The Necessity of Special Creation

[standingfirminChrist]

Ga 2:15 We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles,

HP: Here is an interesting verse speaking of the nature of at least some men. Would it be right for one to use this text to support the notion that as such, they were born as Jews, and as Jews, NOT sinners?

There was only one man born on this earth who was not a sinner, and sinners hung Him on a cross.

 

[DHK]

Jesus said 'Sanctify them through Thy truth: Thy Word is truth.

Is not Job part of the Word of God? It is more than just imagery and figures of speech.

All are born sinners by the Adamic nature. It is wrong to say that Job 14:4 and 25:4 are just imagery and figures of speech.

But Christ is not of the first Adam. He is the second Adam, the Lord from Heaven. There is nothing impure in Him. Had He been born of Mary's egg, He would have had that same Adamic Nature as Mary and He would be in need of a Savior Himself.

Here we go around in circles again. If Christ himself came down from heaven and told you this you would not believe, only because of the great amount of evidence that has already been given. What did Abraham say:

They have the law and the prophets. If they will not believe them; neither will they believe though one rise again from the dead. Is this you?

 

[DHK]

Had He been born of Mary's egg, He would have had that same Adamic Nature as Mary and He would be in need of a Savior Himself.

There is nothing in all of Scriptures that even comes close to inferring such a thing.

 

[standingfirminChrist]

There is nothing in all of Scripture that even comes close to inferring Mary's egg was used.

 

[donnA]

Be sure to share these verses with your wife and the contexts in which they were taken.

Job 14:1 Man that is born of a woman is of few days, and full of trouble.
--Full of trouble indeed!!

This entire book was written in poetic form and is full of figures of speech and imagery. This is hardly theological proof that one born of a woman is a sinner or unclean, and that without exception.

Now confess to your wife that you are a man full of trouble, and that your days are now few in number.

We are supose to be discussing scripture here, not getting personal and insulting.
So in your opinion how much of scripture can we write off as not being needed? I mean thats exactly what your suggesting. Eliminate what disagrees with you. Not to mention twisting these verses to suit yourself in your attack on sfic.

 

[standingfirminChrist]

DHK gets insulting when he cannot refute what we believe from Scripture. Notice this statement directed toward me in the early hours of the morning:

They have the law and the prophets. If they will not believe them; neither will they believe though one rise again from the dead. Is this you?

Many of his posts are uncalled for. Certainly not showing grace to others.

 

[donnA]

Originally Posted by DHK
They have the law and the prophets. If they will not believe them; neither will they believe though one rise again from the dead. Is this you?

I saw this and should have quoted it also.

I think dhk needs to step back and take a breather and remember he is a mod and that he is stressing the rules here on personal attacks.

 

[annsni]

No, it does not determine the nature. Seed in Hebrews only refers to offspring. He was given birth by Mary making Him of the offspring of Abraham, and yet because He was the second Adam, He did not have the sin nature that all born under the curse of Adam had. Why, because nothing of Adam's race was used in the preparation of His body.

Although God prepared Him a flesh body, it was unlike any other body on earth as it did not require as much sleep as man required; as much food as man required, as much drink as man required. His flesh was able to endure much much more than that of the first Adam.

How can I say such things? By authority of the Word of God. Yes, He did require food, drink, and rest... but I believe far less than you or I need to sustain us.

He was able to endure long fasts (1 account of 40 days), He was able to stay awake much longer than you or I can without dropping over from exhaustion. Again, I believe Scripture backs me on that claim as well. John wrote that if all the miracles that Jesus did prior to the completion of his Gospel, were recorded the world would not be able to contain them. That is an awful lot of miracles. He would have had to traveled much, and been alert much longer than you or I could ever be this side of glory.

Well, I know Bill Bright also fasted for 40 days - numerous times. I also know that there have been many who have joined him. I also know that there are MANY who do not sleep for days and even Martha Stewart only needs 4 hours of sleep a night - I think you said the same thing in another thread SFIC. I think that Jesus had the same physical make-up as us and he hungered and thirsted as we do.

Seed does refer to offspring but you do not get offspring through adoption. You can have children that way but you can not carry on a lineage. A lineage involves a physical passing on from one generation to the next. Scripture is all about that - I don't know why you don't see it.

