotes Jesus has overcome "the world". That is the only thing that the Bible says that Jesus overcame. I can see some justification that Jesus overcame the devil, and the sins of others, but nothing that says Jesus overcame "sinful flesh".
Surely we are to overcome our own fallen nature, but that does not imply, even with Rev. 3:21, that Jesus did also. It says that Jesus overcame, and we must also, but it does not say what Jesus overcame and that we must also only overcome those things, but simply that we must overcome and Jesus will grant that we sit upon his throne.
In that verse it does not make sense that, if Jesus is just as one of us, that it would be Jesus who would grant that we sit upon His throne. I'd assume that if Jesus were just another one of us, that it would be God who would allow us to sit upon the throne God made for men. Jesus seems to have some authority to grant that someone sit upon this throne.
Do you have any verse that more directly suggests that Jesus overcame sinful flesh?
Since therefore Catholica shares in flesh and blood, Jesus himself likewise partook of the same things, that through death Jesus might destroy the one who has the power of death, that is, the devilPlease show me a verse that descibes exactly what has the power of death? In finding this you will define the devil!
and deliver Catholica who through fear of death is subject to lifelong slavery. 16 For surely it is not angels that he helps, but he helps the offspring of Abraham. 17 Therefore he had to be made like his brothers in every respect, so that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in the service of God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people. 18 For because he himself has suffered when tempted, he is able to help those who are being tempted. Heb 2:14-18
How did Jesus help the fleshly offspring of Abraham?
How was Jesus "made" like his brothers?
How is Jesus able to atone for mankind sins?
How did Jesus suffer when he was tempted?
If he suffered in his temptations, exactly like us what nature did he partake off?
Let see how honest and open you are to God's Word.
If you have the overwhleming feeling to explain this section of scripture becuase the truth is to hard to except maybe you could consider Heb 4:15
For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who in every respect has been tempted as we are, yet without sin. In what way was Jesus tempted?
For these temptations to take place what nature did he inherit from his mother?
Why do you think Jesus needed to have this nature?
God Bless
Insight
What do we need to overcome________________
What did Jesus overcome________________
We are to overcome the world,
He overcame the world.
Jesus was tempted in the wilderness for 40 days and 40 nights by the devil. This is all recorded in scripture. No one says he was not a man. He still is a man. What you fail to understand is that Jesus was God before he became a man, and he is still God.
God was manifest in the flesh. That is as clear as it gets my friend.
>>>In what way was Jesus tempted?
For these temptations to take place what nature did he inherit from his mother?
Why do you think Jesus needed to have this nature? <<<<
Adam and Eve were without sinful nature, yet tempted weren't they Insight? Does one have to have a sinful nature to be tempted?
: fish153 Mon Nov 14, 2011 - 18:46:09
>>>In what way was Jesus tempted?
For these temptations to take place what nature did he inherit from his mother?
Why do you think Jesus needed to have this nature? <<<<
Adam and Eve were without sin, yet tempted weren't they Insight? Does one have to have a sinful nature to be tempted?
Was Adam or Eve born of a woman (sinful)?
: Insight Mon Nov 14, 2011 - 18:48:27
: fish153 Mon Nov 14, 2011 - 18:46:09
>>>In what way was Jesus tempted?
For these temptations to take place what nature did he inherit from his mother?
Why do you think Jesus needed to have this nature? <<<<
Adam and Eve were without sin, yet tempted weren't they Insight? Does one have to have a sinful nature to be tempted?
Was Adam or Eve born of a woman (sinful)?
That's not the question. Can a person without a sinful nature be tempted? The answer is yes, they can. Adam and Eve were sinless and yet they were both tempted to sin. You are implying a person must have a fallen nature just like us in order to be tempted--that is untrue.
: fish153 Mon Nov 14, 2011 - 18:50:55
: Insight Mon Nov 14, 2011 - 18:48:27
: fish153 Mon Nov 14, 2011 - 18:46:09
>>>In what way was Jesus tempted?
For these temptations to take place what nature did he inherit from his mother?
Why do you think Jesus needed to have this nature? <<<<
Adam and Eve were without sin, yet tempted weren't they Insight? Does one have to have a sinful nature to be tempted?
Was Adam or Eve born of a woman (sinful)?
That's not the question. Can a person without a sinful nature be tempted? The answer is yes, they can. Adam and Eve were sinless and yet they were both tempted to sin. You are implying a person must have a fallen nature just like us in order to be tempted--that is untrue.
Dont run Fish
Was Adam or Eve born of a woman (sinful)?
Answer the question.
Adam was born of the earth, without sin, but as a free moral agent. Eve was born of Adam, from his rib, without sin as a free moral agent.
: RobWLarson Mon Nov 14, 2011 - 19:05:14
Adam was born of the earth, without sin, but as a free moral agent. Eve was born of Adam, from his rib, without sin as a free moral agent.
Thank you Rob.
Would you be so brave as to explain how Jesus was born.
What is man, that he can be pure? Or he who is born of a woman, that he can be righteous? Job 15:4
And
How then can man be justified with God? or how can he be clean that is born of a woman? Job 25:4
These verse's may help you.
Insight
: Insight Mon Nov 14, 2011 - 18:52:22
: fish153 Mon Nov 14, 2011 - 18:50:55
: Insight Mon Nov 14, 2011 - 18:48:27
: fish153 Mon Nov 14, 2011 - 18:46:09
>>>In what way was Jesus tempted?
For these temptations to take place what nature did he inherit from his mother?
Why do you think Jesus needed to have this nature? <<<<
Adam and Eve were without sin, yet tempted weren't they Insight? Does one have to have a sinful nature to be tempted?
Was Adam or Eve born of a woman (sinful)?
That's not the question. Can a person without a sinful nature be tempted? The answer is yes, they can. Adam and Eve were sinless and yet they were both tempted to sin. You are implying a person must have a fallen nature just like us in order to be tempted--that is untrue.
Dont run Fish
Was Adam or Eve born of a woman (sinful)?
Answer the question.
Insight---
It doesn't matter. The point is they were created without sin----and yet they were tempted to sin. Jesus was born with a sinless nature by the Holy Spirit----He was tempted in all things as we are, YET WITHOUT SIN. You are trying to state that Jesus was tempted because he was born with the same nature we are---that is not true---whether Adam was created, or born of a woman does not matter-----he was without sin, and he was tempted, and fell. This proves a person without a sin nature can be tempted--Jesus was WITHOUT SIN and yet tempted, but he did not possess the same fallen nature we have. You are attempting to derail that fact---and you cannot.
Fish,
Your understanding will only take you so far and then you conclude "it doesn't matter". If you were sitting in my chair typing this response immediately you would feel a strong sense of disappointment as it is dawns on you, this person has denied the very essence of Jesus nature in which God reconciled the whole world.
: fish153 Tue Nov 15, 2011 - 10:14:33
Insight---
It doesn't matter.
Oh it is essential Fish.
You must ask more of the Word - like why did Jesus need to share in our fallen nature? What possible reasons could there be for God having His Son born of an unclean woman in the line of Adam, Abraham & David. You need to ask wheat exactly did God achieve in Jesus' flesh nature that allows you to now be saved.
The point is they were created without sin----and yet they were tempted to sin.
What you have said is true.
Jesus was born with a sinless nature by the Holy Spirit
Show me a quote - every verse I have revealed to you states clearly Jesus had a fallen nature exactly like his brothers in every respect.
----He was tempted in all things as we are, YET WITHOUT SIN.
Again, this is true - he was without any moral sin of his own but exactly how did God view his nature? Teach me about the Fathers need to stake His son to a Cross - why dramatically placard his Sons body of flesh for all the world to see?
Go deeper into the Word Fish and find the hidden tresures of God and not doctrines of men.
You are trying to state that Jesus was tempted because he was born with the same nature we are---that is not true---
While this is true Jesus was tempted in that he shared our flesh and blood nature for God who is Spirit cannot be tempted (at all).
When Mary gave birth to Jesus was he her son? was he born of a woman? Was he ever called Son of Man? What does Son of Man mean to yo Fish?
That Jesus was like us but only pretending to be the representation of fallen man?
Forget about your ill feeling towards me - you ask the questions of God's Word for yourself.
whether Adam was created, or born of a woman does not matter-----he was without sin, and he was tempted, and fell.
When one gets into this explaining away mind set you can cause yourself a great deal of hurt - using terms like
"does not matter" when speaking about God's Holy Word is very dangerous.
Enough said.
This proves a person without a sin nature can be tempted--Jesus was WITHOUT SIN and yet tempted, but he did not possess the same fallen nature we have. You are attempting to derail that fact---and you cannot.
Not attempting to derail anything but show you how Jesus was the full representation of fallen man, who was made like his brothers in every respect, born of a sinful woman, suffered all the fralities of the flesh was a real living man who was held under the dominion of death all his days until he broke the emnity in his flesh destroy sins power whcih was latent in his nature.
For what does this mean to you.
For as by the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners (how?), so by the one man's obedience the many will be made righteous. (Romans 5:19)
But the free gift is not like the trespass. For if many died through one man's trespass, much more have the grace of God and the free gift by the grace of that one man Jesus Christ abounded for many. (Romans 5:15)
Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned (Romans 5:12)
Fish.
Why do we die?
There are only two answers.
1.
2.
God Bless
Insight
: Insight Tue Nov 15, 2011 - 20:38:27
Fish,
Your understanding will only take you so far and then you conclude "it doesn't matter". If you were sitting in my chair typing this response immediately you would feel a strong sense of disappointment as it is dawns on you, this person has denied the very essence of Jesus nature in which God reconciled the whole world.
: fish153 Tue Nov 15, 2011 - 10:14:33
Insight---
It doesn't matter.
Oh it is essential Fish.
You must ask more of the Word - like why did Jesus need to share in our fallen nature? What possible reasons could there be for God having His Son born of an unclean woman in the line of Adam, Abraham & David. You need to ask wheat exactly did God achieve in Jesus' flesh nature that allows you to now be saved.
The point is they were created without sin----and yet they were tempted to sin.
What you have said is true.
Jesus was born with a sinless nature by the Holy Spirit
Show me a quote - every verse I have revealed to you states clearly Jesus had a fallen nature exactly like his brothers in every respect.
----He was tempted in all things as we are, YET WITHOUT SIN.
Again, this is true - he was without any moral sin of his own but exactly how did God view his nature? Teach me about the Fathers need to stake His son to a Cross - why dramatically placard his Sons body of flesh for all the world to see?
Go deeper into the Word Fish and find the hidden tresures of God and not doctrines of men.
You are trying to state that Jesus was tempted because he was born with the same nature we are---that is not true---
While this is true Jesus was tempted in that he shared our flesh and blood nature for God who is Spirit cannot be tempted (at all).
When Mary gave birth to Jesus was he her son? was he born of a woman? Was he ever called Son of Man? What does Son of Man mean to yo Fish?
That Jesus was like us but only pretending to be the representation of fallen man?
Forget about your ill feeling towards me - you ask the questions of God's Word for yourself.
whether Adam was created, or born of a woman does not matter-----he was without sin, and he was tempted, and fell.
When one gets into this explaining away mind set you can cause yourself a great deal of hurt - using terms like "does not matter" when speaking about God's Holy Word is very dangerous.
Enough said.
This proves a person without a sin nature can be tempted--Jesus was WITHOUT SIN and yet tempted, but he did not possess the same fallen nature we have. You are attempting to derail that fact---and you cannot.
Not attempting to derail anything but show you how Jesus was the full representation of fallen man, who was made like his brothers in every respect, born of a sinful woman, suffered all the fralities of the flesh was a real living man who was held under the dominion of death all his days until he broke the emnity in his flesh destroy sins power whcih was latent in his nature.
For what does this mean to you.
For as by the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners (how?), so by the one man's obedience the many will be made righteous. (Romans 5:19)
But the free gift is not like the trespass. For if many died through one man's trespass, much more have the grace of God and the free gift by the grace of that one man Jesus Christ abounded for many. (Romans 5:15)
Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned (Romans 5:12)
Fish.
Why do we die?
There are only two answers.
1.
2.
God Bless
Insight
Insight--
You said:
>>>Show me a quote - every verse I have revealed to you states clearly Jesus had a fallen nature exactly like his brothers in every respect.<<<
"Then Jesus came from Galilee to the Jordan to be baptized by John. But John tried to deter him, saying, "I need to be baptized by you, and do you come to me?
: RobWLarson Mon Nov 14, 2011 - 18:45:51
God was manifest in the flesh. That is as clear as it gets my friend.
Yeowser, specifically ...
Isaiah 7:14, Isaiah 9:6
John 1:1 and 14, 1 Timothy 3:16
Proving Scripture claims that Jesus Christ was/is God is mere child's play.
Proving Scripture claims the Holy Spirit was/is God is not nearly as easy.
But, this is not the reason why many do not believe in the Trinity.
Belief in the Trinity comes via possible sources:
1) being born into a particular family, culture, etc. (i.e. blind faith)
2) being given a revelation from God about it
One can believe via one or both of these sources.
Some have experienced one or both of these, but do not believe.
Ever heard of Satan and his demons?
This is for everyone ...
Who do you mostly listen to ... the Holy Spirit or demons?
Hey, don't laugh.
: fish153 Tue Nov 15, 2011 - 21:57:07
Insight---
Don't you understand? John does not look upon Jesus as a sinner---in fact he doesn't even want to baptize Jesus saying "I need to be baptized by you, and you come to me?" Jesus says "Let it be so now.."-----Jesus acknowledges he needs no baptism----but is baptized "to fulfill all righteousness".
Explain why Jesus was required to be baptised?
Insight
: Insight Wed Nov 16, 2011 - 17:40:52
: fish153 Tue Nov 15, 2011 - 21:57:07
Insight---
Don't you understand? John does not look upon Jesus as a sinner---in fact he doesn't even want to baptize Jesus saying "I need to be baptized by you, and you come to me?" Jesus says "Let it be so now.."-----Jesus acknowledges he needs no baptism----but is baptized "to fulfill all righteousness".
Explain why Jesus was required to be baptised?
Insight
Jesus was baptized because He had to fulfill the legal requirements for entering into the priesthood. He was priest after the order of Melchizedek (Psalm 110:4; Heb. 5:8-10; 6:20). Priests offered sacrifice to God on behalf of the people. Jesus became a sacrifice for our sin (1 Pet. 2:24; 2 Cor. 5:21) in His role as priest.
To be consecrated as a priest, He had to be:
•Washed with water (Lev. 8:6; Exodus 29:4, Matt. 3:16).
•Anointed with oil (Lev. 8:12; Exodus 29:7; Matt. 3:16).
Both of these were bestowed upon Jesus at His baptism. (the annointing with oil is a type of being annointed with the Holy Spirit--and the Holy Spirit descended upon Jesus when he was baptized).
**John did not want to baptize Jesus---and John said he should be the one being baptized. Jesus said "
suffer it to be so now so that we may fulfill all righteousness". He was acknowledging that he did not need to be baptized in repentance,
but wanted John to do so to fulfill the requirements of the Law for becoming our Great High Priest.
Insight: "Explain why Jesus was required to be baptised?
That is a great question that troubled the early church profoundly and which is still current:
How reconcile the personality of Jesus with this act of humiliation? How harmonize the virgin birth
with the baptism?
How could Jesus be begotten of the Holy Spirit and yet need here in the Jordon the descent of the Spirit?
Why should He, who was and is God, submit to John's baptism?
How relate this humble action with His claims of preeminence?
How reconcile the great mission of Jesus as Saviour with the acceptance of baptism st the hands of
another religious figure as if He Himself needed salvation?
How reconcile the claims of Jesus and the New Testament writers that He lived a sinless life with His
deliberate acceptance of this baptism of John which was "of repentance unto remission of sins"?
John did not present Jesus publicly to the multitudes as the Messiah.
He left Jesus to pursue His own method of self-revelation.
Did Jesus declare at the Jordon the first decisive step leaving behind Him home ties and setting forth with
"no place to lay His head"?
With His great mission before Him this baptism marked the complete dedication of Jesus to His task.
Baptism is a complete surrender of body, mind, and soul---a burial and a resurrection.
His baptism set forth His absolute devotion to His lifework.
Jesus was baptized in obedience to the will of God.
"To fulfill all righteousness" can well be rendered, "to leave nothing undone that had been revealed as the
righteous will of God."
I believe His baptism by John begins the fulfillment of Daniel 9:24-27, but that is another can of worms....
: fish153 Thu Nov 17, 2011 - 10:12:59
: Insight Wed Nov 16, 2011 - 17:40:52
: fish153 Tue Nov 15, 2011 - 21:57:07
Insight---
Don't you understand? John does not look upon Jesus as a sinner---in fact he doesn't even want to baptize Jesus saying "I need to be baptized by you, and you come to me?" Jesus says "Let it be so now.."-----Jesus acknowledges he needs no baptism----but is baptized "to fulfill all righteousness".
Explain why Jesus was required to be baptised?
Insight
Jesus was baptized because He had to fulfill the legal requirements for entering into the priesthood. He was priest after the order of Melchizedek (Psalm 110:4; Heb. 5:8-10; 6:20). Priests offered sacrifice to God on behalf of the people. Jesus became a sacrifice for our sin (1 Pet. 2:24; 2 Cor. 5:21) in His role as priest.
To be consecrated as a priest, He had to be:
•Washed with water (Lev. 8:6; Exodus 29:4, Matt. 3:16).
•Anointed with oil (Lev. 8:12; Exodus 29:7; Matt. 3:16).
Both of these were bestowed upon Jesus at His baptism. (the annointing with oil is a type of being annointed with the Holy Spirit--and the Holy Spirit descended upon Jesus when he was baptized).
**John did not want to baptize Jesus---and John said he should be the one being baptized. Jesus said "suffer it to be so now so that we may fulfill all righteousness". He was acknowledging that he did not need to be baptized in repentance, but wanted John to do so to fulfill the requirements of the Law for becoming our Great High Priest.
This fails to acknowlege why Jesus was born of a woman and why he was required to be baptised.
John the Batists message was
The voice said, Cry. And he said, What shall I cry? All flesh is grass, and all the goodliness thereof is as the flower of the field:Cmp
And Jesus answering said unto him, Permit it to be so NOW!: for thus it is fitting for us to fulfill all righteousness. Then he permitted him. Matt 3:15
I can lead you to truth but if one resists who is responsible?
Insight
: Insight Thu Nov 17, 2011 - 16:31:57
: fish153 Thu Nov 17, 2011 - 10:12:59
: Insight Wed Nov 16, 2011 - 17:40:52
: fish153 Tue Nov 15, 2011 - 21:57:07
Insight---
Don't you understand? John does not look upon Jesus as a sinner---in fact he doesn't even want to baptize Jesus saying "I need to be baptized by you, and you come to me?" Jesus says "Let it be so now.."-----Jesus acknowledges he needs no baptism----but is baptized "to fulfill all righteousness".
Explain why Jesus was required to be baptised?
Insight
Jesus was baptized because He had to fulfill the legal requirements for entering into the priesthood. He was priest after the order of Melchizedek (Psalm 110:4; Heb. 5:8-10; 6:20). Priests offered sacrifice to God on behalf of the people. Jesus became a sacrifice for our sin (1 Pet. 2:24; 2 Cor. 5:21) in His role as priest.
To be consecrated as a priest, He had to be:
•Washed with water (Lev. 8:6; Exodus 29:4, Matt. 3:16).
•Anointed with oil (Lev. 8:12; Exodus 29:7; Matt. 3:16).
Both of these were bestowed upon Jesus at His baptism. (the annointing with oil is a type of being annointed with the Holy Spirit--and the Holy Spirit descended upon Jesus when he was baptized).
