Featured How human was Jesus/how much like Jesus are we

How Iconoclast lost his hair.



Still likes green shirts.

 

Winman

Iconoclast worships a God who numbers all the hairs on his head.He does not need to learn anything as He already knows the end from the beginning. Iconoclast has all the hair he is meant to have...no more, no less.....In the same way...

37 All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.

Jesus will save all that were given to Him by the father...no more, no less
Iconoclast saves alot of money on shampoo
Iconoclast has black hair unlike this little boy....so what can we conclude?

This is you sharing a home video of Momma Winman after hearing you speak about the bible at an early age.She knew that unless radical steps were taken....you would grow up to be a threadkiller on the BB..speaking all manner of error...such as God needs to learn.....so she figured it was make or break it time...sending you toward the fence with no helmet hoping it would shake these wrong ideas from your young skull:laugh:




From your posts...we can see that this bike/fence therapy has failed:laugh:

 

Because Adam sinned and brought, "dying thou shall surly die," to all men.

I would say all went to hell if hell be the state of death.

I thought the death and resurrection of Jesus, the gospel of being in the kingdom of God, brought the hope of life and incorruptibility to light.

Until then, "dying thou shall surly die," was the destination and to my knowledge presently the only one who has been raised to die no more is the human, Son of the Living God, Jesus of Nazareth brought forth by Mary the virgin.

 

Judith, this has already been explained to you. In chapter 2, Paul taught that men WITHOUT THE LAW PERISH WITHOUT THE LAW. Why? Because by nature they do the things contained in the law, showing they have the law written on their heart and conscience.

Rom 2:12 For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law;
13 (For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.
14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:
15 Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another; )

Note that Paul DOES NOT say men without law die because of Adam here. And this would have been the place to say so.

Men before Moses law knew what was sin. This is shown many times in the scriptures.

Gen 13:13 But the men of Sodom were wicked and sinners before the LORD exceedingly.

Was there a written law against homosexuality when this was spoken? NO. But Paul explains that men by nature know homosexuality goes against nature.

Rom 1:26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

You do not need a written law to know that men are supposed to marry a woman, it is OBVIOUS.

This is what Paul is saying in Romans 5:13-14, these persons DID NOT sin like Adam. Yet they died, which proves they were sinners. What laws did they break (for there was only ONE law)? They broke the laws written on their hearts.

And consider this, if Paul is describing Original Sin, why did he stop at Moses? Wouldn't Original Sin extend to ALL MEN?

If Paul were teaching that all men sinned in Adam, he would not have stopped at Moses, he would have included all men. Therefore it is impossible that Paul is teaching Original Sin in verses 13 and 14.

Isn't that so? Wouldn't Original Sin extend to all men?

What Paul is teaching in Romans 5 is that Adam and Jesus were the LEGAL PRECEDENT for those who followed after them. For those who sinned like Adam, the condemnation and sentence of death passed on them. They were treated equally for sinning against God. Likewise, those who trust Jesus as Jesus trusted his Father to raise him from the dead are imputed righteous.

A legal precedent is a system used by law to make sure persons are treated fairly.

http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_precedent

Again, Adam made folks "sinners'. If you broke God's law you were judged to be a "sinner" and the sentence of death passed on you. Likewise, Jesus made people "righteous". Those who trust God as he did are imputed righteous.

This is what Romans 5 is teaching.

 

That was a little mean I admit. But you are a New Yorker, you are supposed to be thick skinned.

I might as well joke with you, you certainly are not going to listen. Romans 9:11 clearly refutes your view and I believe you KNOW THAT. You are not stupid, if Paul was teaching that all men sinned with Adam in the garden, then he clearly contradicted himself in Romans 9:11. Any honest person MUST admit that, you cannot explain it away. So, you simply ignore facts, therefore, why not joke around with you? You are not sincerely interested in truth, you hold to your Reformed view no matter how much scripture that refutes it (and there is volumes) is presented to you.

 

To simplify....
The part I bolded is what is wrong. Paul never says that there is such a person as does not have imputed sin because they lived or existed prior to the Mosaic Law. You are assumming that.



All he said is This:
Sin is not imputed where there is no law.

All we can rightly infer here, is that Law is a necessary component to the imputation of sin and judgement.
You are mistakenly inferring that there must needs then, be a certain class of persons who exemplify such a scenario as not possessing any law and therefore do not have sin imputed to them. Paul says no such thing.

Paul has already explained that EVERYONE has God's law written on their hearts. There is simply no such thing as a person who is devoid of God's Law. All men know right from wrong, and all men will perish for their sins except they repent. This is clearly stated in Romans 1 and 2........

It is not the MOSAIC LAW, but that is not the only law God expects men to abide by. God's moral law has always existed, and was always and always will be understood by all men; and it is sufficient to condemn. Cain knew it was wicked to slay his brother. Job's friends continuously accused him of sinning and displeasing God long before any Mosaic Law was codified........Long before there was any such thing as a Jew or a gentile.