Once again I'll ask. Other than Dr. Morris, is there another reputable theologian who believes as you do? I'd like to know.

 

[standingfirminChrist]

Well, I know Bill Bright also fasted for 40 days - numerous times. I also know that there have been many who have joined him. I also know that there are MANY who do not sleep for days and even Martha Stewart only needs 4 hours of sleep a night - I think you said the same thing in another thread SFIC. I think that Jesus had the same physical make-up as us and he hungered and thirsted as we do.

Seed does refer to offspring but you do not get offspring through adoption. You can have children that way but you can not carry on a lineage. A lineage involves a physical passing on from one generation to the next. Scripture is all about that - I don't know why you don't see it.

Once again I'll ask. Other than Dr. Morris, is there another reputable theologian who believes as you do? I'd like to know.

You did not accept Dr Morris, if I presented any others, will you accept them?

 

[annsni]

You did not accept Dr Morris, if I presented any others, what makes me think you would accept them?

I accepted Dr. Morris - but I do not agree with him. If there are numerous other reputable theologians who believe the same, then maybe I am wrong. But I do not think that there are very many, if any theologians who accept this same belief.

 

[donnA]

Well, I know Bill Bright also fasted for 40 days - numerous times. I also know that there have been many who have joined him. I also know that there are MANY who do not sleep for days and even Martha Stewart only needs 4 hours of sleep a night - I think you said the same thing in another thread SFIC. I think that Jesus had the same physical make-up as us and he hungered and thirsted as we do.

Seed does refer to offspring but you do not get offspring through adoption. You can have children that way but you can not carry on a lineage. A lineage involves a physical passing on from one generation to the next. Scripture is all about that - I don't know why you don't see it.

Once again I'll ask. Other than Dr. Morris, is there another reputable theologian who believes as you do? I'd like to know.

Apparently adopted children are nothing in your opinion. They certainly aren't anyones child. And adoptive parents can not give them their name as it is meaningless. Nor can that child pass down the family name when they have children.
When in reality adopted children have the same rights as natural children, and certainly can use the familes last name and pass that name down to their own children.
Mr. and Mrs. Jones have a son, and adopt a boy. He is now their son also. Both sons grow up and get married, and both have little Jones' , are the grandchildren all considered Jones'? Yes. Each of them will then continue to carry the Jones name to their own children. The adopted boy is a Jones and his children are Jones'.
Unless you want to deny the position of an adopted child in a family. As if they were nothing.
Oops, you already did that, no need to repeat I guess.

 

[standingfirminChrist]

I wonder how much time Christ had to have had for eating, drinking, sleeping with so many miracles to perform? So many places to visit?

Jesus came out of Mary's loins. That makes Him of the lineage of David. But He did not inherit the sin nature that was passed down to all men. Why not? All mankind was pronounced under the curse.

It is obvious that Jesus Christ was not in that same class as all other mankind, for we know He did not have a nature to commit sin. He was not of the Adamic nature as in the first Adam. He was not fashioned in the likeness of the first Adam with that nature to sin.

Because Scripture declared that all born to man would be unclean (sinners), Christ's body had to be fashioned in the likeness of sinful flesh, but not in sinful flesh. Mary's egg would have continued the lineage of sinful flesh. God would not accept that.

He sent His Son as the Second Adam, the Lord from Heaven.. not in sinful flesh, not with the nature to sin, but in a clean flesh (sinless), a perfect flesh.

 

[DHK]

DHK gets insulting when he cannot refute what we believe from Scripture. Notice this statement directed toward me in the early hours of the morning:

Many of his posts are uncalled for. Certainly not showing grace to others.

I only say this because I post lengthy posts using plenty of Scripture, referring to reputable science as well, and you just ignore it all. Instead of responding to the post you go off on your own rabbit trail. You don't debate. You don't respond. It is not I that cannot refute. I refute everything you give me and more. But most of my posts you don't even touch, even after repeated requests. Now why is that?

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

SFIC: It is obvious that Jesus Christ was not in that same class as all other mankind, for we know He did not have a nature to commit sin. He was not of the Adamic nature as in the first Adam. He was not fashioned in the likeness of the first Adam with that nature to sin.

