190 replies to this topic

[nsr]

precepts, on 06 May 2012 - 11:33 PM, said:

What I think is that you like contention.

There would be no contention if you'd behave like a reasonable person and answer what people write instead of ignoring it, and if you'd provide explanations and evidence for your conclusions.

Quote

I can be whatever you want me to be.

OK, I want you to be someone who addresses the things we write instead of ignoring them, and provides explanations and evidence from Scripture for your conclusions. Now get to it!

Quote

That's one on the mysteries of scripture. The bible states over and over again that God spoke in parables so the wicked couldn't understand. He didn't want the wicked to understand because they then could be converted and healed. But what I've discovered, is that it wasn't that they couldn't comprehend, but that they had committed the unforgivable sin, and were unforgivable, unrepentable. This is why they crucified him. They knew he was of God, but they were of the devil! These are just the wise dealings of God! Go figure!

Sorry, but you can't just explain away anything that doesn't make sense by saying "it's a mystery!" or dismiss anyone who disagrees with you by saying "God is talking in parables and you don't understand because he doesn't want you to!". That's dangerous, blind fanaticism. If you can't explain why you believe something from Scripture, then either go and study it until you can, or say nothing at all.

Quote

By the way, did I forget to mention the tv color code that opens the senses to the satanic subliminal messages on tv? Did I forget to mention that everyone on tv, including religious and political, are using these signs? Did I forget to mention this proof of the world being run by Satan? Did I ?

I don't recall you mentioning that before, but if it's not in the Bible, I'm not interested. This is a forum for discussing the Bible. It's not a forum for people to spam random nonsense. Random nonsense will be deleted.

[precepts]

nsr, on 06 May 2012 - 11:47 PM, said:

precepts, on 06 May 2012 - 11:33 PM, said:

What I think is that you like contention.

There would be no contention if you'd behave like a reasonable person and answer what people write instead of ignoring it, and if you'd provide explanations and evidence for your conclusions.

You're definately living in a dream world, son! Absolute power corrupts!

nsr, on 06 May 2012 - 11:47 PM, said:

Quote

precepts's quote:
I can be whatever you want me to be.

OK, I want you to be someone who addresses the things we write instead of ignoring them, and provides explanations and evidence from Scripture for your conclusions. Now get to it!

Wow! I hope that's not a reflection of your faith!

nsr, on 06 May 2012 - 11:47 PM, said:

Quote

precepts' quote:
That's one on the mysteries of scripture. The bible states over and over again that God spoke in parables so the wicked couldn't understand. He didn't want the wicked to understand because they then could be converted and healed. But what I've discovered, is that it wasn't that they couldn't comprehend, but that they had committed the unforgivable sin, and were unforgivable, unrepentable. This is why they crucified him. They knew he was of God, but they were of the devil! These are just the wise dealings of God! Go figure!

Sorry, but you can't just explain away anything that doesn't make sense by saying "it's a mystery!" or dismiss anyone who disagrees with you by saying "God is talking in parables and you don't understand because he doesn't want you to!". That's dangerous, blind fanaticism. If you can't explain why you believe something from Scripture, then either go and study it until you can, or say nothing at all.

Petty, tit for tat, has never been one of my traits! Who feels it knows it!

nsr, on 06 May 2012 - 11:47 PM, said:

Quote

precepts' quote:
By the way, did I forget to mention the tv color code that opens the senses to the satanic subliminal messages on tv? Did I forget to mention that everyone on tv, including religious and political, are using these signs? Did I forget to mention this proof of the world being run by Satan? Did I ?

I don't recall you mentioning that before, but if it's not in the Bible, I'm not interested. This is a forum for discussing the Bible. It's not a forum for people to spam random nonsense. Random nonsense will be deleted.

Why am I not surpirsed? Carry on, you've been warned!

Edited by precepts, 07 May 2012 - 12:12 AM.

[Matt Smith]

precepts, on 06 May 2012 - 09:50 PM, said:

Matt Smith, on 06 May 2012 - 09:05 PM, said:

precepts, on 06 May 2012 - 04:36 PM, said:

Quote

nsr's quote:
Where does he tell us to do that?