Enoch was a righteous man and a prophet, and he warned men of sin and judgement before the Mosaic law. Noah was righteous and a preacher of righteousness long before the Mosaic law.

 

Winman

Winman.... you will never get under my skin or get the best of me on that level...I can assure you of that.

QUOTE]I might as well joke with you,[/QUOTE]

I can take a joke..sometimes joking goes over "the line."

.

your posts are way off.I would listen if you make sense....but you do not.

.

What I find sad is you actually think this...when in fact this section proves all the doctrines you oppose.I cannot joke and will not joke about spiritual things.I see it as life and death and not at all funny.

,

If you think this.....why would you think I have not done my homework on these issues?

,
Paul by the Spirit declared......all sinned at one point in time past as a completed event......all sinned IN Adam. That is what is taught.I believe it as written.....if you do not ...I cannot help you.

The word of God has no contradictions....this should indicate that your view is off.

A person can be honest....see you are mistaken...and not agree because you are wrong.

your long winded posts do not equal facts...that is the issue.

I can joke around, but I do not joke about this.....I believe your soul is in danger.

That is how it seems to you...of course because you oppose it.

You have not come close to refuting any of it.The reason I can say this is I can do a better job of attacking the view then you can.I have looked at the strongest arguments I could find and they fall short....yours are not even close:wavey:

romans 9
neither having done...any good........before they were outside the womb.grown up, and able to do personal good deeds


neither having done...any evil.......before they were outside the womb.grown up, and able to do personal evil deeds...

God considered them as already fallen when He chose Jacob. What they did outside the womb...their works did not influence God at all.

 

you are describing a works gospel...not grace

 

Your Actons Have Demonstrated....

....that you have yielded not to follow the big ten or the condensed two.

First of all, this is a great question ... and you are so correct; it all comes down to choice. However, what you are missing, or don't want to grasp, is that man really can't keep the commandments, because like yourself [and of course, me] when it came to addressing me and my beliefs, you went from speaking in love, to speak judge mentally and hatefully. Both of which are breaking the commandments [either the big ten or the lean, mean two].

You had choice, several choices, and every time you speak to me; you speak down to me, call me names, and draw conclusions [dare I say out of anger], and ostracize me from any group that you believe you belong to, but I am not worthy of belonging to.

I am not criticizing you, just showing that if keeping the laws were as simple and automatic as you want to make us believe, then you, like Paul said of himself [and I say of myself] are the "Chiefist of sinners!"

It is choice, and because of our sin nature, a nature that does not disappear just because the blood has been applied when we accept [or for those who disagree - recieve] Jesus; It continues to haunt us throughout this life.

Jesus didn't have that problem, simply because of the spiritual attachment he had to the Father via the incarnation!

You, my dear sister, as well as everyone on this board, have the choice to sin or not to sin but nine times out of ten, we will fall [which is why 1 john 1 was written], and we need an advocate and Savior to not only forgive us of our original sin, but of all our sin still to befall us!

Now, if it is your belief that YOU can live a life that is flawless, because YOU can follow and adhere to the full intent of the laws, then so be it ... but the truth is, Judith, your comments to me show an inability to follow the most important law, and that is to love one another.

You see, regardless of what I believe on certain gifts, versus what you believe on certain gifts, my beliefs will be judged by God, but I do not believe this flaw [if it is a flaw] will keep me from heaven, any more than your belief that we must keep the laws, regardless. And you have shown a propensity to not be able to follow those laws in you interaction with OTHERS on the board, but that is not going to keep you from heaven either ... WHY? Because all of us who have recieved Jesus as Savior, will be going to heaven.

John 3:16 says that all of us who call on Him. It doesn't suggest that all of us who call on Him and are perfect for forever more will get to heaven. Let me remind of you an old bumper sticker that says, "I am not PERFECT; I am forgiven!" That is the key to being the elect, having your name written in the Lamb's Book of Life.

John 3:16 makes no attempt to suggest that we have to keep the big ten or the lean two. It requires only that we call on His name. Naturally, the Bible teaches we must in turn allow the Spirit to guide us, and lead us into a life of Holiness.

Sanctification means setting apart ... and setting us a apart is a lifetime [this lifetime on earth] of letting the Word, the Holy Ghost and our faith, lead us closer to Him by ridding ourself of the old man or the flesh that once controlled us.

I'd say that you have clearly demonstrated the inability to follow the laws, and that would indicate that those who have written and said that keeping the laws are not easy, so it is not merely an excuse to sin ... but a fact that we should not let our faith be shaken when we mess up and fail to live up to the commandments.