HP: There is a word that is used approx. 39 times in the first 16 verses of the first chapter of Matt., i.e., the word ‘begat.’ Are you or Donna inferring that one who is ‘begat’ of another might in fact be adopted or that the word here used specifically concerning Jesus , was not referring to a direct physical tie to those being listed?


Christ was of the ‘seed’ of Abraham, and Abraham was a descendant of Adam was he not? Are you to suggest that one can be of the ‘seed’ of another and not be physically tied to each other?

Here is another interesting verse showing David as the father of Christ. How could that be if He was not of the physical lineage of David?
Lu 1:32 He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David:

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

SFIC: No, it does not determine the nature. Seed in Hebrews only refers to offspring. He was given birth by Mary making Him of the offspring of Abraham, and yet because He was the second Adam, He did not have the sin nature that all born under the curse of Adam had. Why, because nothing of Adam's race was used in the preparation of His body.

HP: Ignoring the obvious does not necesitate the notion that your arguments are viable. I for one believe they are beyond reason as well as Scripture. If nothing was used in the ‘preparation of His body’ from man, Christ was NOT made like unto His brethren as Scripture prophesied He would be. If there is no physical connection, the word begat has no meaning and David was not the ‘father of Christ’ in any real sense as Scripture states He was. What possible right would Jesus have to the throne of David if not physically connected to him? You certainly add fodder to the Jewish belief, denying Christ as the rightful heir to the throne of David.

SFIC: Although God prepared Him a flesh body, it was unlike any other body on earth as it did not require as much sleep as man required; as much food as man required, as much drink as man required. His flesh was able to endure much much more than that of the first Adam.

HP: That is simply contrary to Scripture. If His body was not that of man, He could not have been tempted in all points ‘like as we are.’

SFIC: How can I say such things? By authority of the Word of God. Yes, He did require food, drink, and rest... but I believe far less than you or I need to sustain us.

HP: On this point you do not stand on the Word of God, but rather on your own presuppositions. You have absolutely no biblical evidence to substantiate such claims. You consistently state your position but fail to establish it with Scripture.

SFIC: He was able to endure long fasts (1 account of 40 days), He was able to stay awake much longer than you or I can without dropping over from exhaustion. Again, I believe Scripture backs me on that claim as well. John wrote that if all the miracles that Jesus did prior to the completion of his Gospel, were recorded the world would not be able to contain them. That is an awful lot of miracles. He would have had to traveled much, and been alert much longer than you or I could ever be this side of glory.

HP: Again, as clearly noted by others on this list, such a feat is in no way humanly impossible. It does not take any other physical body other than the one common to man, but obviously it does take an uncommon man. As for the miracles, what tie do they have to His physical body? Did not Christ say that ‘these works shall ye do and greater works also,’ speaking to His disciples?

 

[trustitl]

Until we get it out of our heads that some mutatation occured in Adam and Eve's flesh after they sinned, we are going to keep having "baseless theories" like this.

The genetic code is not the source of sin. It is the source of our what develops into flesh. Sinful flesh. What I was born into. What Jesus was born into.

Being born in sin is misunderstood to mean being born a sinner. Nobody is born a sinner. It denies the defintion of sin. We don't sin because we are sinners, we are sinners because we sin.

Jesus was born into a body flesh that was corruptible just like your's and mine. It hurt his finger when he hit his finger with a hammer. He vomited and had aches when he got sick. He bled and died. That didn't make him a sinner and it didn't make me one either.

I chose to sin, he didn't.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

TrustitL: Until we get it out of our heads that some mutatation occured in Adam and Eve's flesh after they sinned, we are going to keep having "baseless theories" like this.

The genetic code is not the source of sin. It is the source of our what develops into flesh. Sinful flesh. What I was born into. What Jesus was born into.

Being born in sin is misunderstood to mean being born a sinner. Nobody is born a sinner. It denies the defintion of sin. We don't sin because we are sinners, we are sinners because we sin.

Jesus was born into a body flesh that was corruptible just like your's and mine. It hurt his finger when he hit his finger with a hammer. He vomited and had aches when he got sick. He bled and died. That didn't make him a sinner and it didn't make me one either.