**John did not want to baptize Jesus---and John said he should be the one being baptized. Jesus said "suffer it to be so now so that we may fulfill all righteousness". He was acknowledging that he did not need to be baptized in repentance, but wanted John to do so to fulfill the requirements of the Law for becoming our Great High Priest.
This fails to acknowlege why Jesus was born of a woman and why he was required to be baptised.
John the Batists message was The voice said, Cry. And he said, What shall I cry? All flesh is grass, and all the goodliness thereof is as the flower of the field:
Cmp
And Jesus answering said unto him, Permit it to be so NOW!: for thus it is fitting for us to fulfill all righteousness. Then he permitted him. Matt 3:15
I can lead you to truth but if one resists who is responsible?
Insight
Insight---
It explains specically why Jesus was baptized. Jesus was born of a woman (a Virgin through the Holy Spirit) so that he might take on human form. He took on our weakness and frailty--he had a human nature---but he was
sinless. He was born a man, but
not with a fallen nature.
When He was baptized he fulfilled the requirements of the Law for a High Priest. He was tempted in all points as we are
YET WITHOUT SIN. He can therefore
PERFECTLY represent us in Heaven. He is both
GOD and
MAN, and is therefore the
ONLY MEDIATOR between
GOD and
MEN.
What do you mean you can lead me to truth? You brush away the truth like dust so you can keep your own theology. I've answered the question regarding baptism and you simply brush it off because it doesn't fit with what you believe. Jesus is God the Son Insight. You refuse to believe that despite all that you are shown. As Jesus said to the pharisees "
Let the blind lead the blind..." It's just too bad, because you have the perfect opportunity to see.
: fish153 Thu Nov 17, 2011 - 16:43:58
: Insight Thu Nov 17, 2011 - 16:31:57
: fish153 Thu Nov 17, 2011 - 10:12:59
: Insight Wed Nov 16, 2011 - 17:40:52
: fish153 Tue Nov 15, 2011 - 21:57:07
Insight---
Don't you understand? John does not look upon Jesus as a sinner---in fact he doesn't even want to baptize Jesus saying "I need to be baptized by you, and you come to me?" Jesus says "Let it be so now.."-----Jesus acknowledges he needs no baptism----but is baptized "to fulfill all righteousness".
Explain why Jesus was required to be baptised?
Insight
Jesus was baptized because He had to fulfill the legal requirements for entering into the priesthood. He was priest after the order of Melchizedek (Psalm 110:4; Heb. 5:8-10; 6:20). Priests offered sacrifice to God on behalf of the people. Jesus became a sacrifice for our sin (1 Pet. 2:24; 2 Cor. 5:21) in His role as priest.
To be consecrated as a priest, He had to be:
•Washed with water (Lev. 8:6; Exodus 29:4, Matt. 3:16).
•Anointed with oil (Lev. 8:12; Exodus 29:7; Matt. 3:16).
Both of these were bestowed upon Jesus at His baptism. (the annointing with oil is a type of being annointed with the Holy Spirit--and the Holy Spirit descended upon Jesus when he was baptized).
**John did not want to baptize Jesus---and John said he should be the one being baptized. Jesus said "suffer it to be so now so that we may fulfill all righteousness". He was acknowledging that he did not need to be baptized in repentance, but wanted John to do so to fulfill the requirements of the Law for becoming our Great High Priest.
This fails to acknowlege why Jesus was born of a woman and why he was required to be baptised.
John the Batists message was The voice said, Cry. And he said, What shall I cry? All flesh is grass, and all the goodliness thereof is as the flower of the field:
Cmp
And Jesus answering said unto him, Permit it to be so NOW!: for thus it is fitting for us to fulfill all righteousness. Then he permitted him. Matt 3:15
I can lead you to truth but if one resists who is responsible?
Insight
Insight---
It explains specically why Jesus was baptized. Jesus was born of a woman (a Virgin through the Holy Spirit) so that he might take on human form. He took on our weakness and frailty--he had a human nature---but he was sinless. He was born a man, but not with a fallen nature.
When He was baptized he fulfilled the requirements of the Law for a High Priest. He was tempted in all points as we are YET WITHOUT SIN. He can therefore PERFECTLY represent us in Heaven. He is both GOD and MAN, and is therefore the ONLY MEDIATOR between GOD and MEN.
What do you mean you can lead me to truth? You brush away the truth like dust so you can keep your own theology. I've answered the question regarding baptism and you simply brush it off because it doesn't fit with what you believe. Jesus is God the Son Insight. You refuse to believe that despite all that you are shown. As Jesus said to the pharisees "Let the blind lead the blind..." It's just too bad, because you have the perfect opportunity to see.
Your failure to once more honestly address how Jesus in himself (i.e in his nature) demonstrated that ALL flesh is grass and that ALL righteousness must be fulfilled in him astounds me Fish.
Clearly the baptism of Jesus is unknown to you!
Maybe you should go away and study Luke 12:50 and maybe you might
begin to understand his baptism.
But I have a baptism to be baptized with; and how am I straitened till it be accomplished!Insight
: Insight Thu Nov 17, 2011 - 18:20:59
: fish153 Thu Nov 17, 2011 - 16:43:58
: Insight Thu Nov 17, 2011 - 16:31:57
: fish153 Thu Nov 17, 2011 - 10:12:59
: Insight Wed Nov 16, 2011 - 17:40:52
: fish153 Tue Nov 15, 2011 - 21:57:07
Insight---
Don't you understand? John does not look upon Jesus as a sinner---in fact he doesn't even want to baptize Jesus saying "I need to be baptized by you, and you come to me?" Jesus says "Let it be so now.."-----Jesus acknowledges he needs no baptism----but is baptized "to fulfill all righteousness".
Explain why Jesus was required to be baptised?
Insight
Jesus was baptized because He had to fulfill the legal requirements for entering into the priesthood. He was priest after the order of Melchizedek (Psalm 110:4; Heb. 5:8-10; 6:20). Priests offered sacrifice to God on behalf of the people. Jesus became a sacrifice for our sin (1 Pet. 2:24; 2 Cor. 5:21) in His role as priest.
To be consecrated as a priest, He had to be:
•Washed with water (Lev. 8:6; Exodus 29:4, Matt. 3:16).
•Anointed with oil (Lev. 8:12; Exodus 29:7; Matt. 3:16).
Both of these were bestowed upon Jesus at His baptism. (the annointing with oil is a type of being annointed with the Holy Spirit--and the Holy Spirit descended upon Jesus when he was baptized).
**John did not want to baptize Jesus---and John said he should be the one being baptized. Jesus said "suffer it to be so now so that we may fulfill all righteousness". He was acknowledging that he did not need to be baptized in repentance, but wanted John to do so to fulfill the requirements of the Law for becoming our Great High Priest.
This fails to acknowlege why Jesus was born of a woman and why he was required to be baptised.
John the Batists message was The voice said, Cry. And he said, What shall I cry? All flesh is grass, and all the goodliness thereof is as the flower of the field:
Cmp
And Jesus answering said unto him, Permit it to be so NOW!: for thus it is fitting for us to fulfill all righteousness. Then he permitted him. Matt 3:15
I can lead you to truth but if one resists who is responsible?
Insight
Insight---
It explains specically why Jesus was baptized. Jesus was born of a woman (a Virgin through the Holy Spirit) so that he might take on human form. He took on our weakness and frailty--he had a human nature---but he was sinless. He was born a man, but not with a fallen nature.
When He was baptized he fulfilled the requirements of the Law for a High Priest. He was tempted in all points as we are YET WITHOUT SIN. He can therefore PERFECTLY represent us in Heaven. He is both GOD and MAN, and is therefore the ONLY MEDIATOR between GOD and MEN.
What do you mean you can lead me to truth? You brush away the truth like dust so you can keep your own theology. I've answered the question regarding baptism and you simply brush it off because it doesn't fit with what you believe. Jesus is God the Son Insight. You refuse to believe that despite all that you are shown. As Jesus said to the pharisees "Let the blind lead the blind..." It's just too bad, because you have the perfect opportunity to see.
Your failure to once more honestly address how Jesus in himself (i.e in his nature) demonstrated that ALL flesh is grass and that ALL righteousness must be fulfilled in him astounds me Fish.
Clearly the baptism of Jesus is unknown to you!
Maybe you should go away and study Luke 12:50 and maybe you might begin to understand his baptism.
But I have a baptism to be baptized with; and how am I straitened till it be accomplished!
Insight
Insight---
Your utter refusal to accept what is scriptural astounds me. Once again---here is why Jesus was baptized. You can say the baptism is unknown to me all you want. Your problem is---this is correct---it is staring you in the face---but you REFUSE to accept it:
Jesus was baptized because He had to fulfill the legal requirements for entering into the priesthood. He was priest after the order of Melchizedek (Psalm 110:4; Heb. 5:8-10; 6:20). Priests offered sacrifice to God on behalf of the people. Jesus became a sacrifice for our sin (1 Pet. 2:24; 2 Cor. 5:21) in His role as priest.
To be consecrated as a priest, He had to be:
•Washed with water (Lev. 8:6; Exodus 29:4, Matt. 3:16).
•Anointed with oil (Lev. 8:12; Exodus 29:7; Matt. 3:16).
Both of these were bestowed upon Jesus at His baptism. (the annointing with oil is a type of being annointed with the Holy Spirit--and the Holy Spirit descended upon Jesus when he was baptized).
**John did not want to baptize Jesus---and John said he should be the one being baptized. Jesus said "
suffer it to be so now so that we may fulfill all righteousness". He was acknowledging that he did not need to be baptized in repentance,
but wanted John to do so to fulfill the requirements of the Law for becoming our Great High Priest.
: fish153 Thu Nov 17, 2011 - 18:55:55
: Insight Thu Nov 17, 2011 - 18:20:59
: fish153 Thu Nov 17, 2011 - 16:43:58
: Insight Thu Nov 17, 2011 - 16:31:57
: fish153 Thu Nov 17, 2011 - 10:12:59
: Insight Wed Nov 16, 2011 - 17:40:52
: fish153 Tue Nov 15, 2011 - 21:57:07
Insight---
Don't you understand? John does not look upon Jesus as a sinner---in fact he doesn't even want to baptize Jesus saying "I need to be baptized by you, and you come to me?" Jesus says "Let it be so now.."-----Jesus acknowledges he needs no baptism----but is baptized "to fulfill all righteousness".
Explain why Jesus was required to be baptised?
Insight
Jesus was baptized because He had to fulfill the legal requirements for entering into the priesthood. He was priest after the order of Melchizedek (Psalm 110:4; Heb. 5:8-10; 6:20). Priests offered sacrifice to God on behalf of the people. Jesus became a sacrifice for our sin (1 Pet. 2:24; 2 Cor. 5:21) in His role as priest.
To be consecrated as a priest, He had to be:
•Washed with water (Lev. 8:6; Exodus 29:4, Matt. 3:16).
•Anointed with oil (Lev. 8:12; Exodus 29:7; Matt. 3:16).
Both of these were bestowed upon Jesus at His baptism. (the annointing with oil is a type of being annointed with the Holy Spirit--and the Holy Spirit descended upon Jesus when he was baptized).
**John did not want to baptize Jesus---and John said he should be the one being baptized. Jesus said "suffer it to be so now so that we may fulfill all righteousness". He was acknowledging that he did not need to be baptized in repentance, but wanted John to do so to fulfill the requirements of the Law for becoming our Great High Priest.
This fails to acknowlege why Jesus was born of a woman and why he was required to be baptised.
John the Batists message was The voice said, Cry. And he said, What shall I cry? All flesh is grass, and all the goodliness thereof is as the flower of the field:
Cmp
And Jesus answering said unto him, Permit it to be so NOW!: for thus it is fitting for us to fulfill all righteousness. Then he permitted him. Matt 3:15
I can lead you to truth but if one resists who is responsible?
Insight
Insight---
It explains specically why Jesus was baptized. Jesus was born of a woman (a Virgin through the Holy Spirit) so that he might take on human form. He took on our weakness and frailty--he had a human nature---but he was sinless. He was born a man, but not with a fallen nature.
When He was baptized he fulfilled the requirements of the Law for a High Priest. He was tempted in all points as we are YET WITHOUT SIN. He can therefore PERFECTLY represent us in Heaven. He is both GOD and MAN, and is therefore the ONLY MEDIATOR between GOD and MEN.
What do you mean you can lead me to truth? You brush away the truth like dust so you can keep your own theology. I've answered the question regarding baptism and you simply brush it off because it doesn't fit with what you believe. Jesus is God the Son Insight. You refuse to believe that despite all that you are shown. As Jesus said to the pharisees "Let the blind lead the blind..." It's just too bad, because you have the perfect opportunity to see.
Your failure to once more honestly address how Jesus in himself (i.e in his nature) demonstrated that ALL flesh is grass and that ALL righteousness must be fulfilled in him astounds me Fish.
Clearly the baptism of Jesus is unknown to you!
Maybe you should go away and study Luke 12:50 and maybe you might begin to understand his baptism.
But I have a baptism to be baptized with; and how am I straitened till it be accomplished!
Insight
Insight---
Your utter refusal to accept what is scriptural astounds me. Once again---here is why Jesus was baptized. You can say the baptism is unknown to me all you want. Your problem is---this is correct---it is staring you in the face---but you REFUSE to accept it:
Jesus was baptized because He had to fulfill the legal requirements for entering into the priesthood. He was priest after the order of Melchizedek (Psalm 110:4; Heb. 5:8-10; 6:20). Priests offered sacrifice to God on behalf of the people. Jesus became a sacrifice for our sin (1 Pet. 2:24; 2 Cor. 5:21) in His role as priest.
To be consecrated as a priest, He had to be:
•Washed with water (Lev. 8:6; Exodus 29:4, Matt. 3:16).
•Anointed with oil (Lev. 8:12; Exodus 29:7; Matt. 3:16).
Both of these were bestowed upon Jesus at His baptism. (the annointing with oil is a type of being annointed with the Holy Spirit--and the Holy Spirit descended upon Jesus when he was baptized).
**John did not want to baptize Jesus---and John said he should be the one being baptized. Jesus said "suffer it to be so now so that we may fulfill all righteousness". He was acknowledging that he did not need to be baptized in repentance, but wanted John to do so to fulfill the requirements of the Law for becoming our Great High Priest.
Ok.
What qualified Jesus' priesthood? What did he need to be to become an affective High Priest?
Insight
: fish153 Thu Nov 17, 2011 - 18:55:55
**John did not want to baptize Jesus---and John said he should be the one being baptized. Jesus said "suffer it to be so now so that we may fulfill all righteousness". He was acknowledging that he did not need to be baptized in repentance, but wanted John to do so to fulfill the requirements of the Law for becoming our Great High Priest.
When Jesus gently rebuked John for resisting his baptism he said
"It becometh us
And maybe after you have discovered the true meaning of his baptism the following will become evident.
"I have need
Insight--
This is useless. Your whole agenda on this board---every thread you start---every conversation you engage in is based on either why the Trinity doesn't exist, or why Jesus is not God. You refuse to listen to very clear presentations of scripture which show clearly that Jesus was God Incarnate. It is a ping-pong game with you----when you are faced with scripture which shows how off-base you are, you ignore it and proceed in another direction in an attempt to justify your position. As I said, this is useless conversation. I shouldn't even continue as long as I have in discussions with a heretic-----I just hoped that you might possibly listen. It is clear now that you will not.
: Insight Sun Nov 06, 2011 - 17:02:43
Any idiot can bundle verses together to teach error.
It takes wisdom to provide an understanding.
I will move on to find such a wise man.
You remind me of a guy (who actually is disfunctional) who had not received
the revelation that Jesus is God when I had this discussion with him ...
I told him that I had 70+ verses which point to the fact that Jesus is God.
He said to me, "I don't care if you have 700 verses."
He was born into a pentecostal family, which was disfunctional in several ways.
His father was a less-than-successful pastor since about age 20.
His mother was given a vision of Hell at age 18, and was an evangelist.
I knew this family for 25 years (the parents are now deceased).
Note: the whole family was plagued by Satan's demons for many years.
But this fact remains a trillion miles over your head, as do a lot of other things.
: fish153 Fri Nov 18, 2011 - 10:41:22
Insight--
This is useless. Your whole agenda on this board---every thread you start---every conversation you engage in is based on either why the Trinity doesn't exist, or why Jesus is not God. You refuse to listen to very clear presentations of scripture which show clearly that Jesus was God Incarnate. It is a ping-pong game with you----when you are faced with scripture which shows how off-base you are, you ignore it and proceed in another direction in an attempt to justify your position. As I said, this is useless conversation. I shouldn't even continue as long as I have in discussions with a heretic-----I just hoped that you might possibly listen. It is clear now that you will not.
Fish,
Your denial of Jesus' nature is holding you back.
I have asked you to answer the most simplest of questions and yet time and time again you fail to show a sound understanding of why Jesus was baptised.
I asked you to look into the word "straightened" in Luke 12:50 but nothing. I ask you to what part of Jesus need baptism and yet one would think to define and show forth an understanding of Baptism from the Bible but again I received nothing. I asked you why Jesus rebuked John by saying "I have need" but have you once revealed what that need might be?
I refuse to show you his baptism because of your blindness maybe another (mediator) can provide this simplest of truthes.
Insight
: John Zain Fri Nov 18, 2011 - 11:01:45
You remind me of a guy (who actually is disfunctional) who had not received
the revelation that Jesus is God when I had this discussion with him ...
I told him that I had 70+ verses which point to the fact that Jesus is God.
He said to me, "I don't care if you have 700 verses."
He was born into a pentecostal family, which was disfunctional in several ways.
His father was a less-than-successful pastor since about age 20.
His mother was given a vision of Hell at age 18, and was an evangelist.
I knew this family for 25 years (the parents are now deceased).
Note: the whole family was plagued by Satan's demons for many years.
But this fact remains a trillion miles over your head, as do a lot of other things.[/color]
And yet you fail to provide one (1) verse. ::shrug::
You remind me of a guy...... ::headscratch::
Insight
: Insight Fri Nov 18, 2011 - 19:12:30
: fish153 Fri Nov 18, 2011 - 10:41:22
Insight--
This is useless. Your whole agenda on this board---every thread you start---every conversation you engage in is based on either why the Trinity doesn't exist, or why Jesus is not God. You refuse to listen to very clear presentations of scripture which show clearly that Jesus was God Incarnate. It is a ping-pong game with you----when you are faced with scripture which shows how off-base you are, you ignore it and proceed in another direction in an attempt to justify your position. As I said, this is useless conversation. I shouldn't even continue as long as I have in discussions with a heretic-----I just hoped that you might possibly listen. It is clear now that you will not.
Fish,
Your denial of Jesus' nature is holding you back.
I have asked you to answer the most simplest of questions and yet time and time again you fail to show a sound understanding of why Jesus was baptised.
I asked you to look into the word "straightened" in Luke 12:50 but nothing. I ask you to what part of Jesus need baptism and yet one would think to define and show forth an understanding of Baptism from the Bible but again I received nothing. I asked you why Jesus rebuked John by saying "I have need" but have you once revealed what that need might be?
I refuse to show you his baptism because of your blindness maybe another (mediator) can provide this simplest of truthes.
Insight
Insight--
I showed you a very sound reason why Jesus was baptized, backed with Bible verses and explanations. He was baptized to fulfill the Law so he could be a High Priest. Jesus did not need to be baptized due to a fallen nature---he was baptized to "fulfill righteousness"---to keep the Law as to what a Priest needs to do to fulfill that office. He was washed with water as the Law requires, and He was annointed by the Holy Spirit.