Personally, I am thankful God did not base my salvation on keeping the ten or two, because I would be in trouble, and I can see that you are in trouble with the manner in which you talk to others who differ than you!

Well, we just had a huge earthquake, and I'll take that as a hint to end this, not from God but by nature. :smilewinkgrin: As for me and my house, we are saved by Greace, no laws!

 

No, believing is not a work, the scriptures always contrast faith to works.

Rom 4:5 But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.

This verse is plain, to the person who does not work, but believes on Jesus, his faith is counted for righteousness.

You can claim night and day that believing is a work, and you will be in complete error. The scriptures define faith as the exact opposite of work. Faith is depending on what someone else has done, not yourself. When you were a child, you depended on your parents to clothe and feed you, this is trust, this is faith. You did not work, your parents did. You simply received what they did for you by faith.

Your problem is that you belong to a group (Cal/Ref/Dog) that constantly redefines words, and you have redefined faith as work. Total error.

Now, if you would just believe what the Bible says, that faith is not a work, you would not be afraid to believe.

 

I think I already have.

True.
.

My posts make sense to reasonable people who have not already made their minds up. Judith said I make good points.

.

Well, you can read. You can read that Paul said Jacob and Esau had done no evil, which contradicts your view. In your view Jacob and Esau ate the forbidden fruit in the garden with Adam. Paul refutes that.

It is one thing to study, it is quite another to think.

This is where you cannot think, Romans 9:11 proves this interpretation is wrong, Jacob and Esau did not sin with Adam in the garden, they had done no evil.

Correct, but it is your view that is a direct contradiction, not mine.

Likewise, they can be dishonest.

I believe many others disagree with you. I have had quite a few folks PM me and tell me my posts are very good and make complete sense.

We have something in common don't we?

YOU don't do anything, you copy and paste what others write.

Correct, they had not personally sinned in the garden with Adam.

Care to show scripture to support this statement? Show where God said they were "fallen" in the womb.

 

I agree with Iconoclast about the aorist tense of "all sinned" of Romans 5:12.

From Adam down the equipment to sin was passed down to all of us.
Like the baby rattlesnake out of the egg, it's just a matter of time until it uses it's deadly equipment received from its parents.

Like a sapling tree, we may not know what kind of tree it is until it bears fruit (like pears) then we know it was a pear tree all along by the fact of inheritance.

Like sinful humanity.

But I don't particlarly like the phrase "original sin".

The devil was the origin of sin, he sinned first when he lied to Eve (probably before that when he conceived it in his heart to lie to her about our Creator).

But mostly because it is a Catholic phrase with a romish solution - water baptism.

No amount of water in the universe can take away sin of any kind or number.

1 John 1:7 But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin.​

This is one way Jesus is different than us He never sinned. He is holy by His very nature:​

NKJ Luke 1:35 And the angel answered and said to her, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Highest will overshadow you; therefore, also, that Holy One who is to be born will be called the Son of God.​

John 8:46 Which of you convinceth me of sin? And if I say the truth, why do ye not believe me?​

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

HankD​

 

Then Paul contradicted himself when he said Jacob and Esau had done no evil in Romans 9:11. It is as simple as that.

No "equipment" needed. Satan and the fallen angels were created perfect, yet they sinned, Adam and Eve were created "very good", and yet they sinned. So the fact that all men sin does not prove they are born with a sin nature, in fact, it proves you do not have to be born with a sin nature to sin.

The problem with this view is that Jesus himself showed that we can determine what kind of tree we are and the fruit we produce.

Mat 12:33 Either make the tree good, and his fruit good; or else make the tree corrupt, and his fruit corrupt: for the tree is known by his fruit.

The words, "either make" and "or else make" show that we have both option and ability to determine whether we are a good tree that produces good fruit, or a corrupt tree that produces corrupt fruit.

By the way, the word "corrupt" by definition means to go from a good state to a bad state, like fruit that spoils when you leave it out. The fact that the scriptures say man has "corrupted" himself shows that he was originally good, that is the very definition of the word corrupt.

Gen 6:12 And God looked upon the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth.

Scripture doesn't say man was born evil, it says all men corrupted themselves. They went from a state of good to bad. Scripture shows this happens in our "youth" not birth.

Gen 8:21 And the LORD smelled a sweet savour; and the LORD said in his heart, I will not again curse the ground any more for man's sake; for the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth; neither will I again smite any more every thing living, as I have done.

The scriptures do not teach that man's imaginations are evil from birth as many falsely represent, scripture says man's heart is evil from this "youth". This is about the time a person becomes a teenager.

All men who reach age and understand right from wrong will choose to sin.

It's a false concept, scripture clearly says the son shall not bear the iniquity of his father (Eze 18:20).

Satan sinned in heaven with his five "I will"s.