Isa 28:9 Whom shall he teach knowledge? and whom shall he make to understand doctrine? [them that are] weaned from the milk, [and] drawn from the breasts.
Isa 28:10 For precept [must be] upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, [and] there a little:

Actually, I asked that question (Matt Smith).

Have you ever read the context of the two verses you've quoted? Have you read the chapter in a version other than the KJV? Here it is in the NET:

I know the context, line upon line, precept upon precept, is also known in the levitcal laws concerning the beard. It's common sense to me if something is written in more than one place in scripture, it's probably relable.

Hello again, precepts. I am curious about this concept of "line upon line, precept upon precept" being part of the Levitical laws, as I have never see that phrase ever used outside of Isaiah 28.

Now if you were familiar with the context of Isaiah 28 you would recognize that God is talking to Ephraim (Israel) who is compared to a drunken man who cannot understand the person talking to him and it sounds to him as gibberish.

Isa 28:10 Indeed, they will hear meaningless gibberish, senseless babbling, a syllable here, a syllable there.

This is how it appears to the one who refuses to hear God, which is what Isaiah is accusing Ephraim of:

Isa 28:13 So the Lord's word to them will sound like meaningless gibberish, senseless babbling, a syllable here, a syllable there. As a result, they will fall on their backsides when they try to walk, and be injured, ensnared, and captured.

This passage has nothing to do with how to study the Bible and everything to do with warning those so caught up in their own righteousness that God's word to them sounds like "meaningless gibberish, senseless babbling".

Quote

Quote

Matt's quote:

Quote

precepts' quote:

Quote

Matt's quote:
Precepts, I have read the Bible through multiple times in my life, and while my retention is not fabulous, I am aware there are translation errors (whether it be the KJV or a more modern translation) and apparent contradictions (usually caused by those translation errors), but I have yet to run into a real contradiction or error in the Bible.

On the other hand, I have run into a lot of interpretation errors over the years, but this is due to preconceived ideas of those reading the Word, not due to God's Word being in error.

The 4 gospels are conflicting, there's 4 different accounts of Christ's resurrection. In the old testament, there's the 70 elders contradiction. One claims Moses' father in-law gave Moses the idea, the other says God.

I don't have the time right now, so, I'll have to get to you, but that's a couple.

Actually, I said this as well (Matt Smith), not Chrlsp.

I see no conflicts in any of these. Please expound a bit more.

Why should I? You said you see no conflicts when I know there's conflict. Try spoon feeding yourself.

Is it too much for you to act civil? I am not mocking you, but sincerely asking these questions.

Quote

Quote

Matt's quote:

Quote

precepts' quote:

Quote

Matt's quote:
Precepts, please create a post to show us why you believe Jesus is the Father and do your best to explain the apparent contradictions of your stand (ie.: when Jesus prays to the Father, speaks of the Father as a separate person, claims he can do nothing except what he sees the Father do, etc.). This will give us a good start in understanding you.

You don't want to understand because I already gave the scriptural proofs. Who met Abraham in three structures of men?

Angels representing God (see the following chapter). Who do you think they were and why?

Name the three angels.

They are unnamed in the Biblical record, but one of them is most likely the angel mentioned in Exodus 23:20-33.

Quote

Quote

1Ti 3:16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

I'm sure you'll find a way to fit this camel thru the eye of a needle, WHO WAS MANIFESTED IN THE FLESH? Believe it or not!

God was manifest (revealed/shown/represented) in the flesh. Jesus represented God, just like the angels did who visited Abraham and Moses. The big difference was Jesus was a human who did this perfectly, even though "he faced all of the same temptations we do, yet he did not sin" (Hebrews 4:15 NLT).

The only way our sin prone nature could be destroyed was by Jesus being of that very nature himself:

Hebrews 2:14 Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil...

Hebrews 9:26 For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.

2 Corinthians 5:21 For he (God) hath made him (Jesus) to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.

The source of our temptations to sin is called sin (this is called metonymy). The only way our sin nature could be destroyed was by Jesus being of that very nature himself and mortifying it (literally and figuratively - Colossians 3:5) and becoming our representative:

Hebrews 2:14 Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil...