You choose to completely ignore this clear teaching so that you can keep your doctrine. You are acting like a heretic---completely ignoring clear teaching, and then straying into obscure areas to try to salvage your incorrect teachings. As I said before, it is useless----I keep posting---but it is useless---you simply will not listen--and it isn't just me---numerous people have presented clear teachings showing you why Jesus is indeed God, but you brush it off and just will not listen. It is one of the saddest things I've seen in a long time on this board.
By the way, your name should not be "insight" because you have none------it should be "incite" because that's what you do on the board. You cause many good Christians here to spend most of their time defending their Great Lord and His Deity, or the very nature of the Sovereign God in Trinity. yes--Incite is a far better name to use.
: fish153 Fri Nov 18, 2011 - 22:52:37
Insight--
I showed you a very sound reason why Jesus was baptized, backed with Bible verses and explanations.
No Fish, you avoided the essential elements of his Baptism which are contrary to your beliefs.
He was baptized to fulfill the Law so he could be a High Priest. Jesus did not need to be baptized due to a fallen nature.
You provided the below references to support Jesus baptism.
To be consecrated as a priest, He had to be:
•Washed with water (Lev. 8:6; Exodus 29:4, Matt. 3:16).
•Anointed with oil (Lev. 8:12; Exodus 29:7; Matt. 3:16).
Both of these were bestowed upon Jesus at His baptism.
Fish, you have quoted passages which you "may
Thank you for this post Insight
I was deeply touched by it. ::tippinghat::
: Beta Sat Nov 19, 2011 - 07:00:19
Thank you for this post Insight
I was deeply touched by it. ::tippinghat::
Your welcome.
It is comforting to see one who understands the Lords baptism (of fire) and of water etc.
Insight
: Insight Sat Nov 19, 2011 - 03:30:58
: fish153 Fri Nov 18, 2011 - 22:52:37
Insight--
I showed you a very sound reason why Jesus was baptized, backed with Bible verses and explanations.
No Fish, you avoided the essential elements of his Baptism which are contrary to your beliefs.
He was baptized to fulfill the Law so he could be a High Priest. Jesus did not need to be baptized due to a fallen nature.
You provided the below references to support Jesus baptism.
To be consecrated as a priest, He had to be:
•Washed with water (Lev. 8:6; Exodus 29:4, Matt. 3:16).
•Anointed with oil (Lev. 8:12; Exodus 29:7; Matt. 3:16).
Both of these were bestowed upon Jesus at His baptism.
Fish, you have quoted passages which you "may
: fish153 Mon Nov 21, 2011 - 00:15:26
You don't even know what you are talking about:
Insults do not place you in a good light Fish.
"But John forbad him, saying, I have need to be baptized of thee, and comest thou to me"?
Jesus doesn't say "I have need"---John does!!
You are in total denial of the record. Yes John is stating he has need but who has the greater need Fish?
Who was Baptised?
Jesus was saying to John if you are able to read behind the record that his need for Baptism was greater than Johns
because it suffer Jesus to be baptised and for them both to fulfil all righteousness.
My Sunday school students have better comprehension of this record.
And Luke 12:50 is referring to a baptism of suffering. On the way to to Jerusalem, Jesus upbraids John and James and says:
Jesus said, "You don't realize what you're asking. Can you drink the cup that I'm going to drink? Can you be baptized with the baptism that I'm going to receive?"(Mark 10:38)
When Jesus says he is "straightened" He is referring to accomplishing what he was sent to the world to do---to suffer on the cross---and no one but He can be baptized with that!
You are wresting Scripture and kick ingagainst the pricks!
But I have a baptism to be baptized with; and how am I straitened
till it be accomplished! (Luke 12:50)
What does
till mean Fish?
Once again Insight---many, many Christians have explained to you in many ways that Jesus is indeed God incarnate. It is a very clear teaching of Scripture---you just refuse to acknowledge it.
You are yet to understand Jesus' baptism let alone the Trinity.
I am surprised at Beta for saying she was "touched" with your post---when all you do is insult the grandeur and position of the Lord Jesus Christ--God the Son.
Beta has an emotional connection with the Word of God which you are lacking. This is why your abrasive posts get you into trouble, because your flesh gets the better of you and you can no longer see clearly.
So far you failed to understand Jesus':
1. Greater need for baptism
2. The symbolic baptism compared to his actual baptism
3. How he suffered in the flesh "till
: Insight Mon Nov 21, 2011 - 02:45:47
: fish153 Mon Nov 21, 2011 - 00:15:26
You don't even know what you are talking about:
Insults do not place you in a good light Fish.
"But John forbad him, saying, I have need to be baptized of thee, and comest thou to me"?
Jesus doesn't say "I have need"---John does!!
You are in total denial of the record. Yes John is stating he has need but who has the greater need Fish?
Who was Baptised?
Jesus was saying to John if you are able to read behind the record that his need for Baptism was greater than Johns because it suffer Jesus to be baptised and for them both to fulfil all righteousness.
My Sunday school students have better comprehension of this record.
And Luke 12:50 is referring to a baptism of suffering. On the way to to Jerusalem, Jesus upbraids John and James and says:
Jesus said, "You don't realize what you're asking. Can you drink the cup that I'm going to drink? Can you be baptized with the baptism that I'm going to receive?"(Mark 10:38)
When Jesus says he is "straightened" He is referring to accomplishing what he was sent to the world to do---to suffer on the cross---and no one but He can be baptized with that!
You are wresting Scripture and kick ingagainst the pricks!
But I have a baptism to be baptized with; and how am I straitened till it be accomplished! (Luke 12:50)
What does till mean Fish?
Once again Insight---many, many Christians have explained to you in many ways that Jesus is indeed God incarnate. It is a very clear teaching of Scripture---you just refuse to acknowledge it.
You are yet to understand Jesus' baptism let alone the Trinity.
I am surprised at Beta for saying she was "touched" with your post---when all you do is insult the grandeur and position of the Lord Jesus Christ--God the Son.
Beta has an emotional connection with the Word of God which you are lacking. This is why your abrasive posts get you into trouble, because your flesh gets the better of you and you can no longer see clearly.
So far you failed to understand Jesus':
1. Greater need for baptism
2. The symbolic baptism compared to his actual baptism
3. How he suffered in the flesh "till
: fish153 Mon Nov 21, 2011 - 23:34:19
: Insight Mon Nov 21, 2011 - 02:45:47
: fish153 Mon Nov 21, 2011 - 00:15:26
You don't even know what you are talking about:
Insults do not place you in a good light Fish.
"But John forbad him, saying, I have need to be baptized of thee, and comest thou to me"?
Jesus doesn't say "I have need"---John does!!
You are in total denial of the record. Yes John is stating he has need but who has the greater need Fish?
Who was Baptised?
Jesus was saying to John if you are able to read behind the record that his need for Baptism was greater than Johns because it suffer Jesus to be baptised and for them both to fulfil all righteousness.
My Sunday school students have better comprehension of this record.
And Luke 12:50 is referring to a baptism of suffering. On the way to to Jerusalem, Jesus upbraids John and James and says:
Jesus said, "You don't realize what you're asking. Can you drink the cup that I'm going to drink? Can you be baptized with the baptism that I'm going to receive?"(Mark 10:38)
When Jesus says he is "straightened" He is referring to accomplishing what he was sent to the world to do---to suffer on the cross---and no one but He can be baptized with that!
You are wresting Scripture and kick ingagainst the pricks!
But I have a baptism to be baptized with; and how am I straitened till it be accomplished! (Luke 12:50)
What does till mean Fish?
Once again Insight---many, many Christians have explained to you in many ways that Jesus is indeed God incarnate. It is a very clear teaching of Scripture---you just refuse to acknowledge it.
You are yet to understand Jesus' baptism let alone the Trinity.
I am surprised at Beta for saying she was "touched" with your post---when all you do is insult the grandeur and position of the Lord Jesus Christ--God the Son.
Beta has an emotional connection with the Word of God which you are lacking. This is why your abrasive posts get you into trouble, because your flesh gets the better of you and you can no longer see clearly.
So far you failed to understand Jesus':
1. Greater need for baptism
2. The symbolic baptism compared to his actual baptism
3. How he suffered in the flesh "till
: Insight Mon Nov 21, 2011 - 23:45:26
: fish153 Mon Nov 21, 2011 - 23:34:19
: Insight Mon Nov 21, 2011 - 02:45:47
: fish153 Mon Nov 21, 2011 - 00:15:26
You don't even know what you are talking about:
Insults do not place you in a good light Fish.
"But John forbad him, saying, I have need to be baptized of thee, and comest thou to me"?
Jesus doesn't say "I have need"---John does!!
You are in total denial of the record. Yes John is stating he has need but who has the greater need Fish?
Who was Baptised?
Jesus was saying to John if you are able to read behind the record that his need for Baptism was greater than Johns because it suffer Jesus to be baptised and for them both to fulfil all righteousness.
My Sunday school students have better comprehension of this record.
And Luke 12:50 is referring to a baptism of suffering. On the way to to Jerusalem, Jesus upbraids John and James and says:
Jesus said, "You don't realize what you're asking. Can you drink the cup that I'm going to drink? Can you be baptized with the baptism that I'm going to receive?"(Mark 10:38)
When Jesus says he is "straightened" He is referring to accomplishing what he was sent to the world to do---to suffer on the cross---and no one but He can be baptized with that!
You are wresting Scripture and kick ingagainst the pricks!
But I have a baptism to be baptized with; and how am I straitened till it be accomplished! (Luke 12:50)
What does till mean Fish?
Once again Insight---many, many Christians have explained to you in many ways that Jesus is indeed God incarnate. It is a very clear teaching of Scripture---you just refuse to acknowledge it.
You are yet to understand Jesus' baptism let alone the Trinity.
I am surprised at Beta for saying she was "touched" with your post---when all you do is insult the grandeur and position of the Lord Jesus Christ--God the Son.
Beta has an emotional connection with the Word of God which you are lacking. This is why your abrasive posts get you into trouble, because your flesh gets the better of you and you can no longer see clearly.
So far you failed to understand Jesus':
1. Greater need for baptism
2. The symbolic baptism compared to his actual baptism
3. How he suffered in the flesh "till
When you are ready to put your pride to oneside, by all means I will listen - till then your denial appears stronger and only getting stronger.
Insight
: Insight Tue Nov 22, 2011 - 00:07:12
When you are ready to put your pride to oneside, by all means I will listen - till then your denial appears stronger and only getting stronger.
Insight
::smile:: John 8:58 is pretty hard to deal with when you claim the non-divinity of Jesus, so I don't blame you for side-stepping my post and calling it pride. LOL Hopefully when you are willing to set aside your pride you will take a closer look at what the Scriptures really teach about Jesus.
: fish153 Tue Nov 22, 2011 - 00:17:45
: Insight Tue Nov 22, 2011 - 00:07:12
When you are ready to put your pride to oneside, by all means I will listen - till then your denial appears stronger and only getting stronger.
Insight
::smile:: John 8:58 is pretty hard to deal with when you claim the non-divinity of Jesus, so I don't blame you for side-stepping my post and calling it pride. LOL Hopefully when you are willing to set aside your pride you will take a closer look at what the Scriptures really teach about Jesus.
Fish,
The above post is more of the same special pleading consistent with TB's.
However, you have me curious
How do you perceive Jesus sufferings?
Can you explain how he suffered?
Insight
: fish153 Tue Nov 22, 2011 - 00:17:45
John 8:58 is pretty hard to deal with when you claim the non-divinity of Jesus
Okay, let's look at John 8:58 and 6 other related verses ...
Jesus claimed to be the great "I AM
: Insight Tue Nov 22, 2011 - 15:13:44
: fish153 Tue Nov 22, 2011 - 00:17:45
: Insight Tue Nov 22, 2011 - 00:07:12
When you are ready to put your pride to oneside, by all means I will listen - till then your denial appears stronger and only getting stronger.
Insight
::smile:: John 8:58 is pretty hard to deal with when you claim the non-divinity of Jesus, so I don't blame you for side-stepping my post and calling it pride. LOL Hopefully when you are willing to set aside your pride you will take a closer look at what the Scriptures really teach about Jesus.
Fish,
The above post is more of the same special pleading consistent with TB's.
However, you have me curious
How do you perceive Jesus sufferings?
Can you explain how he suffered?
Insight
You should take note of John Zain's post below--he is correct--tranlators added the "
he" following
I AM in John 8:58, plus other verses which he lists.
As for Jesus' sufferings I believe something you do not seem to understand. Jesus is dying on the cross for the souls of
BILLIONS of people. Jesus tasted death for
EVERYONE. How could a mere man die for the sins of
BILLIONS of people at ONE TIME? The answer is a mere man could not---only God could suffer for billions of people's sins.
When Jesus was beaten and crucified he felt the pain a human would feel---he suffered excrutiating pain from the whipping, and from the insults from the men he came to die for. He suffered the horrible pain of being crucified. But what you do not understand Insight is that as the
SON OF GOD He felt the
INFINITE SUFFERING of SEPARATION FROM GOD that the sinner would experience if Jesus had not died for them.
Only an
INFINITE being could die for the
INFINITE PENALTY of SIN. Hell is eternal--how could a mere man pay the price for
BILLIONS OF PEOPLE destined for an
ETERNAL HELL? The suffering the
SON OF GOD experienced for the sins of billions of people is beyond our ability to comprehend.
The suffering Jesus experienced as both GOD and MAN is beyond human comprehension. And that is why He alone is the one mediator between God and Man. He is both God and Man and is the perfect bridge between them. A perfect Great HIgh Priest---and a perfect
GREAT SHEPHERD OF THE SHEEP.
To all,
Did you notice how Fish avoided to discuss the nature of his sufferings in the flesh?
You will see the confusion between God and man or better phrased a "God-man".
For in that he himself hath suffered being tempted, he is able to succour them that are tempted. Heb 2:18
You speak great swelling words of Jesus being the Great High Priest but neglect what made him great.
I cannot resist making this brief note about the practical benefit of having Jesus as our high priest.
Jesus, because of his full humanity and because of his suffering, is in a special position to help those who are being tempted and who call upon him.
This verse is made even more explicit in Heb 4:15, and will certainly cause Fish some difficulties in her God-man theology.
For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.
If we believed in Fishes Christ he would be impassive and unable to share in how we feel in human weakness and vulnerability.
Why do I say this?
Fish believes Jesus was God and Man simultaneously having part human and part divine or all divine nature ???
Jesus was a human being like you and I and as such he has experienced the full range of human temptation, although to a much higher degree of intensity since, unlike all others, he never yielded to sin!
For Jesus to be tempted he must have a fallen nature as he was born from a sinner.
You will note on Fishes reply how she is not able to speak plainly about Jesus being made in weakness and being able to sympathise with our weaknesses.
But how?
Jesus became "like his brothers in every way," yet was without sin. It is for this reason that he can help us. "Because he himself suffered when he was tempted, he is able to help those who are being tempted" (Heb 2:17,18).
Actually while I remember; wouldnt it be nice to hear Fish define Jesus' weakness?
Who can have compassion on the ignorant, and on them that are wayward; for he himself also is beset with weakness. Heb 5:2
::shrug::
Insight
: John Zain Tue Nov 22, 2011 - 15:52:23
: fish153 Tue Nov 22, 2011 - 00:17:45
John 8:58 is pretty hard to deal with when you claim the non-divinity of Jesus
Okay, let's look at John 8:58 and 6 other related verses ...
Jesus claimed to be the great "I AM
: Insight Tue Nov 22, 2011 - 21:47:26
To all,
Did you notice how Fish avoided to discuss the nature of his sufferings in the flesh?
You will see the confusion between God and man or better phrased a "God-man".
For in that he himself hath suffered being tempted, he is able to succour them that are tempted. Heb 2:18
You speak great swelling words of Jesus being the Great High Priest but neglect what made him great.
I cannot resist making this brief note about the practical benefit of having Jesus as our high priest.
Jesus, because of his full humanity and because of his suffering, is in a special position to help those who are being tempted and who call upon him.
This verse is made even more explicit in Heb 4:15, and will certainly cause Fish some difficulties in her God-man theology.
For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.
If we believed in Fishes Christ he would be impassive and unable to share in how we feel in human weakness and vulnerability.
Why do I say this?
Fish believes Jesus was God and Man simultaneously having part human and part divine or all divine nature ???
Jesus was a human being like you and I and as such he has experienced the full range of human temptation, although to a much higher degree of intensity since, unlike all others, he never yielded to sin!
For Jesus to be tempted he must have a fallen nature as he was born from a sinner.
You will note on Fishes reply how she is not able to speak plainly about Jesus being made in weakness and being able to sympathise with our weaknesses.
But how?
Jesus became "like his brothers in every way," yet was without sin. It is for this reason that he can help us. "Because he himself suffered when he was tempted, he is able to help those who are being tempted" (Heb 2:17,18).
Actually while I remember; wouldnt it be nice to hear Fish define Jesus' weakness?
Who can have compassion on the ignorant, and on them that are wayward; for he himself also is beset with weakness. Heb 5:2
::shrug::
Insight
Well, once again you post things that are not true. Did you notice how Insight completely avoided the point and my question how one man could suffer for the sins of
BILLIONS of people? And please note, these same people can either be saved
ETERNALLY in Heaven, or suffer
ETERNAL damnation. So, the sins that Jesus paid for had
ETERNAL consequences. How could a
FINITE man pay for the
eternal consequences of the sins for
BILLIONS of people? But you see, Insight does not want to address that issue---it distracts from his theology that Jesus was just a man---a fallen one at that!
I did mention quite clearly that Jesus suffered as a man horrifically--I stated that quite clearly. For Insight to state I have not mentioned Jesus' suffering in the flesh is just a complete untruth---go back and read my posts. What I am stating is that Jesus suffered as a man, feeling all the pain and torture a man would feel---all the physical, mental and emotional suffering that went along with being crucifed. But, He also suffered
Eternally, as only God can do--he experienced
FOR US the feeling of
ETERNAL SEPARATION from God---and only God could experience that for
all men at
ONE TIME. When Jesus said "
My God, My God why hast thou forsaken me!?" He was crying out for each and everyone of us----paying the price so none of us would ever have to say that, if we only accept and receive salvation from God. Insight's theology does not explain how one finite man could literally suffer for the sins of billions of people at one time on a cross. The answer is that the man who suffered there, Jesus, was both completely Human, and completely God. He was God the Son incarnated in Human flesh.
: fish153 Wed Nov 23, 2011 - 12:20:20
Well, once again you post things that are not true. Did you notice how Insight completely avoided the point and my question how one man could suffer for the sins of BILLIONS of people?
How did Jesus suffer your sins when you were not even born or known?
And please note, these same people can either be saved ETERNALLY in Heaven, or suffer ETERNAL damnation.
Can you show where heaven is the reward of the saints?
So, the sins that Jesus paid for had ETERNAL consequences.
Verse please
How could a FINITE man pay for the eternal consequences of the sins for BILLIONS of people?
Great question! Now you are on the right track shame you havnt provided any quotes. But asking these type of questions may lead you to truth.
But you see, Insight does not want to address that issue---it distracts from his theology that Jesus was just a man---a fallen one at that!
Jesus morally was not fallen only his nature – for good reason as per previous post.
I did mention quite clearly that Jesus suffered as a man horrifically--I stated that quite clearly. For Insight to state I have not mentioned Jesus' suffering in the flesh is just a complete untruth---go back and read my posts. What I am stating is that Jesus suffered as a man, feeling all the pain and torture a man would feel---all the physical, mental and emotional suffering that went along with being crucifed.