I chose to sin, he didn't

.

HP: Here is a post with some solid Scriptural truth exhibited in stellar style. Salute!:thumbs:

 

[Eliyahu]

Until we get it out of our heads that some mutatation occured in Adam and Eve's flesh after they sinned, we are going to keep having "baseless theories" like this.

The genetic code is not the source of sin. It is the source of our what develops into flesh. Sinful flesh. What I was born into. What Jesus was born into.

You misunderstand many things greatly. Sin entered the world, and into the human beings, into the thoughts and bodies, into the environment, into everything since the corruption.
Why have all the people since Adam sinned and come short of God's glory?

Being born in sin is misunderstood to mean being born a sinner. Nobody is born a sinner.

So, you believe your were born without sin, don't you? A great man!
You were not a sinner when you were born, right?

Romans 5:
19 For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.

1 John 1:8
If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.

( You may be the self-declared only exception to this !)

It denies the defintion of sin. We don't sin because we are sinners, we are sinners because we sin.

You are well talented to tell the contrary to the Christian Truth.

The Paganism and the secular world teach that we become sinners if we commit sins.
The Christian Truth is that we commit sins because we were born as sinners.

Jeremiah 17
9 The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?

Is this man speaking Heresy?

[FONT=바탕]Job 25[/FONT]
[FONT=&#48148]4[/FONT] How then can man be justified with God? or how can he be clean that is born of a woman?

Matthew 7
17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. 18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.

Jesus was born into a body flesh that was corruptible just like your's and mine.

No, He was born with the sinless, complete body. We don't know how it came true, but His body was sinless, that we know.

1Pe 1:19But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot:

It hurt his finger when he hit his finger with a hammer. He vomited and had aches when he got sick.

Hitting his own finger can be the result of his own sin. When anyone is full of Holy Spirit, He will never make such mistake. Jesus Christ full of Holy Spirit would have never made such mistake. He didn't vomit, nor had headaches. If He had such problems, how could He heal so many people. so many diseases? He could feed thousands of people too.
You misunderstand greatly.

He bled and died. That didn't make him a sinner and it didn't make me one either.

He was sinless, blemish, perfect in all aspects, Omni-scient, Omni-potent, Omnipresent. He could have been tempted but was not. He didn't have to die. He could have lived forever for Himself, but went to the Calvary bravely for our sins, and died on behalf of us.

Heb 9:
14 How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot F28 to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?

1Pe 1:19 But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot:

I chose to sin, he didn't

Why? Because you were born as a sinner, while He was not!

In so many issues, you are very much far away from the Biblical Truth that I know.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Eliyahu: In so many issues, you are very much far away from the Biblical Truth that I know.

HP: I will await TrustitL’s response to your post. I will just add this; a purpose of these debates is to enlighten our minds and to allow the light of truth to expose the knowledge we possess to the truth.

 

[Eliyahu]

Jesus' human form WAS created by God. Let's not get dumb here - we both agree with this.

1. You asked this question:

Originally Posted by annsni
Can I ask a direct question? Could God have created a perfect Messiah from the egg of Mary?

You should have asked : Could God enflesh or incarnate Messiah from the egg of Mary? or Could God incarnate the body of the Messiah? Not the Messiah Himself !


2. In the same roughness, you misunderstand the meaning of the prophecy:

The Seed of the Woman means the man, Messiah, a Complete man, not the ovum or egg of a woman.

If you interpret the Zera as the ovum of the woman, it doesn't make sense as the ovum didn't fight the Satan.

If you interpret the Zera as the Offspring of the woman, it makes sense.

Genesis 3:
And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it (should be He) shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel. ( KJV)

15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; he shall crush thy head, and thou shalt crush his heel. ( Darby)


15 and enmity I put between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; he doth bruise thee -- the head, and thou dost bruise him -- the heel.' ( Young's Literal)

Don't misunderstand that the seed is represented by the neuter gender, it. KJV is wrong again here ( though I believe KJV is the best translation, better than any other versions). It should be " He" as it is from "Hu" representing " Zera" masculine gender.

So, Genesis 3:15 doesn't specify the Messiah more than as the descendant of the woman.