Hebrews 9:26 For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.

2 Corinthians 5:21 For he (God) hath made him (Jesus) to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.

1 Peter 2:21 For even hereunto were ye called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps...

Scripture makes it very plain that Jesus was just as human as us:

Acts 2:22 Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know:

Acts 3:22 For Moses truly said unto the fathers, A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; him shall ye hear in all things whatsoever he shall say unto you.

Acts 7:37 This is that Moses, which said unto the children of Israel, A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; him shall ye hear.

Acts 13:22-23 And when He had removed him, He raised up unto them David to be their king; to whom also He gave testimony, and said, I have found David the son of Jesse, a man after mine own heart, which shall fulfil all my will. Of this man’s seed hath God according to his promise raised unto Israel a Saviour, Jesus:

1 Timothy 2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;

[Matt Smith]

Matt Smith, on 04 May 2012 - 01:49 AM, said:

Richie, on 03 May 2012 - 06:50 PM, said:

Who is Jesus' father?

Precepts, I'm bumping this because several people have asked you this question and so far you have refused to answer it.

Precepts, you still haven't answered this question.

[Matt Smith]

precepts, on 06 May 2012 - 11:33 PM, said:

That's one on the mysteries of scripture.

You do realize that "mystery" in the Bible doesn't mean what "mystery" means in English, right?

[precepts]

Quote

Matt's quote:
Hello again, precepts. I am curious about this concept of "line upon line, precept upon precept" being part of the Levitical laws, as I have never see that phrase ever used outside of Isaiah 28.

Now if you were familiar with the context of Isaiah 28 you would recognize that God is talking to Ephraim (Israel) who is compared to a drunken man who cannot understand the person talking to him and it sounds to him as gibberish.

Isa 28:10 Indeed, they will hear meaningless gibberish, senseless babbling, a syllable here, a syllable there.

This is how it appears to the one who refuses to hear God, which is what Isaiah is accusing Ephraim of:

Isa 28:13 So the Lord's word to them will sound like meaningless gibberish, senseless babbling, a syllable here, a syllable there. As a result, they will fall on their backsides when they try to walk, and be injured, ensnared, and captured.

This passage has nothing to do with how to study the Bible and everything to do with warning those so caught up in their own righteousness that God's word to them sounds like "meaningless gibberish, senseless babbling".

I would think it to be common sense when evaluating any document for authenticity. Making mountains out of mold hills is petty.

Quote

Matt's quote:

Quote

precepts' quote:

Quote

Matt's quote:
I see no conflicts in any of these. Please expound a bit more.

Why should I? You said you see no conflicts when I know there's conflict. Try spoon feeding yourself.

Is it too much for you to act civil? I am not mocking you, but sincerely asking these questions.

Acting civil is not saying you see no conflicts when there are conflcts, which means you either didn't take the time to look after I provided the examples, or you were just plain out rude. What is your agenda?

Quote

Matt's quote:
They are unnamed in the Biblical record, but one of them is most likely the angel mentioned in Exodus 23:20-33.

You're obviously the one playing games and dodging the facts. Any and everyone knows who the three men represented and who it was that met Abraham, but this is the game you people are playing to get your kicks. You're not interested in the truth, only to tempt and weary true saints, sorry to say

Quote

Matt's quote:
God was manifest (revealed/shown/represented) in the flesh. Jesus represented God, just like the angels did who visited Abraham and Moses. The big difference was Jesus was a human who did this perfectly, even though "he faced all of the same temptations we do, yet he did not sin" (Hebrews 4:15 NLT).

You're contradicting yourself, what type of flesh did he have if he was sinless?

Quote

Matt's:
The only way our sin prone nature could be destroyed was by Jesus being of that very nature himself:

Christ with a sinful nature, yet sinless? He suffered in flesh as an eunuch, non sexual in nature, because he was God in the flesh, Emanuel, being interpreted as "God with us!" Who's of the anti-christ?

Quote

Matt's quote:

2 Corinthians 5:21 For he (God) hath made him (Jesus) to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.

Why would God number him with the sinners if he had human sinful nature? Because he did not possess a human sexual, sinful nature!