To all, did you notice how Fish omitted to state temptation unlike the numerous quotes from Paul in his epistles.
Fish is denying something but let's see where she goes.
But, He also suffered Eternally, as only God can do--he experienced FOR US the feeling of ETERNAL SEPARATION from God---and only God could experience that for all men at ONE TIME.
Verse please
When Jesus said "My God, My God why hast thou forsaken me!?" He was crying out for each and everyone of us----paying the price so none of us would ever have to say that, if we only accept and receive salvation from God.
So you believe Jesus paid the price for all men and women that day? In paying the price you mean everyone is saved automatically without faith and belief.
Insight's theology does not explain how one finite man could literally suffer for the sins of billions of people at one time on a cross.
So you say, but very shortly you will be able to explain to all here the answer to this conundrum which is really no conundrum at all.
The answer is that the man who suffered there, Jesus, was both completely Human, and completely God. He was God the Son incarnated in Human flesh.
Can you provide a verse that explains how Jesus nature was divine, holy and pure.
An observation which is notable here is your lack of Scripture to support your beliefs it appears a great deal of your understanding is from special pleading and not Bible facts. Whereas others will see from the previous post that Jesus nature was exactly the same (identical) to ours and for good reason.
I don't think you are ready to receive such knowledge and understanding though others readings this may ask the question why?
Why it was essential Jesus be born of a woman (Gal 4:4) in the exact same flesh as his brothers (Rom 8:3) and become a gentle and loving High Priest (Heb 5:2; 4:15)
I appreciate these facts do not
fit your theology and rightly so...there source is inspired unlike your creeds.
Insight
: fish153 Tue Nov 22, 2011 - 21:30:56
As for Jesus' sufferings I believe something you do not seem to understand.
Jesus is dying on the cross for the souls of BILLIONS of people.
Jesus tasted death for EVERYONE.
How could a mere man die for the sins of BILLIONS of people at ONE TIME?
The answer is a mere man could not---only God could suffer for billions of people's sins.
Only an INFINITE being could die for the INFINITE PENALTY of SIN.
Hell is eternal--how could a mere man pay the price for BILLIONS OF PEOPLE destined for an ETERNAL HELL?
The suffering the SON OF GOD experienced for the sins of billions of people is beyond our ability to comprehend.
Something about the "God-man" Jesus the Christ that I would like to share ...
Jesus was not conceived via man's sperm, but miraculously by the Holy Spirit,
so what resulted was an abnormal man in that He did not have man's inherited sin nature.
I don't believe this has anything to do with Him being tempted to sin as we are.
But, Jesus did not "have to" sin, as normal humans do.
This is why we might struggle with the "fully man" label.
Maybe we are agreed on the following ...
1) the fall of Adam & Eve caused all humans to inherit a hopeless sin nature.
2) Jesus Christ was produced to remedy this situation.
I say that, theoretically, the sinless Christ was enough to fix mankind's problem (re: point 2).
However, God went the extra mile on our behalf and produced a "fully man" and "fully God" creation,
and His suffering involved demonstrated God's incredible love for us, His human creations.
Since many do not believe in the "original sin" doctrine,
I will attempt to start a new thread showing the various verses which teach it.
: John Zain Thu Nov 24, 2011 - 14:37:37
Something about the "God-man" Jesus the Christ that I would like to share ...
Jesus was not conceived via man's sperm, but miraculously by the Holy Spirit,
so what resulted was an abnormal man in that He did not have man's inherited sin nature.
Chapter and verse?
The Scripture states otherwise Gal 4:4 Rom 8:3 Heb 4:15 Heb 5:2 2 Cor 5:21 Luke 1 etc etc
Your special pleading compared to the actual facts of the Word reveals your folly.
I don't believe this has anything to do with Him being tempted to sin as we are.
But, Jesus did not "have to" sin, as normal humans do.
This is why we might struggle with the "fully man" label.
Maybe we are agreed on the following ...
1) the fall of Adam & Eve caused all humans to inherit a hopeless sin nature.
2) Jesus Christ was produced to remedy this situation.
I see how you are trying to squeeze your understanding into the Word but as you are finding it wont fit!
The bold text shows you the likeness between Jesus and us...if only you grasped what God actually achieved in His son you eyes would pop out of their sockets with awe and wonder.
I say that, theoretically, the sinless Christ was enough to fix mankind's problem (re: point 2).
However, God went the extra mile on our behalf and produced a "fully man" and "fully God" creation, and His suffering involved demonstrated God's incredible love for us, His human creations.
Since many do not believe in the "original sin" doctrine,
I will attempt to start a new thread showing the various verses which teach it.
[/color]
I will meet you there with verses in hand ::tippinghat::
: Insight Thu Nov 24, 2011 - 17:31:35
: John Zain Thu Nov 24, 2011 - 14:37:37
Since many do not believe in the "original sin" doctrine,
I will attempt to start a new thread showing the various verses which teach it.
I will meet you there with verses in hand ::tippinghat::
Yes, you are correct for a change. We did indeed meet there ... http://www.gracecentered.com/christian_forums/non-traditional-theology/for-those-who-do-not-believe-in-'original-sin'/
But, alas, you had no verses in hand, or in your back pocket, or anywhere else for that matter. rofl
Insight--
You said:
>>>How did Jesus suffer your sins when you were not even born or known?<<<
OK---by this you show a profound misunderstanding of Scripture. The Bible clearly teaches that Jesus tasted
death for every man, and died for the sins of the world. Jesus prays in John 17 for those "who will believe" though
they were not even born or known. Though Jesus died for all, not all will accept Him.
God is outside of time----He laid the sins of ALL TIME upon His son on the cross. How can I possibly be saved
if Jesus did not die for me? Insight---if you do not believe that Jesus died for you, and for your sins, you are not a Christian. Your answers below sound so much like a Jehovah's Witness that despite your denials of being such, I believe you may be a JW---or could fit right in with them if you went to one of their congregations.
If Insight is a true genuine JW, he would have to believe that the Word (i.e. Jesus) was/is "a" God.
Insight, do you believe this, have you said this here, etc.?
Others, has he said this here?
: John Zain Fri Nov 25, 2011 - 15:24:13
: Insight Thu Nov 24, 2011 - 17:31:35
: John Zain Thu Nov 24, 2011 - 14:37:37
Since many do not believe in the "original sin" doctrine,
I will attempt to start a new thread showing the various verses which teach it.
I will meet you there with verses in hand ::tippinghat::
Yes, you are correct for a change. We did indeed meet there ... http://www.gracecentered.com/christian_forums/non-traditional-theology/for-those-who-do-not-believe-in-'original-sin'/
But, alas, you had no verses in hand, or in your back pocket, or anywhere else for that matter. rofl
But alas, where are your verses?
: fish153 Fri Nov 25, 2011 - 22:09:36
Insight--
You said:
>>>How did Jesus suffer your sins when you were not even born or known?<<<
OK---by this you show a profound misunderstanding of Scripture. The Bible clearly teaches that Jesus tasted death for every man, and died for the sins of the world. Jesus prays in John 17 for those "who will believe" though they were not even born or known. Though Jesus died for all, not all will accept Him.
You have not answered the question Fish.
>>>How did Jesus suffer your sins when you were not even born or known?<<<
God is outside of time----He laid the sins of ALL TIME upon His son on the cross. How can I possibly be saved
if Jesus did not die for me? Insight---if you do not believe that Jesus died for you, and for your sins, you are not a Christian. Your answers below sound so much like a Jehovah's Witness that despite your denials of being such, I believe you may be a JW---or could fit right in with them if you went to one of their congregations.
No Bible verses once again.
Very disappointing speaking with one you makes up their beliefs as they go along.
The question was designed to lead you into the Word but sadly you continue to move in uninspired directions.
Insight
: John Zain Mon Nov 28, 2011 - 10:43:52
: Insight Sun Nov 27, 2011 - 19:07:16
But alas, where are your verses?
MODIFIED FOR FLAMING
Many verses teaching original sin are in the new thread I started.
I will ask you again.
Define the nature of Christ.
Did he posses pre fallen adamic nature or post adam fallen nature?
If I am wasting your time why did you respond?
Answer the question if you are able.
Insight
Insight, is your teaching/wisdom self taught or are you a student of a particular person's/group's teaching? Would you share with us how you came to become so adament in your belief? I'm trying to get some context in terms of you and your teaching. Frankly, I'm trying to determine whether to take your posts and you seriously. Thanks.
Steve
: segell Tue Dec 06, 2011 - 13:05:53
Insight, is your teaching/wisdom self taught or are you a student of a particular person's/group's teaching? Would you share with us how you came to become so adament in your belief? I'm trying to get some context in terms of you and your teaching. Frankly, I'm trying to determine whether to take your posts and you seriously. Thanks.
Steve
Steve, I am not important, at all...just a voice.
Whether you listen or not is entirely up to you.
Insight
: Insight Tue Dec 06, 2011 - 16:03:08
: segell Tue Dec 06, 2011 - 13:05:53
Insight, is your teaching/wisdom self taught or are you a student of a particular person's/group's teaching? Would you share with us how you came to become so adament in your belief? I'm trying to get some context in terms of you and your teaching. Frankly, I'm trying to determine whether to take your posts and you seriously. Thanks.
Steve
Steve, I am not important, at all
just a voice.
Whether you listen or not is entirely up to you.
Insight
It appears that your voice is not really worth listening to. One who is not able to answer questions directly is not a voice but rather a manipulator. There is no light here, Insight. Or you would want it to shine.
: segell Wed Dec 07, 2011 - 09:15:04
: Insight Tue Dec 06, 2011 - 16:03:08
: segell Tue Dec 06, 2011 - 13:05:53
Insight, is your teaching/wisdom self taught or are you a student of a particular person's/group's teaching? Would you share with us how you came to become so adament in your belief? I'm trying to get some context in terms of you and your teaching. Frankly, I'm trying to determine whether to take your posts and you seriously. Thanks.
Steve
Steve, I am not important, at all...just a voice.
Whether you listen or not is entirely up to you.
Insight
It appears that your voice is not really worth listening to. One who is not able to answer questions directly is not a voice but rather a manipulator. There is no light here, Insight. Or you would want it to shine.
Steve,
Your understanding on the nature of Jesus is vastly different to that of the Apostle Paul's. I appreciate your position in relation to hearing; I have no control over who you desire to listen to. There are many questions here unanswered by Trinitarian doctrine and the nature of Christ is but one.
I have ask you to define exactly the nature of Christ during his probation and thus far you have not. Confusion reigns on this subject as a result of human philosophy running rampant through people's minds.
e.g.
For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:Paul refers to Jesus nature as sin's flesh and it is in that flesh that sin was condemned.
For sin to be condemned in the nature of Christ it had to be there first.
Your doctrine and teaching cannot explain this verse, to do so, would cause all your understanding of God's work of redemption in His Son to vanish in an instance.
Now I am able to not only understand this passage but reconcile it with all Scripture.
By the way, you would be surprised to see how many confessing Christians have tried to tackle this verse an failed miserably.
Will you join this group?
: Insight Wed Dec 07, 2011 - 16:01:55
For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh,
God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh,
and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh
Paul refers to Jesus nature as sin's flesh and it is in that flesh that sin was condemned.
What I'm a-sayin' is ...
Jesus
looked, talked, walked, ran, sat, cried, ate, defecated, etc. just
like a man.
He came in the
likeness (not the nature) of man (sinful flesh).
He did not come in the same
nature as man (sinful flesh).
What Paul's a-sayin' is ...
el ditto to da above.
Have a nice day ... and we're a-prayin' dat you get some insight.
: John Zain Wed Dec 07, 2011 - 17:44:01
: Insight Wed Dec 07, 2011 - 16:01:55
For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh,
God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh,
and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh
Paul refers to Jesus nature as sin's flesh and it is in that flesh that sin was condemned.
What I'm a-sayin' is ...
Jesus looked, talked, walked, ran, sat, cried, ate, defecated, etc. just like a man.
He came in the likeness (not the nature) of man (sinful flesh).
He did not come in the same nature as man (sinful flesh).
What Paul's a-sayin' is ...
el ditto to da above.
Have a nice day ... and we're a-prayin' dat you get some insight.
Read your post again and tell me that makes sense?
You say: Jesus
looked, talked, walked, ran, sat, cried, ate, defecated, etc. just
like a man.
And then you say: not the nature
But God was able to condemn sin if his flesh though he did not have flesh?
Are you serious?
How could God condemn sin in Jesus nature if it wasn't there to condemn?
I think you need to revisit this sooner than later.
My "Insight" is just fine thank you John.
: Insight Wed Dec 07, 2011 - 16:01:55
: segell Wed Dec 07, 2011 - 09:15:04
: Insight Tue Dec 06, 2011 - 16:03:08
: segell Tue Dec 06, 2011 - 13:05:53
Insight, is your teaching/wisdom self taught or are you a student of a particular person's/group's teaching? Would you share with us how you came to become so adament in your belief? I'm trying to get some context in terms of you and your teaching. Frankly, I'm trying to determine whether to take your posts and you seriously. Thanks.
Steve
Steve, I am not important, at all...just a voice.
Whether you listen or not is entirely up to you.
Insight
It appears that your voice is not really worth listening to. One who is not able to answer questions directly is not a voice but rather a manipulator. There is no light here, Insight. Or you would want it to shine.
Steve,
Your understanding on the nature of Jesus is vastly different to that of the Apostle Paul's. I appreciate your position in relation to hearing; I have no control over who you desire to listen to. There are many questions here unanswered by Trinitarian doctrine and the nature of Christ is but one.
I have ask you to define exactly the nature of Christ during his probation and thus far you have not. Confusion reigns on this subject as a result of human philosophy running rampant through people's minds.
e.g. For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:
Paul refers to Jesus nature as sin's flesh and it is in that flesh that sin was condemned.
For sin to be condemned in the nature of Christ it had to be there first.
Your doctrine and teaching cannot explain this verse, to do so, would cause all your understanding of God's work of redemption in His Son to vanish in an instance.
Now I am able to not only understand this passage but reconcile it with all Scripture.
By the way, you would be surprised to see how many confessing Christians have tried to tackle this verse an failed miserably.
Will you join this group?
You are very selective in what you emphasize in a verse. Please note that it says
"in the likeness of sinful flesh" , not "
in sinful flesh".
Jesus had a human nature just like our own,
BUT WITHOUT SIN. Here are various translations--there are many more--they all say "in the likeness" with the Complete Jewish Bible even adding brackets that say [yet without sin].
Bible VersionsRomans 8Romans 8:3Compare Translations
Compare Translations for Romans 8:3
Compare Translation
Romans 8:3 NIV
New International Version
For what the law was powerless to do in that it was weakened by the sinful nature, God did by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful man to be a sin offering. And so he condemned sin in sinful man,
Romans 8:3 ASV
American Standard Version
For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God, sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:
Romans 8:3 BBE
Bible in Basic English
For what the law was not able to do because it was feeble through the flesh, God, sending his Son in the image of the evil flesh, and as an offering for sin, gave his decision against sin in the flesh:
Romans 8:3 CJB
Complete Jewish Bible
For what the Torah could not do by itself, because it lacked the power to make the old nature cooperate, God did by sending his own Son as a human being with a nature like our own sinful one [but without sin]. God did this in order to deal with sin, and in so doing he executed the punishment against sin in human nature,
Romans 8:3 RHE
Douay-Rheims
For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God, sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and of sin, hath condemned sin in the flesh.
: fish153 Wed Dec 07, 2011 - 22:10:01
: Insight Wed Dec 07, 2011 - 16:01:55
: segell Wed Dec 07, 2011 - 09:15:04
: Insight Tue Dec 06, 2011 - 16:03:08
: segell Tue Dec 06, 2011 - 13:05:53
Insight, is your teaching/wisdom self taught or are you a student of a particular person's/group's teaching? Would you share with us how you came to become so adament in your belief? I'm trying to get some context in terms of you and your teaching. Frankly, I'm trying to determine whether to take your posts and you seriously. Thanks.
Steve
Steve, I am not important, at all...just a voice.
Whether you listen or not is entirely up to you.
Insight
It appears that your voice is not really worth listening to. One who is not able to answer questions directly is not a voice but rather a manipulator. There is no light here, Insight. Or you would want it to shine.
Steve,
Your understanding on the nature of Jesus is vastly different to that of the Apostle Paul's. I appreciate your position in relation to hearing; I have no control over who you desire to listen to. There are many questions here unanswered by Trinitarian doctrine and the nature of Christ is but one.
I have ask you to define exactly the nature of Christ during his probation and thus far you have not. Confusion reigns on this subject as a result of human philosophy running rampant through people's minds.
e.g. For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:
Paul refers to Jesus nature as sin's flesh and it is in that flesh that sin was condemned.
For sin to be condemned in the nature of Christ it had to be there first.
Your doctrine and teaching cannot explain this verse, to do so, would cause all your understanding of God's work of redemption in His Son to vanish in an instance.
Now I am able to not only understand this passage but reconcile it with all Scripture.
By the way, you would be surprised to see how many confessing Christians have tried to tackle this verse an failed miserably.
Will you join this group?
You are very selective in what you emphasize in a verse. Please note that it says "in the likeness of sinful flesh" , not "in sinful flesh". Jesus had a human nature just like our own, BUT WITHOUT SIN. Here are various translations--there are many more:
Bible VersionsRomans 8Romans 8:3Compare Translations
Compare Translations for Romans 8:3
Compare Translation
Romans 8:3 NIV
New International Version
For what the law was powerless to do in that it was weakened by the sinful nature, God did by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful man to be a sin offering. And so he condemned sin in sinful man,
Romans 8:3 ASV
American Standard Version
For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God, sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:
Romans 8:3 BBE
Bible in Basic English
For what the law was not able to do because it was feeble through the flesh, God, sending his Son in the image of the evil flesh, and as an offering for sin, gave his decision against sin in the flesh:
Romans 8:3 CJB
Complete Jewish Bible
For what the Torah could not do by itself, because it lacked the power to make the old nature cooperate, God did by sending his own Son as a human being with a nature like our own sinful one [but without sin]. God did this in order to deal with sin, and in so doing he executed the punishment against sin in human nature,
Romans 8:3 RHE
Douay-Rheims
For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God, sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and of sin, hath condemned sin in the flesh.
Yes Fish "sent in the likeness of sinful flesh" and where did God condemn Sin?
So you need explain how sin was condemned in Jesus' nature/sacrifice.
Heb 2:14,15; Heb 7:27; 13:20 will help.
Insight
: Insight Wed Dec 07, 2011 - 22:13:09
: fish153 Wed Dec 07, 2011 - 22:10:01
: Insight Wed Dec 07, 2011 - 16:01:55
: segell Wed Dec 07, 2011 - 09:15:04
: Insight Tue Dec 06, 2011 - 16:03:08
: segell Tue Dec 06, 2011 - 13:05:53
Insight, is your teaching/wisdom self taught or are you a student of a particular person's/group's teaching? Would you share with us how you came to become so adament in your belief? I'm trying to get some context in terms of you and your teaching. Frankly, I'm trying to determine whether to take your posts and you seriously. Thanks.
Steve
Steve, I am not important, at all...just a voice.
Whether you listen or not is entirely up to you.
Insight
It appears that your voice is not really worth listening to. One who is not able to answer questions directly is not a voice but rather a manipulator. There is no light here, Insight. Or you would want it to shine.
Steve,
Your understanding on the nature of Jesus is vastly different to that of the Apostle Paul's. I appreciate your position in relation to hearing; I have no control over who you desire to listen to. There are many questions here unanswered by Trinitarian doctrine and the nature of Christ is but one.
