Calling all non-Trinitarians ... Are there any of you here?

[Insight]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

[fish153]

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

  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.

[Insight]

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

  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

[John Zain]

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

[fish153]

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

 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.

[Insight]

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



Insight

[Insight]

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

[fish153]

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



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.

[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?

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

[John Zain]

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.

[Insight]

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  

[John Zain]

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  

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.

[fish153]

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.

[John Zain]

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?

[Insight]

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  

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.

But alas, where are your verses?

[Insight]

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

[Insight]

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

[segell]

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

[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

Steve, I am not important, at all...just a voice.

Whether you listen or not is entirely up to you.

Insight

[segell]

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.

[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

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?

[John Zain]

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.

[Insight]

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.

[fish153]

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.

[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

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

[fish153]

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".

[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

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

[fish153]

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.

[segell]

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?

[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

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

[segell]

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."