Quote

Matt's quote:
The source of our temptations to sin is called sin (this is called metonymy). The only way our sin nature could be destroyed was by Jesus being of that very nature himself and mortifying it (literally and figuratively - Colossians 3:5) and becoming our representative:

Then you're saying he was a sinner having man's sinful nature from Adam/birth.

Quote

Matt's quote:

2 Corinthians 5:21 For he (God) hath made him (Jesus) to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.

Scripture makes it very plain that Jesus was just as human as us:

Being human and sinless is a contradiction. What's so hard to see about that? His sinless nature was a non sexual nature of an eunuch from the womb. He suffered hunger, and everything else we suffered except a sexual nature because he was God in the flesh. This is the facts

.

Quote

Matt's quote:

Acts 2:22 Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know:

Acts 3:22 For Moses truly said unto the fathers, A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; him shall ye hear in all things whatsoever he shall say unto you.

Acts 7:37 This is that Moses, which said unto the children of Israel, A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; him shall ye hear.

Acts 13:22-23 And when He had removed him, He raised up unto them David to be their king; to whom also He gave testimony, and said, I have found David the son of Jesse, a man after mine own heart, which shall fulfil all my will. Of this man’s seed hath God according to his promise raised unto Israel a Saviour, Jesus:

1 Timothy 2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;

Who was Joshua the son of Josedech, crowned high priest and king post Babylon (Zech 6:11-14)? Whom were the two olive branches in Zech 4:11-14? Whom are the horse and chariots, the four spirits of heaven in Zech 6:1-8? Why is Elisha and Elijah called father, and the chariot of God and the horsemen thereof?

2Ki 2:12 And Elisha saw [it], and he cried, My father, my father, the chariot of Israel, and the horsemen thereof. And he saw him no more: and he took hold of his own clothes, and rent them in two pieces.

2Ki 13:14 Now Elisha was fallen sick of his sickness whereof he died. And Joash the king of Israel came down unto him, and wept over his face, and said, O my father, my father, the chariot of Israel, and the horsemen thereof.

.

[Matt Smith]

precepts, on 07 May 2012 - 12:53 PM, said:

Quote

Matt's quote:
Hello again, precepts. I am curious about this concept of "line upon line, precept upon precept" being part of the Levitical laws, as I have never see that phrase ever used outside of Isaiah 28.

Now if you were familiar with the context of Isaiah 28 you would recognize that God is talking to Ephraim (Israel) who is compared to a drunken man who cannot understand the person talking to him and it sounds to him as gibberish.

Isa 28:10 Indeed, they will hear meaningless gibberish, senseless babbling, a syllable here, a syllable there.

This is how it appears to the one who refuses to hear God, which is what Isaiah is accusing Ephraim of:

Isa 28:13 So the Lord's word to them will sound like meaningless gibberish, senseless babbling, a syllable here, a syllable there. As a result, they will fall on their backsides when they try to walk, and be injured, ensnared, and captured.

This passage has nothing to do with how to study the Bible and everything to do with warning those so caught up in their own righteousness that God's word to them sounds like "meaningless gibberish, senseless babbling".

I would think it to be common sense when evaluating any document for authenticity. Making mountains out of mold hills is petty.

Taking Scriptural passages out of context is a mountain. Text without context is a pretext. If you want a passage that describes how to study the Bible, try the one in my signature or the passage in Acts 17 about the Jews from Berea, rather than a passage about those who cannot make sense of God's word because they are too full of themselves.

Quote

Quote

Matt's quote:

Quote

precepts' quote:

Quote

Matt's quote:
I see no conflicts in any of these. Please expound a bit more.

Why should I? You said you see no conflicts when I know there's conflict. Try spoon feeding yourself.

Is it too much for you to act civil? I am not mocking you, but sincerely asking these questions.

Acting civil is not saying you see no conflicts when there are conflcts, which means you either didn't take the time to look after I provided the examples, or you were just plain out rude. What is your agenda?

My agenda is to get you to clearly explain your beliefs and how you reached your conclusions, but obfuscation seems to be your modis operendi. I have looked at the examples you provided, and as I said I see no conflicts. What I want to know is where you see the conflict.