I have ask you to define exactly the nature of Christ during his probation and thus far you have not. Confusion reigns on this subject as a result of human philosophy running rampant through people's minds.
e.g. For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:
Paul refers to Jesus nature as sin's flesh and it is in that flesh that sin was condemned.
For sin to be condemned in the nature of Christ it had to be there first.
Your doctrine and teaching cannot explain this verse, to do so, would cause all your understanding of God's work of redemption in His Son to vanish in an instance.
Now I am able to not only understand this passage but reconcile it with all Scripture.
By the way, you would be surprised to see how many confessing Christians have tried to tackle this verse an failed miserably.
Will you join this group?
You are very selective in what you emphasize in a verse. Please note that it says "in the likeness of sinful flesh" , not "in sinful flesh". Jesus had a human nature just like our own, BUT WITHOUT SIN. Here are various translations--there are many more:
Bible VersionsRomans 8Romans 8:3Compare Translations
Compare Translations for Romans 8:3
Compare Translation
Romans 8:3 NIV
New International Version
For what the law was powerless to do in that it was weakened by the sinful nature, God did by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful man to be a sin offering. And so he condemned sin in sinful man,
Romans 8:3 ASV
American Standard Version
For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God, sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:
Romans 8:3 BBE
Bible in Basic English
For what the law was not able to do because it was feeble through the flesh, God, sending his Son in the image of the evil flesh, and as an offering for sin, gave his decision against sin in the flesh:
Romans 8:3 CJB
Complete Jewish Bible
For what the Torah could not do by itself, because it lacked the power to make the old nature cooperate, God did by sending his own Son as a human being with a nature like our own sinful one [but without sin]. God did this in order to deal with sin, and in so doing he executed the punishment against sin in human nature,
Romans 8:3 RHE
Douay-Rheims
For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God, sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and of sin, hath condemned sin in the flesh.
Yes Fish "sent in the likeness of sinful flesh" and where did God condemn Sin?
So you need explain how sin was condemned in Jesus' nature/sacrifice.
Heb 2:14,15; Heb 7:27; 13:20 will help.
Insight
You don't appear to understand the Gospel. Jesus was perfect. He died--"the just for the unjust". He took
OUR SINS upon himself and
SUFFERED FOR THEM. He literally took our place on the cross. You have read so many posts that state this to you Insight--that is the Gospel. If Jesus had a sinful nature he would have to die for his own sins--but he did not----"the JUST for the UNJUST". No one with a sinful nature is considered "just".
: fish153 Wed Dec 07, 2011 - 22:33:05
: Insight Wed Dec 07, 2011 - 22:13:09
: fish153 Wed Dec 07, 2011 - 22:10:01
: Insight Wed Dec 07, 2011 - 16:01:55
: segell Wed Dec 07, 2011 - 09:15:04
: Insight Tue Dec 06, 2011 - 16:03:08
: segell Tue Dec 06, 2011 - 13:05:53
Insight, is your teaching/wisdom self taught or are you a student of a particular person's/group's teaching? Would you share with us how you came to become so adament in your belief? I'm trying to get some context in terms of you and your teaching. Frankly, I'm trying to determine whether to take your posts and you seriously. Thanks.
Steve
Steve, I am not important, at all...just a voice.
Whether you listen or not is entirely up to you.
Insight
It appears that your voice is not really worth listening to. One who is not able to answer questions directly is not a voice but rather a manipulator. There is no light here, Insight. Or you would want it to shine.
Steve,
Your understanding on the nature of Jesus is vastly different to that of the Apostle Paul's. I appreciate your position in relation to hearing; I have no control over who you desire to listen to. There are many questions here unanswered by Trinitarian doctrine and the nature of Christ is but one.
I have ask you to define exactly the nature of Christ during his probation and thus far you have not. Confusion reigns on this subject as a result of human philosophy running rampant through people's minds.
e.g. For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:
Paul refers to Jesus nature as sin's flesh and it is in that flesh that sin was condemned.
For sin to be condemned in the nature of Christ it had to be there first.
Your doctrine and teaching cannot explain this verse, to do so, would cause all your understanding of God's work of redemption in His Son to vanish in an instance.
Now I am able to not only understand this passage but reconcile it with all Scripture.
By the way, you would be surprised to see how many confessing Christians have tried to tackle this verse an failed miserably.
Will you join this group?
You are very selective in what you emphasize in a verse. Please note that it says "in the likeness of sinful flesh" , not "in sinful flesh". Jesus had a human nature just like our own, BUT WITHOUT SIN. Here are various translations--there are many more:
Bible VersionsRomans 8Romans 8:3Compare Translations
Compare Translations for Romans 8:3
Compare Translation
Romans 8:3 NIV
New International Version
For what the law was powerless to do in that it was weakened by the sinful nature, God did by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful man to be a sin offering. And so he condemned sin in sinful man,
Romans 8:3 ASV
American Standard Version
For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God, sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:
Romans 8:3 BBE
Bible in Basic English
For what the law was not able to do because it was feeble through the flesh, God, sending his Son in the image of the evil flesh, and as an offering for sin, gave his decision against sin in the flesh:
Romans 8:3 CJB
Complete Jewish Bible
For what the Torah could not do by itself, because it lacked the power to make the old nature cooperate, God did by sending his own Son as a human being with a nature like our own sinful one [but without sin]. God did this in order to deal with sin, and in so doing he executed the punishment against sin in human nature,
Romans 8:3 RHE
Douay-Rheims
For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God, sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and of sin, hath condemned sin in the flesh.
Yes Fish "sent in the likeness of sinful flesh" and where did God condemn Sin?
So you need explain how sin was condemned in Jesus' nature/sacrifice.
Heb 2:14,15; Heb 7:27; 13:20 will help.
Insight
You don't appear to understand the Gospel. Jesus was perfect. He died--"the just for the unjust". He took OUR SINS upon himself and SUFFERED FOR THEM. He literally took our place on the cross. You have read so many posts this state this to you Insight--that is the Gospel. If Jesus had a sinful nature he would have to die for his own sins--but he did not----"the JUST for the UNJUST". No one with a sinful nature is considered "just".
And there we have it once more!...we mustn't get too close to truth...for fear of being burnt.
You need to get closer to the fire Fish.
I will leave it with you to ponder further.
No need to respond as I know your beliefs - intimately.
Insight
: Insight Wed Dec 07, 2011 - 22:37:04
: fish153 Wed Dec 07, 2011 - 22:33:05
: Insight Wed Dec 07, 2011 - 22:13:09
: fish153 Wed Dec 07, 2011 - 22:10:01
: Insight Wed Dec 07, 2011 - 16:01:55
: segell Wed Dec 07, 2011 - 09:15:04
: Insight Tue Dec 06, 2011 - 16:03:08
: segell Tue Dec 06, 2011 - 13:05:53
Insight, is your teaching/wisdom self taught or are you a student of a particular person's/group's teaching? Would you share with us how you came to become so adament in your belief? I'm trying to get some context in terms of you and your teaching. Frankly, I'm trying to determine whether to take your posts and you seriously. Thanks.
Steve
Steve, I am not important, at all...just a voice.
Whether you listen or not is entirely up to you.
Insight
It appears that your voice is not really worth listening to. One who is not able to answer questions directly is not a voice but rather a manipulator. There is no light here, Insight. Or you would want it to shine.
Steve,
Your understanding on the nature of Jesus is vastly different to that of the Apostle Paul's. I appreciate your position in relation to hearing; I have no control over who you desire to listen to. There are many questions here unanswered by Trinitarian doctrine and the nature of Christ is but one.
I have ask you to define exactly the nature of Christ during his probation and thus far you have not. Confusion reigns on this subject as a result of human philosophy running rampant through people's minds.
e.g. For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:
Paul refers to Jesus nature as sin's flesh and it is in that flesh that sin was condemned.
For sin to be condemned in the nature of Christ it had to be there first.
Your doctrine and teaching cannot explain this verse, to do so, would cause all your understanding of God's work of redemption in His Son to vanish in an instance.
Now I am able to not only understand this passage but reconcile it with all Scripture.
By the way, you would be surprised to see how many confessing Christians have tried to tackle this verse an failed miserably.
Will you join this group?
You are very selective in what you emphasize in a verse. Please note that it says "in the likeness of sinful flesh" , not "in sinful flesh". Jesus had a human nature just like our own, BUT WITHOUT SIN. Here are various translations--there are many more:
Bible VersionsRomans 8Romans 8:3Compare Translations
Compare Translations for Romans 8:3
Compare Translation
Romans 8:3 NIV
New International Version
For what the law was powerless to do in that it was weakened by the sinful nature, God did by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful man to be a sin offering. And so he condemned sin in sinful man,
Romans 8:3 ASV
American Standard Version
For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God, sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:
Romans 8:3 BBE
Bible in Basic English
For what the law was not able to do because it was feeble through the flesh, God, sending his Son in the image of the evil flesh, and as an offering for sin, gave his decision against sin in the flesh:
Romans 8:3 CJB
Complete Jewish Bible
For what the Torah could not do by itself, because it lacked the power to make the old nature cooperate, God did by sending his own Son as a human being with a nature like our own sinful one [but without sin]. God did this in order to deal with sin, and in so doing he executed the punishment against sin in human nature,
Romans 8:3 RHE
Douay-Rheims
For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God, sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and of sin, hath condemned sin in the flesh.
Yes Fish "sent in the likeness of sinful flesh" and where did God condemn Sin?
So you need explain how sin was condemned in Jesus' nature/sacrifice.
Heb 2:14,15; Heb 7:27; 13:20 will help.
Insight
You don't appear to understand the Gospel. Jesus was perfect. He died--"the just for the unjust". He took OUR SINS upon himself and SUFFERED FOR THEM. He literally took our place on the cross. You have read so many posts this state this to you Insight--that is the Gospel. If Jesus had a sinful nature he would have to die for his own sins--but he did not----"the JUST for the UNJUST". No one with a sinful nature is considered "just".
And there we have it once more!...we mustn't get too close to truth...for fear of being burnt.
You need to get closer to the fire Fish.
I will leave it with you to ponder further.
No need to respond as I know your beliefs - intimately.
Insight
And once again, when shown through various translations the
ACTUAL meaning of a verse, Insight flees into his
own beliefs rather than submitting to the Word of God. You have had numerous people show you how you are wrong. But you trust
your own interpretation of scripture far more than the
actual interpretation of Scripture as you should do. Again Insight, Jesus came in the "
likeness of sinful flesh" (meaning he was just like us but without sin) not "
in sinful flesh". Why you choose to believe that when scripture clearly shows otherwise is a mystery to me.
: Insight Wed Dec 07, 2011 - 16:01:55
: segell Wed Dec 07, 2011 - 09:15:04
: Insight Tue Dec 06, 2011 - 16:03:08
: segell Tue Dec 06, 2011 - 13:05:53
Insight, is your teaching/wisdom self taught or are you a student of a particular person's/group's teaching? Would you share with us how you came to become so adament in your belief? I'm trying to get some context in terms of you and your teaching. Frankly, I'm trying to determine whether to take your posts and you seriously. Thanks.
Steve
Steve, I am not important, at all
just a voice.
Whether you listen or not is entirely up to you.
Insight
It appears that your voice is not really worth listening to. One who is not able to answer questions directly is not a voice but rather a manipulator. There is no light here, Insight. Or you would want it to shine.
Steve,
Your understanding on the nature of Jesus is vastly different to that of the Apostle Pauls. I appreciate your position in relation to hearing; I have no control over who you desire to listen to. There are many questions here unanswered by Trinitarian doctrine and the nature of Christ is but one.
I have ask you to define exactly the nature of Christ during his probation and thus far you have not. Confusion reigns on this subject as a result of human philosophy running rampant through peoples minds.
e.g. For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:
Paul refers to Jesus nature as sins flesh and it is in that flesh that sin was condemned.
For sin to be condemned in the nature of Christ it had to be there first.
Your doctrine and teaching cannot explain this verse, to do so, would cause all your understanding of Gods work of redemption in His Son to vanish in an instance.
Now I am able to not only understand this passage but reconcile it with all Scripture.
By the way, you would be surprised to see how many confessing Christians have tried to tackle this verse an failed miserably.
Will you join this group?
No. There are others here who may wish to engage. But, when you don't answer questions directly or choose to avoid answers or try to appear humble (by saying you are you are not important, just a voice and yet your words speak otherwise) there is really no reason to take you seriously because I'm not certain that you are a serious person. And, finally, your teaching is an anethema to the Gospel message.
Why should anyone take you seriously?
: segell Thu Dec 08, 2011 - 09:02:17
: Insight Wed Dec 07, 2011 - 16:01:55
: segell Wed Dec 07, 2011 - 09:15:04
: Insight Tue Dec 06, 2011 - 16:03:08
: segell Tue Dec 06, 2011 - 13:05:53
Insight, is your teaching/wisdom self taught or are you a student of a particular person's/group's teaching? Would you share with us how you came to become so adament in your belief? I'm trying to get some context in terms of you and your teaching. Frankly, I'm trying to determine whether to take your posts and you seriously. Thanks.
Steve
Steve, I am not important, at all...just a voice.
Whether you listen or not is entirely up to you.
Insight
It appears that your voice is not really worth listening to. One who is not able to answer questions directly is not a voice but rather a manipulator. There is no light here, Insight. Or you would want it to shine.
Steve,
Your understanding on the nature of Jesus is vastly different to that of the Apostle Paul's. I appreciate your position in relation to hearing; I have no control over who you desire to listen to. There are many questions here unanswered by Trinitarian doctrine and the nature of Christ is but one.
I have ask you to define exactly the nature of Christ during his probation and thus far you have not. Confusion reigns on this subject as a result of human philosophy running rampant through people's minds.
e.g. For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:
Paul refers to Jesus nature as sin's flesh and it is in that flesh that sin was condemned.
For sin to be condemned in the nature of Christ it had to be there first.
Your doctrine and teaching cannot explain this verse, to do so, would cause all your understanding of God's work of redemption in His Son to vanish in an instance.
Now I am able to not only understand this passage but reconcile it with all Scripture.
By the way, you would be surprised to see how many confessing Christians have tried to tackle this verse an failed miserably.
Will you join this group?
No. There are others here who may wish to engage. But, when you don't answer questions directly or choose to avoid answers or try to appear humble (by saying you are you are not important, just a voice and yet your words speak otherwise) there is really no reason to take you seriously because I'm not certain that you are a serious person. And, finally, your teaching is an anethema to the Gospel message.
Why should anyone take you seriously?
You say no but your words said "yes"
If you have nothing of substance to add to this thread maybe you could go over the numerous posts where questions have been unanswered and put them forth.
I am more than willing to address them.
Insight
: Insight Thu Dec 08, 2011 - 15:02:11
: segell Thu Dec 08, 2011 - 09:02:17
: Insight Wed Dec 07, 2011 - 16:01:55
: segell Wed Dec 07, 2011 - 09:15:04
: Insight Tue Dec 06, 2011 - 16:03:08
: segell Tue Dec 06, 2011 - 13:05:53
Insight, is your teaching/wisdom self taught or are you a student of a particular person's/group's teaching? Would you share with us how you came to become so adament in your belief? I'm trying to get some context in terms of you and your teaching. Frankly, I'm trying to determine whether to take your posts and you seriously. Thanks.
Steve
Steve, I am not important, at all
just a voice.
Whether you listen or not is entirely up to you.
Insight
It appears that your voice is not really worth listening to. One who is not able to answer questions directly is not a voice but rather a manipulator. There is no light here, Insight. Or you would want it to shine.
Steve,
Your understanding on the nature of Jesus is vastly different to that of the Apostle Pauls. I appreciate your position in relation to hearing; I have no control over who you desire to listen to. There are many questions here unanswered by Trinitarian doctrine and the nature of Christ is but one.
I have ask you to define exactly the nature of Christ during his probation and thus far you have not. Confusion reigns on this subject as a result of human philosophy running rampant through peoples minds.
e.g. For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:
Paul refers to Jesus nature as sins flesh and it is in that flesh that sin was condemned.
For sin to be condemned in the nature of Christ it had to be there first.
Your doctrine and teaching cannot explain this verse, to do so, would cause all your understanding of Gods work of redemption in His Son to vanish in an instance.
Now I am able to not only understand this passage but reconcile it with all Scripture.
By the way, you would be surprised to see how many confessing Christians have tried to tackle this verse an failed miserably.
Will you join this group?
No. There are others here who may wish to engage. But, when you don't answer questions directly or choose to avoid answers or try to appear humble (by saying you are you are not important, just a voice and yet your words speak otherwise) there is really no reason to take you seriously because I'm not certain that you are a serious person. And, finally, your teaching is an anethema to the Gospel message.
Why should anyone take you seriously?
You say no but your words said "yes"
If you have nothing of substance to add to this thread maybe you could go over the numerous posts where questions have been unanswered and put them forth.
I am more than willing to address them.
Insight
Ok. Let's try this again.
"Insight, is your teaching/wisdom self taught or are you a student of a particular person's/group's teaching? Would you share with us how you came to become so adament in your belief? I'm trying to get some context in terms of you and your teaching. Frankly, I'm trying to determine whether to take your posts and you seriously. Thanks."
: segell Fri Dec 09, 2011 - 09:13:54
: Insight Thu Dec 08, 2011 - 15:02:11
: segell Thu Dec 08, 2011 - 09:02:17
: Insight Wed Dec 07, 2011 - 16:01:55
: segell Wed Dec 07, 2011 - 09:15:04
: Insight Tue Dec 06, 2011 - 16:03:08
: segell Tue Dec 06, 2011 - 13:05:53
Insight, is your teaching/wisdom self taught or are you a student of a particular person's/group's teaching? Would you share with us how you came to become so adament in your belief? I'm trying to get some context in terms of you and your teaching. Frankly, I'm trying to determine whether to take your posts and you seriously. Thanks.
Steve
Steve, I am not important, at all...just a voice.
Whether you listen or not is entirely up to you.
Insight
It appears that your voice is not really worth listening to. One who is not able to answer questions directly is not a voice but rather a manipulator. There is no light here, Insight. Or you would want it to shine.
Steve,
Your understanding on the nature of Jesus is vastly different to that of the Apostle Paul's. I appreciate your position in relation to hearing; I have no control over who you desire to listen to. There are many questions here unanswered by Trinitarian doctrine and the nature of Christ is but one.
I have ask you to define exactly the nature of Christ during his probation and thus far you have not. Confusion reigns on this subject as a result of human philosophy running rampant through people's minds.
e.g. For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:
Paul refers to Jesus nature as sin's flesh and it is in that flesh that sin was condemned.
For sin to be condemned in the nature of Christ it had to be there first.
Your doctrine and teaching cannot explain this verse, to do so, would cause all your understanding of God's work of redemption in His Son to vanish in an instance.
Now I am able to not only understand this passage but reconcile it with all Scripture.
By the way, you would be surprised to see how many confessing Christians have tried to tackle this verse an failed miserably.
Will you join this group?
No. There are others here who may wish to engage. But, when you don't answer questions directly or choose to avoid answers or try to appear humble (by saying you are you are not important, just a voice and yet your words speak otherwise) there is really no reason to take you seriously because I'm not certain that you are a serious person. And, finally, your teaching is an anethema to the Gospel message.
Why should anyone take you seriously?
You say no but your words said "yes"
If you have nothing of substance to add to this thread maybe you could go over the numerous posts where questions have been unanswered and put them forth.
I am more than willing to address them.
Insight
Ok. Let's try this again.