Well, one false doctrine leads to another. This is also why the Immaculate Conception had to be invented, to explain why Jesus did not inherit a sin nature from Mary. You do inherit one half of your DNA from your mother, and that DNA includes DNA from your mother's father. So, this superstitious teaching that Jesus avoided a sin nature by being born of a woman is pure falsehood. The scriptures clearly say Jesus was made of the "seed of David according to the flesh".

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

The Jews knew Jesus was the physical grandson of David;

Mat 12:23 And all the people were amazed, and said, Is not this the son of David?

Correct, and sin cannot be passed to another person physically either.

Correct, Jesus was not sinful because he never sinned. But he was made of the very same flesh as us.

Heb 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;

The scriptures do not say Jesus took part of flesh "like" ours, they say he took part of "the same" flesh. It is the flesh where people who believe in Original Sin believe the sin nature comes from. So, if we have a sin nature from our flesh, then Jesus would have too.

I refuse to believe this, the scriptures called Jesus "holy". Likewise, the scriptures say we are "made upright".

Ecc 7:29 Lo, this only have I found, that God hath made man upright; but they have sought out many inventions.

The word "they" is plural, showing this is speaking of all men, not just Adam, and the words "many inventions" shows men become sinful by their own personal sins, not the single sin of Adam.

Everyone agrees that Jesus did not commit sin, that is not the question. The question is whether scripture teaches all men sinned with Adam in the garden as Iconoclast and many others believe. Romans 9:11 shows that Jacob and Esau did not sin with Adam in the garden, refuting this view.

Folks like to distract, you have to stay on subject. :thumbs:

 

Someone care to explain to me how the discussion of imputed sin being a valid or invalid doctrine has anything to do with Jesus' humanity?

 

Winman is a thread killer.he does not believe in Romans 3:23...or 5:12 as taught by the church...he has his own idea...so he corrupts thread after thread with the same abused 6-7 verses...that he tells his stories about.

Many offer correction...but he will have none of it:thumbs:

 

It actually has EVERYTHING to do with Original Sin. If Jesus was just like us as scripture says, then he would have inherited a sin nature through his flesh.

Now, nobody believes Jesus had a sin nature, therefore they are forced to conclude that Jesus did not "truly" come in the flesh, but only the likeness of sinful flesh. And the scriptures do say Jesus came in the likeness of sinful flesh. But be careful here, he did not come in the "likeness" of flesh, he came in "the same" flesh. That is VERY important, to deny Jesus came in the flesh is the spirit of antichrist and is not of God (1 Jhn 4:3).

But what makes flesh sinful? Is flesh sinful because of it's constitution, or does flesh become sinful when we sin?

The fact is, the scriptures are clear that Jesus took part of "the same" flesh and blood as we have. Therefore if flesh is sinful by constitution, then Jesus must have had a sin nature.

Heb 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;

Again, you cannot get around the fact that the scriptures say Jesus took part of THE SAME flesh and blood as us. Therefore if flesh and blood by constitution are evil, Jesus would be born with a sin nature. I reject this.

The alternative is that flesh becomes evil WHEN a person chooses to sin. In this view, Jesus could come in the same exact flesh and blood as us, and yet not be a sinner. This is what I believe, and what I believe the scriptures show;

Psa 14:3 They are all gone aside, they are all together become filthy: there is none that doeth good, no, not one.

The scriptures do not say we are born filthy or sinful, they say we have "become" filthy. This is a corruption from good to evil when we choose to willfully sin.

In my view, Jesus was completely human and not a sinner. In the other view, Jesus is not completely human, he only came in the "likeness" of a human.

So, Original Sin has EVERYTHING to do with Jesus's humanity.

 

Jacob and Esau had done no evil before they were born.

That's simple. Neither did any of us though each of us are born with the capacity to sin just as each of them.

Babies die, often before they have committed an act of sin (like smack your brother).
If people who don't sin don't die then babies who have't sinned shouldn't die.

I believe (unless he has changed) Winman believes if we never sin we won't die.

Yet babies die everyday who have no practical sins. Why?

Winman (if I remember correctly) falls back on the reason that animals who don't sin die. But animals are not the offspring of Adam like human babies.

Again I believe (but not 100% sure) that Winman also believes that Jesus could have sinned but didn't.

Is this correct Winman?

But unlike Him, none of us were born of a virgin.Why?

Jesus Christ indeed came in the flesh - The Logos came as a mortal human being born of a woman, subject to death because of our sin which was imputed to Him.

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

Here is the problem with the impeccability of Christ (which, I agree, has everything to do with His humanity):

If we say He couldn't sin then it would seem to some that we have denied His humanity.

If we say He could have sinned then it would seem to others that we have denied His deity.

Either way there are those on the other side who would say the others are lost (either directly or by innuendo).

The aorist tense of "all sinned" proves that we inherited at least the capacity and ability to sin because it does not say:

Romans 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all will sin.


HankD