Quote

Quote

Matt's quote:
They are unnamed in the Biblical record, but one of them is most likely the angel mentioned in Exodus 23:20-33.

You're obviously the one playing games and dodging the facts. Any and everyone knows who the three men represented and who it was that met Abraham, but this is the game you people are playing to get your kicks. You're not interested in the truth, only to tempt and weary true saints, sorry to say

I stated what I sincerely believe and you mock me. I do not play games with God's word.

Quote

Quote

Matt's quote:
God was manifest (revealed/shown/represented) in the flesh. Jesus represented God, just like the angels did who visited Abraham and Moses. The big difference was Jesus was a human who did this perfectly, even though "he faced all of the same temptations we do, yet he did not sin" (Hebrews 4:15 NLT).

You're contradicting yourself, what type of flesh did he have if he was sinless?

I think I see the issue. You believe that flesh itself is sin. I believe Scripture teaches that flesh is sin prone, not sin itself.

Quote

Quote

Matt's:
The only way our sin prone nature could be destroyed was by Jesus being of that very nature himself:

Christ with a sinful nature, yet sinless? He suffered in flesh as an eunuch, non sexual in nature, because he was God in the flesh, Emanuel, being interpreted as "God with us!" Who's of the anti-christ?

Christ with a sin prone nature but not sinning. Hebrews 2 makes it quite clear he had the very same nature we do. Notice its emphasis. "Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same..." The author of Hebrews goes on to re-emphasis that when he reminds us that Jesus "was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin". As much as you would like, there is no escaping the conclusion that Jesus was human.

Quote

Quote

Matt's quote:

2 Corinthians 5:21 For he (God) hath made him (Jesus) to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.

Why would God number him with the sinners if he had human sinful nature? Because he did not possess a human sexual, sinful nature!

I've already told you this is a figure of speech called metonymy, as below.

Quote

Quote

Matt's quote:
The source of our temptations to sin is called sin (this is called metonymy). The only way our sin nature could be destroyed was by Jesus being of that very nature himself and mortifying it (literally and figuratively - Colossians 3:5) and becoming our representative:

Then you're saying he was a sinner having man's sinful nature from Adam/birth.

No, I am saying he had a sin prone nature like us but he did not sin because he overcame each temptation.

Quote

Quote

Matt's quote:

2 Corinthians 5:21 For he (God) hath made him (Jesus) to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.

Scripture makes it very plain that Jesus was just as human as us:

Being human and sinless is a contradiction. What's so hard to see about that? His sinless nature was a non sexual nature of an eunuch from the womb. He suffered hunger, and everything else we suffered except a sexual nature because he was God in the flesh. This is the facts.

Being human is our misfortune, but we are not sinners because we are born human. We are sinners because we sin, not because we are born with a sin prone nature. There is no contradiction in saying Jesus was born human but did not sin. He is not guilty of sin just because he was born a human being.

Quote

Quote

Matt's quote:

Acts 2:22 Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know:

Acts 3:22 For Moses truly said unto the fathers, A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; him shall ye hear in all things whatsoever he shall say unto you.

Acts 7:37 This is that Moses, which said unto the children of Israel, A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; him shall ye hear.

Acts 13:22-23 And when He had removed him, He raised up unto them David to be their king; to whom also He gave testimony, and said, I have found David the son of Jesse, a man after mine own heart, which shall fulfil all my will. Of this man’s seed hath God according to his promise raised unto Israel a Saviour, Jesus:

1 Timothy 2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;

Who was Joshua the son of Josedech, crowned high priest and king post Babylon (Zech 6:11-14)?

Joshua the son of Josedech. He was a type of the (then) coming messiah.

Quote

Whom were the two olive branches in Zech 4:11-14?

Symbols of God's two witnesses in the earth, believing Jews and believing Gentiles.

Quote

Whom are the horse and chariots, the four spirits of heaven in Zech 6:1-8?

Symbols of the glorified saints in the Kingdom age.

Quote

Why is Elisha and Elijah called father, and the chariot of God and the horsemen thereof?