"Insight, is your teaching/wisdom self taught or are you a student of a particular person's/group's teaching? Would you share with us how you came to become so adament in your belief? I'm trying to get some context in terms of you and your teaching. Frankly, I'm trying to determine whether to take your posts and you seriously. Thanks."
Having come from a number of Christian churches over the years I came to realise the traditional interpretations were full of mythological influence. For the past 18 years I have studied the Scriptures, for myself, with only the KJV and Stongs concordance in hand. The Word needs to be approached as though you know nothing! Removing all bias and certainly rid yourself of all apostolic teaching which I consider mainstream. A mind must be prepared to receive how the Spirit communicates through the written Word, a lost skill today. There are certain keys and techniques God has used to hid wisdom within HIs Word.
Should you like me to show such a technique you only need ask?
Steve, you must be teachable to receive them. So if you wanted to brand me self taught, I am ok with that, or taught of God through his Word of Truth, is how I like to appreciate my understanding.
Needless to say having understood the mainstream Christian message compared to the truth I and others now hold, yes I am very adamant of its substance and ability to lead my family and to salvation.
I believe in the original gospel that at the first was untouched by man and his creeds - it will do you well to find that original Gospel - pure in its message and powerful
Insight
Thanks for your response, Insight. Real quick question: what is the Good News message you have for us other than debunking what you believe to be errant apostolic teaching. Is your understanding, having your understanding the key to salvation? If not, what is the key to salvation?
: segell Sat Dec 10, 2011 - 08:45:41
Thanks for your response, Insight. Real quick question: what is the Good News message you have for us other than debunking what you believe to be errant apostolic teaching. Is your understanding, having your understanding the key to salvation? If not, what is the key to salvation?
1. The
things concerning the Kingdom of God (on earth)
2. The
name of the Lord Jesus Christ
These are styled the two keys of the Gospel whereby each key is dealt with in the 1 & 2 Epistles of Peter.
The first key is suffering mentioned 21 times in the 1st epistle and the second key is the glory that shall follow. Should a Christian not understand either of these two keys they can not be saved.
You will see I have highlighted the word "things" and "name" both are essential elements in the knowledge that leads to salvation (2 Tim 3:15,16)
Doctrines such as heaven going, hell (feiry place) going, immortal soulism, infant baptism, supernatural devils and demons etc are all errorist teachings born out of Egyptian, Greek & Roman influence. Plato is held in high esteem by many Christian writers none more so than the RCC today.
Should you ever desire to know these things just ask.
Insight
: Insight Sat Dec 10, 2011 - 17:29:06
: segell Sat Dec 10, 2011 - 08:45:41
Thanks for your response, Insight. Real quick question: what is the Good News message you have for us other than debunking what you believe to be errant apostolic teaching. Is your understanding, having your understanding the key to salvation? If not, what is the key to salvation?
1. The things concerning the Kingdom of God (on earth)
2. The name of the Lord Jesus Christ
These are styled the two keys of the Gospel whereby each key is dealt with in the 1 & 2 Epistles of Peter.
The first key is suffering mentioned 21 times in the 1st epistle and the second key is the glory that shall follow. Should a Christian not understand either of these two keys they can not be saved.
You will see I have highlighted the word "things" and "name" both are essential elements in the knowledge that leads to salvation (2 Tim 3:15,16)
Doctrines such as heaven going, hell (feiry place) going, immortal soulism, infant baptism, supernatural devils and demons etc are all errorist teachings born out of Egyptian, Greek & Roman influence. Plato is held in high esteem by many Christian writers none more so than the RCC today.
Should you ever desire to know these things just ask.
Insight
Huh? Sorry, I just have no desire. It seems you don't have Good News to share.
Frankly, John 3:16 does sum up the good news of God's love for you and I. Hope you will be able to see that. What you offer, Insight, is nothing to be considered, I'm afraid. You just seem to be all over the place. Narrow your focus on the Lord Jesus - well, that would be my suggestion and forget about all the other doctrinal stuff.....even yours.
I wish you well. Good bye.
Steve
: segell Sun Dec 11, 2011 - 23:44:03
: Insight Sat Dec 10, 2011 - 17:29:06
: segell Sat Dec 10, 2011 - 08:45:41
Thanks for your response, Insight. Real quick question: what is the Good News message you have for us other than debunking what you believe to be errant apostolic teaching. Is your understanding, having your understanding the key to salvation? If not, what is the key to salvation?
1. The things concerning the Kingdom of God (on earth)
2. The name of the Lord Jesus Christ
These are styled the two keys of the Gospel whereby each key is dealt with in the 1 & 2 Epistles of Peter.
The first key is suffering mentioned 21 times in the 1st epistle and the second key is the glory that shall follow. Should a Christian not understand either of these two keys they can not be saved.
You will see I have highlighted the word "things" and "name" both are essential elements in the knowledge that leads to salvation (2 Tim 3:15,16)
Doctrines such as heaven going, hell (feiry place) going, immortal soulism, infant baptism, supernatural devils and demons etc are all errorist teachings born out of Egyptian, Greek & Roman influence. Plato is held in high esteem by many Christian writers none more so than the RCC today.
Should you ever desire to know these things just ask.
Insight
Huh? Sorry, I just have no desire. It seems you don't have Good News to share.
Frankly, John 3:16 does sum up the good news of God's love for you and I. Hope you will be able to see that. What you offer, Insight, is nothing to be considered, I'm afraid. You just seem to be all over the place. Narrow your focus on the Lord Jesus - well, that would be my suggestion and forget about all the other doctrinal stuff.....even yours.
I wish you well. Good bye.
Steve
And it was night...
And, Insight, you have still not shared the Gospel or Good News that you say others do not have. just what is your good news? So far, you haven't shared any. You've only shared your purported, self anointed wisdom. Is that the good news? Your ability to "get it"? Again, so far, no good news has been shared by you. None. Respectfully, you really are not to be taken seriously - the very thing that seems to be most valued by you.
If you have no good news to share, you really have nothing to share. Do you see where I'm coming from?
: segell Mon Dec 12, 2011 - 09:26:25
And, Insight, you have still not shared the Gospel or Good News that you say others do not have. just what is your good news? So far, you haven't shared any. You've only shared your purported, self anointed wisdom. Is that the good news? Your ability to "get it"? Again, so far, no good news has been shared by you. None. Respectfully, you really are not to be taken seriously - the very thing that seems to be most valued by you.
If you have no good news to share, you really have nothing to share. Do you see where I'm coming from?
If you do not understand Jesus Christ's sufferings in the flesh; how will you enter those sufferings yourself? And if you know not the Glory that will follow how will you be ready to receive such Glory?
Steve, you cannot explain to me the exact nature of Jesus Christ nor can you communicate precisely what he overcame.
And you ask me about the Good News?
Peter gives you the two keys of the Kingdom but you are so FULL of wrong doctrine you cannot think with clarity.
Searching what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow. 1 Peter 1:11
Grab your E-Sword or whatever Bible program you use and search for suffering, suffer in 1st Peter
How many hits?
Now go and search the 2nd Peter for suffering, suffer
How many hits?
Now I have been "trying" to show you the sufferings of Christ, but you have resisted all the way...so if you do not want to know the 1st Key to unlock the knowledge of the coming Kingdom, so be it.
At least you have been warned.
Insight
Still no Good News. Just a self proclaimed understanding of a works oriented theology. Prepare ourselves for glory? Prepare ourselves? Oh well....
Again, no Good News. None. No Gospel message. None. Just a self proclaimed deep understanding of a verse of Scripture. It leads to nowhere other than ourselves and what we know and what we get. It's all about "getting it right".
The Lord Jesus Christ is the One who got it all right! The good news is that we can rest in His getting it right and in His righteousness.
Sorry, Insight, there just isn't any insight there. I believe your teaching actually is an anethema to the Gospel message and leads people away from instead of to the Cross. It seems your focus is misplaced.
: segell Mon Dec 12, 2011 - 16:37:51
Still no Good News. Just a self proclaimed understanding of a works oriented theology. Prepare ourselves for glory? Prepare ourselves? Oh well....
Again, no Good News. None. No Gospel message. None. Just a self proclaimed deep understanding of a verse of Scripture. It leads to nowhere other than ourselves and what we know and what we get. It's all about "getting it right".
The Lord Jesus Christ is the One who got it all right! The good news is that we can rest in His getting it right and in His righteousness.
Sorry, Insight, there just isn't any insight there. I believe your teaching actually is an anethema to the Gospel message and leads people away from instead of to the Cross. It seems your focus is misplaced.
Not able to enter the Word I see.
So 1 Pete 1:11 was lost on you - you still do not understand the keys of the Kingdom and your reluctance to receive the Word with gladness is clear for all to see.
I will kick the dust off and move forward.
If at some stage you would like to discuss the sufferings of Christ and how one enters the saving name...
Just PM anytime.
I am always willing!
Insight
Thank you for the invitation. But, with respect, Insight, you have offered up nothing.
God bless you.
: segell Mon Dec 12, 2011 - 16:43:04
Thank you for the invitation. But, with respect, Insight, you have offered up nothing.
God bless you.
So 1 Peter 1:11 is nothing to you?
So be it.
That's really silly Insight and you have quite a manipulative manner. The issue isn't the Scripture, it's your apparent inability to share any good news. Which is not surprising, frankly. Because your message is not good news - it appears to be strictly self promotional and satisfying.
The fact that you, after being asked numerous times, failed to state or articulate the good news of the Gospel speaks volumes. You and your understandings do not comprise the Gospel. You have shared no good news. That is the point.
: segell Mon Dec 12, 2011 - 16:57:53
That's really silly Insight and you have quite a manipulative manner. The issue isn't the Scripture, it's your apparent inability to share any good news. Which is not surprising, frankly. Because your message is not good news - it appears to be strictly self promotional and satisfying.
The fact that you, after being asked numerous times, failed to state or articulate the good news of the Gospel speaks volumes. You and your understandings do not comprise the Gospel. You have shared no good news. That is the point.
Back tracking I see.
Sadly your soil is not tilled sufficiently to receive the Word with Joy.
Why dont you expound the two keys of the Kingdom for us and lets see where it leads us?
You resisted 1 Peter 1:11...
Clearly "you" say I have nothing to offer.
Insight
But here are some points to help you along the way.
Two Keys:
1. Sufferings of Christ
2. Glories of Christ
Then compare with Luke 24:26
Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into his glory?
If I asked you to provide the prophecies of his suffering and glories would you know where to go and how to expound them?
By the way did you notice in 1 Peter 1:11 both words for suffering(s) and Glory(s) are plural?
You speak as a fool Steve because you think you know the Good News of the Gospel but actually you know little, if nothing at all.
Can you list the various aspects of his sufferings? And how the Gospel allows us to enter those sufferings? And do you know his Glories? And how that Glory will be received by those who know the true Gospel?
With your attitude why should you be taught anything?
Sadly if you know not the 2 Keys of the Kingdom how will you understand the Atonement of Salvation?
You have a long way to go Steve, a long way.
This is not about repenting Steve, its about a willingness to hear a saving message, which you think you already know!
Insight
So insight please tell us how you enter the Glory of God and how you allow the Glory of God to enter you.
: Insight Mon Dec 12, 2011 - 17:33:07
But here are some points to help you along the way.
Two Keys:
1. Sufferings of Christ
2. Glories of Christ
Then compare with Luke 24:26
Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into his glory?
If I asked you to provide the prophecies of his suffering and glories would you know where to go and how to expound them?
By the way did you notice in 1 Peter 1:11 both words for suffering(s) and Glory(s) are plural?
You speak as a fool Steve because you think you know the Good News of the Gospel but actually you know little, if nothing at all.
Can you list the various aspects of his sufferings? And how the Gospel allows us to enter those sufferings? And do you know his Glories? And how that Glory will be received by those who know the true Gospel?
With your attitude why should you be taught anything?
Sadly if you know not the 2 Keys of the Kingdom how will you understand the Atonement of Salvation?
You have a long way to go Steve, a long way.
This is not about repenting Steve, its about a willingness to hear a saving message, which you think you already know!
Insight
Again, you say nothing. Again, no gospel or good news. Insight, there is nothing to respond to. Your message is really no message at all. Sorry, in our exchanges you have not ever offered a saving message. Nothing at all.
: segell Mon Dec 12, 2011 - 22:27:15
: Insight Mon Dec 12, 2011 - 17:33:07
But here are some points to help you along the way.
Two Keys:
1. Sufferings of Christ
2. Glories of Christ
Then compare with Luke 24:26
Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into his glory?
If I asked you to provide the prophecies of his suffering and glories would you know where to go and how to expound them?
By the way did you notice in 1 Peter 1:11 both words for suffering(s) and Glory(s) are plural?
You speak as a fool Steve because you think you know the Good News of the Gospel but actually you know little, if nothing at all.
Can you list the various aspects of his sufferings? And how the Gospel allows us to enter those sufferings? And do you know his Glories? And how that Glory will be received by those who know the true Gospel?
With your attitude why should you be taught anything?
Sadly if you know not the 2 Keys of the Kingdom how will you understand the Atonement of Salvation?
You have a long way to go Steve, a long way.
This is not about repenting Steve, its about a willingness to hear a saving message, which you think you already know!
Insight
Again, you say nothing. Again, no gospel or good news. Insight, there is nothing to respond to. Your message is really no message at all. Sorry, in our exchanges you have not ever offered a saving message. Nothing at all.
This is not about repenting Steve, its about a willingness to hear a saving message, which you
think you already know!
I believe your spirit has not changed.
Actually Steve I had a little chuckle while reading the last few posts when realising I am the only one in this conversation raising Scripture and not once have you referred to the Bible.
I weighed this against your continual bleating of "saying nothing
Insight, if you have something to say, say it. Otherwise, there is nothing to respond to. If you have a saving message, offer it. Otherwise, you are just really saying nothing at all. What you do here is bait people into exchanges. It's a manipulative and less that straightforward and honest practice. I have no desire to engage in your games and innuendo. So, if you have a saving message, share it. I'm not interested in anything else you might type up on this site. Thanks for understanding.
: segell Mon Dec 12, 2011 - 22:40:44
Insight, if you have something to say, say it. Otherwise, there is nothing to respond to. If you have a saving message, offer it. Otherwise, you are just really saying nothing at all. What you do here is bait people into exchanges. It's a manipulative and less that straightforward and honest practice. I have no desire to engage in your games and innuendo. So, if you have a saving message, share it. I'm not interested in anything else you might type up on this site. Thanks for understanding.
Yet another post without substance. More accusations without entering the Bible or its message.
How about I listen and you explain the 2 Keys of the Kingdom.
Waiting...
: Insight Mon Dec 12, 2011 - 22:44:27
: segell Mon Dec 12, 2011 - 22:40:44
Insight, if you have something to say, say it. Otherwise, there is nothing to respond to. If you have a saving message, offer it. Otherwise, you are just really saying nothing at all. What you do here is bait people into exchanges. It's a manipulative and less that straightforward and honest practice. I have no desire to engage in your games and innuendo. So, if you have a saving message, share it. I'm not interested in anything else you might type up on this site. Thanks for understanding.
Yet another post without substance. More accusations without entering the Bible or its message.
How about I listen and you explain the 2 Keys of the Kingdom.
Waiting...
Sorry. Not biting. You say you have a message. I haven't heard it.
: segell Mon Dec 12, 2011 - 22:49:22
: Insight Mon Dec 12, 2011 - 22:44:27
: segell Mon Dec 12, 2011 - 22:40:44
Insight, if you have something to say, say it. Otherwise, there is nothing to respond to. If you have a saving message, offer it. Otherwise, you are just really saying nothing at all. What you do here is bait people into exchanges. It's a manipulative and less that straightforward and honest practice. I have no desire to engage in your games and innuendo. So, if you have a saving message, share it. I'm not interested in anything else you might type up on this site. Thanks for understanding.
Yet another post without substance. More accusations without entering the Bible or its message.
How about I listen and you explain the 2 Keys of the Kingdom.
Waiting...
Sorry. Not biting. You say you have a message. I haven't heard it.
You will not acknowledge 1 Peter 1:11 & Luke 26:24 in both instances you had the opportunity to engage in discussion but you choose to antagonise rather than harmonise a discussion.
I think if you go over then posts this will become very clear.
You give nothing and therefore receive nothing.
Telling it how it is with no embellishments.
So far I feel you are faceless, without form and void - I get nothing form you Steve - lots of excuses, but nothing else.
It appears the Hope of Israel means nothing to you! So how can you undestand or recieve the Keys?
: Insight Wed Dec 07, 2011 - 21:24:06You say: Jesus looked, talked, walked, ran, sat, cried, ate, defecated, etc. just like a man.
And then you say: not the nature
Nosight (or should we address you as "Unsightful"?)
Which would thouest preferest? ...
For 1700 years, the orthodox position has been that ...
Christians are supposed to see Jesus as the "God-man".
So, perhaps we should say that Jesus' true nature is that of God in a man's body.
Don't forget that Jesus' Father was none other than the Holy Spirit.
I.e. Jesus did not have man's sin nature.
Whatsoever else could have been the reason for the uniqueness of His Father?
(I.e. I'm open to suggestions.)
It is to be understood that the God-part of Jesus had control over the man-part of Him.
Ergo ... Jesus' true nature was that of "God".
Re: "God" ... Thouest may choosest whicheverest of the 3 Persons of the Triune Godhead you wish.
Razbeerishlee? That's Bulgarian for "Do you understand?"
Answer in English: No
That's why we're a-gonna call you either Nosight or Unsightful.
: Insight Mon Dec 12, 2011 - 22:57:40
: segell Mon Dec 12, 2011 - 22:49:22
: Insight Mon Dec 12, 2011 - 22:44:27
: segell Mon Dec 12, 2011 - 22:40:44
Insight, if you have something to say, say it. Otherwise, there is nothing to respond to. If you have a saving message, offer it. Otherwise, you are just really saying nothing at all. What you do here is bait people into exchanges. It's a manipulative and less that straightforward and honest practice. I have no desire to engage in your games and innuendo. So, if you have a saving message, share it. I'm not interested in anything else you might type up on this site. Thanks for understanding.
Yet another post without substance. More accusations without entering the Bible or its message.
How about I listen and you explain the 2 Keys of the Kingdom.
Waiting...
Sorry. Not biting. You say you have a message. I haven't heard it.
You will not acknowledge 1 Peter 1:11 & Luke 26:24 in both instances you had the opportunity to engage in discussion but you choose to antagonise rather than harmonise a discussion.
I think if you go over then posts this will become very clear.
You give nothing and therefore receive nothing.
Telling it how it is with no embellishments.
So far I feel you are faceless, without form and void - I get nothing form you Steve - lots of excuses, but nothing else.
It appears the Hope of Israel means nothing to you! So how can you undestand or recieve the Keys?
Thanks for pointing to 1 Peter 1. It starts with another example of the trinity in the Scriptures and testifies that Jesus Christ is indeed God:
To God's elect, exiles scattered throughout the provinces of Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bithynia, who have been chosen according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through the sanctifying work of the Spirit, to be obedient to Jesus Christ and sprinkled with his blood" (1 Peter 1:1,2)
: fish153 Wed Dec 14, 2011 - 23:43:31
Thanks for pointing to 1 Peter 1. It starts with another example of the trinity in the Scriptures and testifies that Jesus Christ is indeed God:
To God's elect, exiles scattered throughout the provinces of Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bithynia, who have been chosen according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through the sanctifying work of the Spirit, to be obedient to Jesus Christ and sprinkled with his blood" (1 Peter 1:1,2)
Maybe you would like to enlighten us all as to how this speaks of the Trinity?
Insight
: Insight Mon Dec 19, 2011 - 04:10:47
: fish153 Wed Dec 14, 2011 - 23:43:31
Thanks for pointing to 1 Peter 1. It starts with another example of the trinity in the Scriptures and testifies that Jesus Christ is indeed God:
To God's elect, exiles scattered throughout the provinces of Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bithynia, who have been chosen according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through the sanctifying work of the Spirit, to be obedient to Jesus Christ and sprinkled with his blood" (1 Peter 1:1,2)
Maybe you would like to enlighten us all as to how this speaks of the Trinity?
Insight
Yes---the Trinity is involved totally in our salvation.
THE FATHER calls us to himself, by the
Finished work of
THE SON on the cross (whom we bow to as Savior and Lord), through the
HOLY SPIRIT who sanctifies us.
Of course, if you refuse to acknowledge the Trinity you will purposefully ignore this clear teaching---as it is found in other Scriptures as well.
1 x 1 x 1 = 1 There is one God in three persons.
: fish153 Mon Dec 19, 2011 - 14:24:31
: Insight Mon Dec 19, 2011 - 04:10:47
: fish153 Wed Dec 14, 2011 - 23:43:31
Thanks for pointing to 1 Peter 1. It starts with another example of the trinity in the Scriptures and testifies that Jesus Christ is indeed God:
To God's elect, exiles scattered throughout the provinces of Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bithynia, who have been chosen according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through the sanctifying work of the Spirit, to be obedient to Jesus Christ and sprinkled with his blood" (1 Peter 1:1,2)
Maybe you would like to enlighten us all as to how this speaks of the Trinity?
Insight
Yes---the Trinity is involved totally in our salvation. THE FATHER calls us to himself, by the Finished work of THE SON on the cross (whom we bow to as Savior and Lord), through the HOLY SPIRIT who sanctifies us.
Of course, if you refuse to acknowledge the Trinity you will purposefully ignore this clear teaching---as it is found in other Scriptures as well.
1 x 1 x 1 = 1 There is one God in three persons.
To God's elect, exiles scattered throughout the provinces of Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bithynia, who have been chosen according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through the sanctifying work of the Spirit, to be obedient to Jesus Christ and sprinkled with his blood" (1 Peter 1:1,2)
Fish, your study practices need serious revision and your mathematics skills a rework.
Who is given the sole credit for the work of redemption? Whose foreknowledge is absolute? See Eph 1:4; Rom 8:29,33.
• Are you able to show me a verse that shows us the foreknowing is the work of Jesus Christ or the Holy Spirit and Not God?
Now what medium has this work been done through? How does the Spirit – Word sanctify? Please See 1 Tim 4:5
• What I am looking to see from you is an understanding of the Holy Spirit and its definition from the Bible, 1 Tim 4:5 will be a good place for you to start.
• Once you have understood the Spirit-Word how does this relate to the phrase
"obedient to Jesus Christ
: Insight Mon Dec 19, 2011 - 16:27:44
: fish153 Mon Dec 19, 2011 - 14:24:31
: Insight Mon Dec 19, 2011 - 04:10:47
: fish153 Wed Dec 14, 2011 - 23:43:31
Thanks for pointing to 1 Peter 1. It starts with another example of the trinity in the Scriptures and testifies that Jesus Christ is indeed God:
To God's elect, exiles scattered throughout the provinces of Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bithynia, who have been chosen according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through the sanctifying work of the Spirit, to be obedient to Jesus Christ and sprinkled with his blood" (1 Peter 1:1,2)
Maybe you would like to enlighten us all as to how this speaks of the Trinity?
Insight
Yes---the Trinity is involved totally in our salvation. THE FATHER calls us to himself, by the Finished work of THE SON on the cross (whom we bow to as Savior and Lord), through the HOLY SPIRIT who sanctifies us.
Of course, if you refuse to acknowledge the Trinity you will purposefully ignore this clear teaching---as it is found in other Scriptures as well.
1 x 1 x 1 = 1 There is one God in three persons.
To God's elect, exiles scattered throughout the provinces of Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bithynia, who have been chosen according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through the sanctifying work of the Spirit, to be obedient to Jesus Christ and sprinkled with his blood" (1 Peter 1:1,2)
Fish, your study practices need serious revision and your mathematics skills a rework.
Who is given the sole credit for the work of redemption? Whose foreknowledge is absolute? See Eph 1:4; Rom 8:29,33.
• Are you able to show me a verse that shows us the foreknowing is the work of Jesus Christ or the Holy Spirit and Not God?
Now what medium has this work been done through? How does the Spirit – Word sanctify? Please See 1 Tim 4:5
• What I am looking to see from you is an understanding of the Holy Spirit and its definition from the Bible, 1 Tim 4:5 will be a good place for you to start.
• Once you have understood the Spirit-Word how does this relate to the phrase "obedient to Jesus Christ
: fish153 Mon Dec 19, 2011 - 18:35:16
: Insight Mon Dec 19, 2011 - 16:27:44
: fish153 Mon Dec 19, 2011 - 14:24:31
: Insight Mon Dec 19, 2011 - 04:10:47
: fish153 Wed Dec 14, 2011 - 23:43:31
Thanks for pointing to 1 Peter 1. It starts with another example of the trinity in the Scriptures and testifies that Jesus Christ is indeed God:
To God's elect, exiles scattered throughout the provinces of Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bithynia, who have been chosen according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through the sanctifying work of the Spirit, to be obedient to Jesus Christ and sprinkled with his blood" (1 Peter 1:1,2)
Maybe you would like to enlighten us all as to how this speaks of the Trinity?
Insight
Yes---the Trinity is involved totally in our salvation. THE FATHER calls us to himself, by the Finished work of THE SON on the cross (whom we bow to as Savior and Lord), through the HOLY SPIRIT who sanctifies us.
Of course, if you refuse to acknowledge the Trinity you will purposefully ignore this clear teaching---as it is found in other Scriptures as well.
1 x 1 x 1 = 1 There is one God in three persons.
To God's elect, exiles scattered throughout the provinces of Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bithynia, who have been chosen according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through the sanctifying work of the Spirit, to be obedient to Jesus Christ and sprinkled with his blood" (1 Peter 1:1,2)
Fish, your study practices need serious revision and your mathematics skills a rework.
Who is given the sole credit for the work of redemption? Whose foreknowledge is absolute? See Eph 1:4; Rom 8:29,33.
• Are you able to show me a verse that shows us the foreknowing is the work of Jesus Christ or the Holy Spirit and Not God?
Now what medium has this work been done through? How does the Spirit – Word sanctify? Please See 1 Tim 4:5
• What I am looking to see from you is an understanding of the Holy Spirit and its definition from the Bible, 1 Tim 4:5 will be a good place for you to start.
• Once you have understood the Spirit-Word how does this relate to the phrase "obedient to Jesus Christ
: Insight Mon Dec 19, 2011 - 18:39:21
: fish153 Mon Dec 19, 2011 - 18:35:16
: Insight Mon Dec 19, 2011 - 16:27:44
: fish153 Mon Dec 19, 2011 - 14:24:31
: Insight Mon Dec 19, 2011 - 04:10:47
: fish153 Wed Dec 14, 2011 - 23:43:31
Thanks for pointing to 1 Peter 1. It starts with another example of the trinity in the Scriptures and testifies that Jesus Christ is indeed God:
To God's elect, exiles scattered throughout the provinces of Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bithynia, who have been chosen according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through the sanctifying work of the Spirit, to be obedient to Jesus Christ and sprinkled with his blood" (1 Peter 1:1,2)
Maybe you would like to enlighten us all as to how this speaks of the Trinity?
Insight
Yes---the Trinity is involved totally in our salvation. THE FATHER calls us to himself, by the Finished work of THE SON on the cross (whom we bow to as Savior and Lord), through the HOLY SPIRIT who sanctifies us.
Of course, if you refuse to acknowledge the Trinity you will purposefully ignore this clear teaching---as it is found in other Scriptures as well.
1 x 1 x 1 = 1 There is one God in three persons.
To God's elect, exiles scattered throughout the provinces of Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bithynia, who have been chosen according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through the sanctifying work of the Spirit, to be obedient to Jesus Christ and sprinkled with his blood" (1 Peter 1:1,2)
Fish, your study practices need serious revision and your mathematics skills a rework.
Who is given the sole credit for the work of redemption? Whose foreknowledge is absolute? See Eph 1:4; Rom 8:29,33.
• Are you able to show me a verse that shows us the foreknowing is the work of Jesus Christ or the Holy Spirit and Not God?
Now what medium has this work been done through? How does the Spirit – Word sanctify? Please See 1 Tim 4:5
• What I am looking to see from you is an understanding of the Holy Spirit and its definition from the Bible, 1 Tim 4:5 will be a good place for you to start.
• Once you have understood the Spirit-Word how does this relate to the phrase "obedient to Jesus Christ
Fish,
I will put to one side you personal taunts and focus on the truth.
Do you also believe that wisdom is a literal woman?
She is more precious than rubies: and all the things you can desire are not to be compared unto her.
If not, why do you assume God's power is a literal person?
If I adopted your rule of He or She applying to a literal person then who is this Woman called Wisdom?
Insight
: Insight Mon Dec 19, 2011 - 20:04:24
Fish,
I will put to one side you personal taunts and focus on the truth.
Do you also believe that wisdom is a literal woman?
She is more precious than rubies: and all the things you can desire are not to be compared unto her.
If not, why do you assume God's power is a literal person?
If I adopted your rule of He or She applying to a literal person then who is this Woman called Wisdom?
Insight
Insight---
I am not taunting you. I am literally tired of how you choose to interpret Scripture to match your beliefs. You are going to set aside many verses that clearly teach that the Holy Spirit is a person who speaks, warns, corrects, teaches and comforts us. And you do this by picking out an example of wisdom being called "she".
"
Canst thou draw out leviathan with an hook? or his tongue with a cord which thou lettest down?" (Job 41:1)
Yes--there are places in the Bible where things are personified. In Proverbs 8 wisdom speaks--but as you read the entire chapter you see that wisdom is an attribute of God.
But the Holy Spirit is not an "it" that has been personified. Jesus calls him "
HE"----and as many verses (some which I posted) show He directly warned Paul--it doesn't say "
God through the Spirit warned Paul"---no, it says "
Having been warned by the Holy Spirit".
Once again Insight, you are making Scripture
fit your theology, rather than your theology being based on submission to Scripture.
: fish153 Tue Dec 20, 2011 - 12:29:28
Insight---
I am not taunting you. I am literally tired of how you choose to interpret Scripture to match your beliefs. You are going to set aside many verses that clearly teach that the Holy Spirit is a person who speaks, warns, corrects, teaches and comforts us. And you do this by picking out an example of wisdom being called "she".
No I am simply revealing to you, your method of assuming, because he is referred to as "he" when speaking of the Holy Spirit does not automatically mean the Holy Spirit is a separate divine being of the Godhead. ::frown::
Here is another...
Rom 6:23 The wages of sin is death
Now sin is not a person who works a 40 hour week and earns wages.
So its not enough for you to imply the masculine of femine preface as to mean a literal person.
"Canst thou draw out leviathan with an hook? or his tongue with a cord which thou lettest down?" (Job 41:1)
Yes--there are places in the Bible where things are personified. In Proverbs 8 wisdom speaks--but as you read the entire chapter you see that wisdom is an attribute of God.
Ah...Correct
But the Holy Spirit is not an "it" that has been personified.
Lets see why not?
Jesus calls him "HE"----and as many verses (some which I posted) show He directly warned Paul--it doesn't say "God through the Spirit warned Paul"---no, it says "Having been warned by the Holy Spirit".
What you are doing in inferring an external set of beliefs on the preface "He
Grammatically, the Holy Spirit is an "IT" in Greek.
Even in verses such as John 14:17...
Jhn 14:16 And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;
Jhn 14:17 [Even] the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.
...the word in Greek is auto, which is in neuter case - IT. The translator has rendered it he because of his presupposed belief in the personhood of the Holy Spirit.
Jarrod
: Wycliffes_Shillelagh Tue Dec 20, 2011 - 23:20:14
Grammatically, the Holy Spirit is an "IT" in Greek.
Even in verses such as John 14:17...
Jhn 14:16 And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;
Jhn 14:17 [Even] the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.
...the word in Greek is auto, which is in neuter case - IT. The translator has rendered it he because of his presupposed belief in the personhood of the Holy Spirit.
Jarrod
Yes you are correct...but will this truth empower Christians to question the Trinity?
We shall see.
: Insight Tue Dec 20, 2011 - 23:22:43
: Wycliffes_Shillelagh Tue Dec 20, 2011 - 23:20:14
Grammatically, the Holy Spirit is an "IT" in Greek.
Even in verses such as John 14:17...
Jhn 14:16 And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;
Jhn 14:17 [Even] the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.
...the word in Greek is auto, which is in neuter case - IT. The translator has rendered it he because of his presupposed belief in the personhood of the Holy Spirit.
Jarrod
Yes you are correct...but will this truth empower Christians to question the Trinity?
We shall see.
As Larry2 pointed out in another post:
"Then Peter said, "Ananias, how is it that Satan has so filled your heart that you have lied to the Holy Spirit and have kept for yourself some of the money you received for the land? Didn't it belong to you before it was sold? And after it was sold, wasn't the money at your disposal? What made you think of doing such a thing? You have not lied just to human beings but to God.[/b]
: fish153 Wed Dec 21, 2011 - 11:26:18
: Insight Tue Dec 20, 2011 - 23:22:43
: Wycliffes_Shillelagh Tue Dec 20, 2011 - 23:20:14
Grammatically, the Holy Spirit is an "IT" in Greek.
Even in verses such as John 14:17...
Jhn 14:16 And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;
Jhn 14:17 [Even] the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.
...the word in Greek is auto, which is in neuter case - IT. The translator has rendered it he because of his presupposed belief in the personhood of the Holy Spirit.
Jarrod
Yes you are correct...but will this truth empower Christians to question the Trinity?
We shall see.
As Larry2 pointed out in another post:
"Then Peter said, Ananias, how is it that Satan has so filled your heart that you have lied to the Holy Spirit and have kept for yourself some of the money you received for the land? Didnt it belong to you before it was sold? And after it was sold, wasnt the money at your disposal? What made you think of doing such a thing? You have not lied just to human beings but to God.[/b] (Acts 5:3-4)
How can you LIE to an "IT"? You can jump through all the hoops you want to make the scripture fit your theology. But there are numerous verses which show that the Holy Spirit is a PERSON.
The question isn't just whether one of whether there is a person involved, it's a question of whether there are seperate person
s.
See how Paul restates himself in the second section you bolded, substituting 'to God' instead of 'to the Holy Spirit?' It doesn't point to multiple persons.
Jarrod
: Wycliffes_Shillelagh Wed Dec 21, 2011 - 13:01:09
: fish153 Wed Dec 21, 2011 - 11:26:18
: Insight Tue Dec 20, 2011 - 23:22:43
: Wycliffes_Shillelagh Tue Dec 20, 2011 - 23:20:14
Grammatically, the Holy Spirit is an "IT" in Greek.
Even in verses such as John 14:17...
Jhn 14:16 And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;
Jhn 14:17 [Even] the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.
...the word in Greek is auto, which is in neuter case - IT. The translator has rendered it he because of his presupposed belief in the personhood of the Holy Spirit.
Jarrod
Yes you are correct...but will this truth empower Christians to question the Trinity?
We shall see.
As Larry2 pointed out in another post:
"Then Peter said, "Ananias, how is it that Satan has so filled your heart that you have lied to the Holy Spirit and have kept for yourself some of the money you received for the land? Didn't it belong to you before it was sold? And after it was sold, wasn't the money at your disposal? What made you think of doing such a thing? You have not lied just to human beings but to God.[/b]
: fish153 Wed Dec 21, 2011 - 14:03:49
: Wycliffes_Shillelagh Wed Dec 21, 2011 - 13:01:09The question isn't just whether one of whether there is a person involved, it's a question of whether there are seperate persons.
See how Paul restates himself in the second section you bolded, substituting 'to God' instead of 'to the Holy Spirit?' It doesn't point to multiple persons.
Jarrod
Jarrod---
On the contrary. Peter is EMPHASIZING that The Holy Spirit is GOD. He is saying that Ananias has lied to the Holy Spirit(who dwells within believers), so he hasn't lied only to men, but to God Himself.
Uh... that isn't contrary, that's the same thing. The Holy Spirit is God.
Peter doesn't say "you lied to the Holy Spirit and also to God." He makes them just one person.
Jarrod
: fish153 Wed Dec 21, 2011 - 11:26:18
: Insight Tue Dec 20, 2011 - 23:22:43
: Wycliffes_Shillelagh Tue Dec 20, 2011 - 23:20:14
Grammatically, the Holy Spirit is an "IT" in Greek.
Even in verses such as John 14:17...
Jhn 14:16 And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;
Jhn 14:17 [Even] the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.
...the word in Greek is auto, which is in neuter case - IT. The translator has rendered it he because of his presupposed belief in the personhood of the Holy Spirit.
Jarrod
Yes you are correct...but will this truth empower Christians to question the Trinity?
We shall see.
As Larry2 pointed out in another post:
"Then Peter said, "Ananias, how is it that Satan has so filled your heart that you have lied to the Holy Spirit and have kept for yourself some of the money you received for the land? Didn't it belong to you before it was sold? And after it was sold, wasn't the money at your disposal? What made you think of doing such a thing? You have not lied just to human beings but to God.[/b]
: Insight Wed Dec 21, 2011 - 16:22:02
: fish153 Wed Dec 21, 2011 - 11:26:18
: Insight Tue Dec 20, 2011 - 23:22:43
: Wycliffes_Shillelagh Tue Dec 20, 2011 - 23:20:14
Grammatically, the Holy Spirit is an "IT" in Greek.
Even in verses such as John 14:17...
Jhn 14:16 And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;
Jhn 14:17 [Even] the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.
...the word in Greek is auto, which is in neuter case - IT. The translator has rendered it he because of his presupposed belief in the personhood of the Holy Spirit.
Jarrod
Yes you are correct...but will this truth empower Christians to question the Trinity?
We shall see.
As Larry2 pointed out in another post:
"Then Peter said, "Ananias, how is it that Satan has so filled your heart that you have lied to the Holy Spirit and have kept for yourself some of the money you received for the land? Didn't it belong to you before it was sold? And after it was sold, wasn't the money at your disposal? What made you think of doing such a thing? You have not lied just to human beings but to God.[/b]
: fish153 Wed Dec 21, 2011 - 17:10:40
: Insight Wed Dec 21, 2011 - 16:22:02
: fish153 Wed Dec 21, 2011 - 11:26:18
: Insight Tue Dec 20, 2011 - 23:22:43
: Wycliffes_Shillelagh Tue Dec 20, 2011 - 23:20:14
Grammatically, the Holy Spirit is an "IT" in Greek.
Even in verses such as John 14:17...
Jhn 14:16 And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;
Jhn 14:17 [Even] the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.
...the word in Greek is auto, which is in neuter case - IT. The translator has rendered it he because of his presupposed belief in the personhood of the Holy Spirit.
Jarrod
Yes you are correct...but will this truth empower Christians to question the Trinity?
We shall see.
As Larry2 pointed out in another post:
"Then Peter said, "Ananias, how is it that Satan has so filled your heart that you have lied to the Holy Spirit and have kept for yourself some of the money you received for the land? Didn't it belong to you before it was sold? And after it was sold, wasn't the money at your disposal? What made you think of doing such a thing? You have not lied just to human beings but to God.[/b]
No need to be condescending.