2Ki 2:12 And Elisha saw [it], and he cried, My father, my father, the chariot of Israel, and the horsemen thereof. And he saw him no more: and he took hold of his own clothes, and rent them in two pieces.

2Ki 13:14 Now Elisha was fallen sick of his sickness whereof he died. And Joash the king of Israel came down unto him, and wept over his face, and said, O my father, my father, the chariot of Israel, and the horsemen thereof.

.

Because both men led the battle for God against apostasy. What is the relevance of these last few questions?

[Chrlsp]

"God that made the world hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on the face of the earth"

God accomplished that by causing a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and while he slept God removed a portion of Adam's body, and from that he made the woman.

"This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh she shall be called woman because she was taken out of man"

Another Adam was to arise from among the first Adam's poterity, who also "is the seed of the woman" of whom Paul says that the first Adam was the figure.

"There is one kind of flesh of men"

All mankind are therfore a unit. They all are of one blood, flesh and bones.

Hebrews 2:14-18

Christ, being a partaker of the same, stands in relation to all men. If you change the physical nature of any of Adam's posterity then you have something new, a new creation, which breaks the connection to the rest.

Paul says we all sinned in Adam, and so by one man's disobedience many were made sinners.

"By one man sin entered the world, and death by sin, and so death passed upon all men, in whom all have sinned."

When Adam sinned he brought death upon all men,in whom all have sinned. All have sinned in Adam and therefore all die.
Christ being a partaker of the same flesh, blood and bones also was subject to death because of Adam's sin. So, Christ likewise sinned in Adam.

"Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil; And deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage."

"For verily he took not on him (the nature of) angels; but he took on (him) the seed of Abraham."

Christ did not take the immortal nature of angels but the seed of Abraham. The mortal nature of man.

"We were all, by nature, the children of wrath, even as others" (Eph 2:3)

"Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people. For in that he himself hath suffered being tempted, he is able to succour them that are tempted."

Adam represented all man. We all sinned in him. We are all condemned to die because we all sinned in Adam. Christ sinned in Adam.
It is our misfortune being born human because we all sinned in Adam. But God has subjected the same in hope through Christ because he did not yeild to the temptations of the flesh, but overcame the world.

Christ suffered being tempted because he felt the same emotions of sin in his own flesh that we feel. It is in that way that he is a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people. Christ can have sympathy for us based upon his own experience in the flesh.

He was tempted in all points as we are because he was in the same flesh as we are, yet without sin.
"yet without sin" means that Christ did not yeild to those temptations of the flesh.

To say that Christ's nature was not like the nature of his brethren is to ROB him of his glory and to be a deceiver and an antichrist.

"Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh;" (Rom 1:3)

"For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist." (2 Jn 1:7).

The flesh that all man possess is called "sinful flesh" first because it has sinned in Adam and is condemned to die and second because it is prone to personally commit sin itself.

Christ was in "sinful flesh" because, like all man, he sinned in Adam. However, he personally committed no sin.

Edited by Chrlsp, 07 May 2012 - 03:41 PM.

[Richie]

Interesting debating style.

[Chrlsp]

precepts, on 07 May 2012 - 03:47 PM, said:

Based on the evidence, you're all anti-christ spirited, decievers. It's not that you can't understand, but like the vultures surrounding the carcass, you're here to distort the truth.

Christ was a human being, yet sinless! Wow, a new doctrine! No human being is sinless. The only thing sinless in human form was God the word in the flesh, eunuches.

You've been warned. Your blood is on your own heads! Have a nice eternity!

Christ was a mortal man that personally committed no sin. You can't accept that so you adhere to some false deceitful teaching that denies the truth. Your entire philosophy is based on "Christ could not be a man because no man is sinless"?

As hard as it may be to believe the Bible is very clear, Christ was a mortal man like his brethren in sinful flesh but who personally committed no sin.

You've chosen to reject the truth...that's on you.

I have not the slightess fear of any warning from you.

But perhaps you may want to reconsider what it means to be in the flesh and confess that Christ came in the same flesh as his brethren. There is only one kind of flesh that man possesses..."sinful flesh".

To deny it is to be an antichrist.

[nsr]

This thread is now closed as the discussion is going nowhere.