The verse says it clearly enough, "the power of the Most High." Or, as I said in another thread - O Exousia Theou.
: Wycliffes_Shillelagh Wed Dec 21, 2011 - 21:13:21
No need to be condescending.
The verse says it clearly enough, "the power of the Most High." Or, as I said in another thread - O Exousia Theou.
Condescending - - maybe - - yes.
But thank you for highlighting "truth" for the benefit of all who are reading.
Holy Spirit = Yahweh's Power styled in the Holy Writ as
THE POWER OF THE MOST HIGH GOD.And it is His alone to do with as He pleases, through which ever medium He desires, to perform its operation upon Whom He will.
Even in the birth of His beloved Son, born of a woman of the seed of Abraham and David.
The Son of God
Amen.
: Insight Tue Dec 20, 2011 - 23:22:43
Yes you are correct...but will this truth empower Christians to question the Trinity?
We shall see.
I thought everyone knew that all spirit beings are sexless.
So, of course, the Triune God is composed of 3 "It"s.
News Flash to Nosight ... trinity and triune means 3.
The Lord has bent over backwards to reveal Himself (Itself)
in ways that are more understandable and palatible to humans.
He would like for us to be able to identify with Him (It).
He would like for us to see Him (It) as personable ... like a Person you can communicate with.
We can't communicate with an "it", can we?
Or can we? As always, God is beyond understanding.
"For My thoughts are not your thoughts, nor are your ways My ways
: fish153 Wed Dec 21, 2011 - 17:10:40
I have to tell you---you say you're not a Jehovah's Witness, but you have the same theology they do.
They use Luke 1:35 to back their teaching that the Holy Spirit is the "active force" of God.
They also deny the Divinity of Jesus.
You don't by any chance believe only 144,000 are going to Heaven do you?
The most interesting thing of all is ...
just try to find a JW who claims to be one of those lucky 144,000.
"Not a-goin' to Heaven with da 144,000 but I'm a-gonna try my darned hardest to be a good person anyway.
It appears that I wasn't elected, so that's why I'm spiritually blind and deaf."
"The angel answered, "The Holy Spirit will come on you, AND the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the holy one to be born will be called the Son of God" (Luke 1:35)
Insight/Wycliffes---
You are misinterpreting the verse. No where does it says the Holy Spirit is simply "the power" of God. It says the HOLY SPIRIT will come on you AND the power of the most high will overshadow you".
To give an example, one could say "Barack Obama will be at the podium, AND a voice of power will be upon the crowd".
One does not think that Barack Obama's INFLUENCE alone is HIM ----the influence is the affect of the PERSON Obama HIMSELF as he speaks. When it says "the HOLY SPIRIT will come upon you, and the power of the most hign will overshadow you" it is the same form of speech. His power alone is not HIM--it is the affect and attribute of the Holy Spirit Himself coming upon Mary which is being described.
Again, you want to back your theology---and you will go to great extremes to do so.
The Holy Spirit is indeed God, the third person of the Trinity. To confuse the influence of a person with the person themself is very foolish and heretical.
: fish153 Thu Dec 22, 2011 - 13:59:16
"The angel answered, "The Holy Spirit will come on you, AND the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the holy one to be born will be called the Son of God" (Luke 1:35)
Insight/Wycliffes---
You are misinterpreting the verse. No where does it says the Holy Spirit is simply "the power" of God. It says the HOLY SPIRIT will come on you AND the power of the most high will overshadow you".
No Fish,
The Holy Spirit is defined and they two are manifested as being God's set apart "Power
: Insight Thu Dec 22, 2011 - 17:48:29
: fish153 Thu Dec 22, 2011 - 13:59:16
"The angel answered, "The Holy Spirit will come on you, AND the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the holy one to be born will be called the Son of God" (Luke 1:35)
Insight/Wycliffes---
You are misinterpreting the verse. No where does it says the Holy Spirit is simply "the power" of God. It says the HOLY SPIRIT will come on you AND the power of the most high will overshadow you".
No Fish,
The Holy Spirit is defined and they two are manifested as being God's set apart "Power
: fish153 Thu Dec 22, 2011 - 18:21:40
: Insight Thu Dec 22, 2011 - 17:48:29
: fish153 Thu Dec 22, 2011 - 13:59:16
"The angel answered, "The Holy Spirit will come on you, AND the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the holy one to be born will be called the Son of God" (Luke 1:35)
Insight/Wycliffes---
You are misinterpreting the verse. No where does it says the Holy Spirit is simply "the power" of God. It says the HOLY SPIRIT will come on you AND the power of the most high will overshadow you".
No Fish,
The Holy Spirit is defined and they two are manifested as being God's set apart "Power
There is no arguing with the power of the Holy Spirit ...
Luke 4:18
"The Spirit of the LORD (Father God) is upon Me (Jesus) because He has anointed Me ..."
Why was it necessary for the Holy Spirit to be upon Jesus, the God-man?
It was necesary for Him to be anointed with the power of the Holy Spirit.
Luke 5:17
"And the power of the Lord (the Holy Spirit) was present to heal them (the multitudes)."
Just like today, the Holy Spirit is present to perform miracles of all kinds
through His believers who have faith. Too bad there ain't more.
Retraction of the last sentence above:
This super-powerful faith is one of the 9 spiritual gifts (1 Cor 12), which not many have.
(They are only given in any powerful way to those having the baptism with the Holy Spirit.)
Since it is the Lord who gives these to whomever He chooses,
we should not find fault with others who don't have them.
Matthew 12:28 -- "But if I cast out demons by the Spirit of God ..."
Hebrews 10:38
"... God (the Father) anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and with power,
who went about doing good and healing all who were oppressed by the devil,
for God (the Holy Spirit) was with Him (Jesus)."
Father God made sure that the God-man had the Holy Spirit with Him to perform the miracles.
(And surely we can say that God the Father also was "with" Jesus,
for if you have one of the Members of the Triune God, you have all 3.)
WOW ... this'll raise a few hairs on a few heads (we'll give a pass to the bald).
Let's understand that Jesus, the God-man, was limited because of His partial humanity.
The 3 Members of the Triune Godhead have different functions. This should come as no surprise.
They are all in perfect unity of purpose, etc. ...
But ...
Jesus gave way to the authority of Father God.
Jesus depended on the power of the Holy Spirit.
It's kind of like: Father=CEO, Son=Administrator, HolySpirit=Workhorse
: John Zain Fri Dec 23, 2011 - 12:45:24
There is no arguing with the power of the Holy Spirit ...
Luke 5:17
And the power of the Lord (the Holy Spirit) was present to heal them (the multitudes).
Just like today, the Holy Spirit is present to perform miracles of all kinds
through His believers who have faith. Too bad there ain't more.
Hebrews 10:38
... how God (the Father) anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and with power,
who went about doing good and healing all who were oppressed by the devil,
for God (the Holy Spirit) was with Him (Jesus).
Father God made sure that the God-man had the Holy Spirit with Him to perform the miracles.
WOW ... this'll raise a few hairs on a few heads (we'll give a pass to the bald).
Let's understand that Jesus, the God-man, was limited because of His partial humanity.
The 3 Members of the Triune Godhead have different functions. This should come as no surprise.
They are all in perfect unity of purpose, etc. ...
But ...
Jesus gave way to the authority of Father God.
Jesus depended on the power of the Holy Spirit.
It's kind of like: Father=CEO, Son=Administrator, HolySpirit=Workhorse
Or...
The Father is the Mind of God
The Son is the Face of God
The Spirit is the Hands of God
God is so awesome I have little patience to spare debating His Triune Nature
He has inundated our entire realm of perception with Triunity and we are encased so to speak, housed in, bounded as it were by Triunity simply by the mere fact that our perception is based on it!
On the topic of Triunity even science concurs because it too is bound by 3 dimensional perception
Height Depth and Width ...none of which really exists but are only God given concepts by which we navigate through life in the earthen realm
Only with our perception of space are we bound by the concept of time which too does not really exist but is just another God given concept by which we navigate through life in the earthen realm ...
..for the past does not exist and neither does the future, but both are absolutely essential in order for our perception of time to make sense to us.
So we have height- depth and width and we have past - present and future
THE CONCEPTS of Space and Time that Einstein proved through E=mc2 do not exist and are only relative
Yet God has awashed nature in Triunity in so many ways we could go on for days elaborating on them
Paul in describing the Power of God's Love, alludes to these concepts of space and time and I believe he did so simply because of the dominant role these concepts hold in the realm of human perception.
Any rudimentary student of the Bible knows that the God of the Bible transcends both time and space throughout the scriptures and because He exists outside of time and outside of space, is not bound by either.
This is demonstrated by the Father in the OT, by Jesus in the 4 Gospels whom is God stepping into time and space and then back out again and by the Holy Spirit in the Epistles who gives God's people the ability to transcend time and space by His Gifts
Referring to Paul again, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, he made it clear in
Romans 8:38,39 the things that God's Love transcends and among them are space and time as seen below
38For I am convinced that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities,
nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers,
39
nor height, nor depth, nor any other created thing, will be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.
Knowing that God's love transcends everything Paul listed is crucial to the endurance of our faith, yet it is wise to take note that among those things Paul listed were the concepts of time and space, which in our knowing they are only concepts, weakens their ability to limit our Faith in God and their ability to hold us hostage to a type of thinking that constrains and limits our belief in what can be achieved through the Power of our Faith in God as Jesus so consistently taught
If all things we perceive our constrained by our being hostage to a 3 Dimensional perception and perspective
Why would anyone for one iota of a minute even begin to think we as humans would not perceive God the way we perceive everything else...even more so why would God want us to perceive Him in a way contrary to the way He has created us to perceive
Time is made of 3 components yet it is one thing...Time!
Space is made of 3 components yet it too is one thing...Space!
Neither is something we can quite put our finger on, yet we try to use time to conquer space....and we measure space with time, we don't even fully understand how time and distance are one in the same yet neither really exists YET they are there!
Go figure ::juggle::
The Father, The Son and the Holy Spirit are God, they are in fact The 3 in 1
Debating it is foolishness, yet we will and will continue to until we see Him face to face ::shrug::
: gospel Fri Dec 23, 2011 - 15:48:20... I have little patience to spare debating His Triune Nature ... Debating it is foolishness ...
Since you're so short on patience, please refrain from debating on the Trinity.
: John Zain Fri Dec 23, 2011 - 16:37:56
: gospel Fri Dec 23, 2011 - 15:48:20... I have little patience to spare debating His Triune Nature ... Debating it is foolishness ...
Since you're so short on patience, please refrain from debating on the Trinity.
::smile::
I grew a enough patience to throw in my 2 cents....can you spare some change?
: fish153 Thu Dec 22, 2011 - 13:59:16
"The angel answered, The Holy Spirit will come on you, AND the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the holy one to be born will be called the Son of God" (Luke 1:35)
Wycliffes---
You are misinterpreting the verse. No where does it says the Holy Spirit is simply "the power" of God. It says the HOLY SPIRIT will come on you AND the power of the most high will overshadow you".
To give an example, one could say "Barack Obama will be at the podium, AND a voice of power will be upon the crowd".
One does not think that Barack Obama's INFLUENCE alone is HIM ----the influence is the affect of the PERSON Obama HIMSELF as he speaks. When it says "the HOLY SPIRIT will come upon you, and the power of the most hign will overshadow you" it is the same form of speech. His power alone is not HIM--it is the affect and attribute of the Holy Spirit Himself coming upon Mary which is being described.
Again, you want to back your theology---and you will go to great extremes to do so.
The Holy Spirit is indeed God, the third person of the Trinity. To confuse the influence of a person with the person themself is very foolish and heretical.
It's a restatement - a parallelism. It's a common writing form in Hebrew, and in the New Testament in books written by people who thought in Hebrew. You say the same thing twice in different ways to make sure the meaning is understood.
Jarrod
: Insight Thu Dec 22, 2011 - 19:09:27
Your admonitions are putrid and lack any and all substance; for how can one who is blind endeavour to direct one who sees?
insight
It's that self-serving/centered and angry statement that speaks the loudest about whether you should be taken seriously. It speaks volumes about the content of your heart, Insight. You are not one to be taken seriously. Again, you offer absolutely no insight but offer up contorted views of Scripture.
: segell Wed Dec 28, 2011 - 10:52:38
: Insight Thu Dec 22, 2011 - 19:09:27
Your admonitions are putrid and lack any and all substance; for how can one who is blind endeavour to direct one who sees?
insight
It's that self-serving/centered and angry statement that speaks the loudest about whether you should be taken seriously. It speaks volumes about the content of your heart, Insight. You are not one to be taken seriously. Again, you offer absolutely no insight but offer up contorted views of Scripture.
Segell
Many departed from the a true and original doctrine/Gospel and in my endeavours to correct these platonic teachings, which have entered your mind and taken you captive, I do so with vigour and with a two edged sword.
The cuts have hurt you deeply, else you would not endeavour to make it personal and divert our attention away from the Word.
You accusation of a contorted view are baseless because you are yet to provide a view of the Word, at all, and in fact you cannot do so without moving to external creeds and commandments of men.
We have seen you are unable to use Bible Language to explain the Godhead.
Very telling Segell very telling.
"The head of Christ is God"Read, meditate, listen and learr what this meaneth ::shrug::
Insight
: Insight Sun Jan 01, 2012 - 22:10:14
: segell Wed Dec 28, 2011 - 10:52:38
: Insight Thu Dec 22, 2011 - 19:09:27
Your admonitions are putrid and lack any and all substance; for how can one who is blind endeavour to direct one who sees?
insight
It's that self-serving/centered and angry statement that speaks the loudest about whether you should be taken seriously. It speaks volumes about the content of your heart, Insight. You are not one to be taken seriously. Again, you offer absolutely no insight but offer up contorted views of Scripture.
Segell
Many departed from the a true and original doctrine/Gospel and in my endeavours to correct these platonic teachings, which have entered your mind and taken you captive, I do so with vigour and with a two edged sword.
The cuts have hurt you deeply, else you would not endeavour to make it personal and divert our attention away from the Word.
You accusation of a contorted view are baseless because you are yet to provide a view of the Word, at all, and in fact you cannot do so without moving to external creeds and commandments of men.
We have seen you are unable to use Bible Language to explain the Godhead.
Very telling Segell very telling.
"The head of Christ is God"
Read, meditate, listen and learr what this meaneth ::shrug::
Insight
::frown:: Scary. It's personal, Insight, because you actually teach....you. Not God's Word but your spin on it. And you elevate yourself to some self declared position of messenger. And yet, in the final analysis, you've offered nothing at all. Just what you think is your deep insight, which has proven to be no insight at all.
: segell Mon Jan 02, 2012 - 10:30:45
: Insight Sun Jan 01, 2012 - 22:10:14
: segell Wed Dec 28, 2011 - 10:52:38
: Insight Thu Dec 22, 2011 - 19:09:27
Your admonitions are putrid and lack any and all substance; for how can one who is blind endeavour to direct one who sees?
insight
It's that self-serving/centered and angry statement that speaks the loudest about whether you should be taken seriously. It speaks volumes about the content of your heart, Insight. You are not one to be taken seriously. Again, you offer absolutely no insight but offer up contorted views of Scripture.
Segell
Many departed from the a true and original doctrine/Gospel and in my endeavours to correct these platonic teachings, which have entered your mind and taken you captive, I do so with vigour and with a two edged sword.
The cuts have hurt you deeply, else you would not endeavour to make it personal and divert our attention away from the Word.
You accusation of a contorted view are baseless because you are yet to provide a view of the Word, at all, and in fact you cannot do so without moving to external creeds and commandments of men.
We have seen you are unable to use Bible Language to explain the Godhead.
Very telling Segell very telling.
"The head of Christ is God"
Read, meditate, listen and learr what this meaneth ::shrug::
Insight
::frown:: Scary. It's personal, Insight, because you actually teach....you. Not God's Word but your spin on it. And you elevate yourself to some self declared position of messenger. And yet, in the final analysis, you've offered nothing at all. Just what you think is your deep insight, which has proven to be no insight at all.
Certainly this is in the eye of the beholder.
Nothing changes the Scripture, though you may try
"The Head of Christ is God"Did I tell you Christ has a God?
Its Scriptual you know ::smile::
You may even know these passages?
We shall see.
Insight
That does not prove that Christ is no God only that Jesus relied on Father God and Holy ghost God.
All are known as God, because they all took part in creation.
: FireSword Mon Jan 09, 2012 - 13:41:02
That does not prove that Christ is no God only that Jesus relied on Father God and Holy ghost God.
All are known as God, because they all took part in creation.
Your answer looks confusing and is confusing.
Always best to provide Scripture to ensure you stay within the boundaries of the Word.
Your tip of the day ::smile::
Found this RZIM.org article interesting. Hope you might as well.
ISSUE: 3 Trinity: A Historical and Theological Analysis
A distinctive feature of Christianity is its doctrine of the Trinity. Simply put, the doctrine holds that there exists one true and living God, and that this God, without contradiction, can be denominated in terms of three distinct persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Trinitarian belief has long been a standard of orthodoxy. And no doctrine more effectively demarcates biblical Christianity from a variety of modern cults. Given the historical and contemporary significance of the doctrine, it is lamentable that many Christians today are unable to provide an account of the doctrine's historical development and its present formulation - a shortcoming we seek to correct in the following brief survey.
The natural starting point is the New Testament. Here we find the authoritative writings of Jesus' apostles and their close associates, who articulate the fundamental normative beliefs of the New Testament church. These are largely based upon and entirely consistent with the life and teachings of Jesus Christ. While description of God as a Trinity is not offered as such in the New Testament, many passages make important and revealing affirmations about God in general, and the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit in particular. These passages provide the raw data used by the post-apostolic church to formulate its doctrine of the Trinity in the centuries to come.
The key texts fall into three groups: (1) those that stress continuity with Jewish monotheism in affirming that there is only one God (Mk 12:29; Rom 3:29-30; 1 Cor 8:4; 1 Tim 2:5; Jas 2:19), (2) those that represent the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as three distinct individuals or persons (Mt 11:27; 26:39; 28:19; Mk 1:9-12; Lk 11:13; Jn 14:16-17, 26), and (3) those that variously refer to God in the person of the Father (Mt 6:9; cf. Is 63:16), the Son (Jn 1:1-3, 18; 20:28; Rom 9:5; Col 1:15-20; Tit 2:13; Heb 1:1-4, 8-12; 1 Jn 5:20), or the Holy Spirit (Acts 5:3-4). From these texts it is clear that the New Testament church, without yet formulating with precision the doctrine of the Trinity, fully endorsed the three key theological strands that would later be woven into a tight doctrinal cord: only one God exists; the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three distinct persons; and the title "God
: ajb4 Sat Jan 21, 2012 - 21:51:55
Found this RZIM.org article interesting. Hope you might as well.
ISSUE: 3 Trinity: A Historical and Theological Analysis
It must be hard to believe in a theological expression which is silent in the Word of God. Whenever man seeks to form unknown words to describe that which is plainly spoken of in Scripture one can
always state philosophy is at work.
A distinctive feature of Christianity is its doctrine of the Trinity. Simply put, the doctrine holds that there exists one true and living God, and that this God, without contradiction, can be denominated in terms of three distinct persons:
My general rule when reading article's like this one is as soon as error is identified, firstly I stop reading as the following points of course must therefore be error.
1. Nowhere in the Bible is God spoken of being three
2. Nowhere in the Bible are we taught about the complex trinity in verse, chapter of book
3. God's person has only ever been One.
4. The Holy Spirit is only ever identified as being the Power of God moving through mediums of Gods choosing.
Enough to consider
Insight