Featured The Two "Natures" of Christ Jesus

Jesus was descended from Abraham (and Adam) through Mary.

Obviously a "comment" loaded with doctrinal meaning that you want, for some reason, to keep us all in the dark about. As such, it is meaningless and irrelevant.

 

LOL!

You've run out of substance and so now resort to being insulting and do so without cause. Typical. You should be ashamed of yourself.

Saying it doesn't make it so.

By this measure we have two natures. Our spirit and our flesh.

I'd love to see you attempt to establish this all but meaningless statement.

But not because Adam's sin made them guilty of anything. If a man dies, it is because of his own sin, not that of his ancestors. (Ezekiel 18)

True but also not in dispute that I'm aware of.

As stated this is true but I'd bet dollars to donuts that there all kinds of Calvinist meanings packed into the words that make this statement mean the opposite of what the bible actually teaches. That being that God is arbitrary rather than just and that you believe the two are one and the same thing.

 

No. Your supposed understanding is flawed.

You confuse concise with being lazy.

 

Correct.

Then, this comment is just a further continuation of what you said above.
The unspoiled Nature of His Father was co-joined to a body that had been
planned for Him to live as 100% and 100% God, from Eternity Past.

Just a related comment. No big secrecy about it, although that may be new
to some people, & this a way of clueing them in about it. Just a Fact of God.

For Jesus' body to have been Elected by The Triune Godhead
for Him to join with His Divine Nature is "all in the dark"?

And I'm keeping you there? Ummm.

It was just a comment.

It was not intended or claimed to meet the criteria to be the most meaningful
and relevant comment of all time imaginable,
unless(???) this is some kind of fashion show, or something(?)

Beats me. I just said it was a comment, for crying out loud.

Obviously a "comment" was all there was to it, the best I can tell.

Thanks anyway, though...

 

Question for you and for all considering the following verses and what you asked above.

John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
John 1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.
Rom 7:14 for we have known that the law is spiritual, and I am fleshly, sold by [under] the sin;
From 2 Cor 5:21 For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin;

Was the Word God made flesh, the only begotten of the Father, sold under the sin of us, by the Father, so we could be made the righteousness of God in Him?

If yes, when did that sell take place? Before the foundational of the world?

 

Saying it doesn't make it so.

I've never seen you post more the few sentences at a time. Asking questions that have no context and that you refuse to expand upon. There is no evidence that I'm the least bit confused at all. When you become substantive, my responses will reflect the improvement in your behavior. As it is, I already waste more time on you than you've earned.

 

No it isn't. The two comments may be compatible but the former does not lead logically to the later. The two are quite separate issues.

I've been doing this for a really long time, Alan. I do, on rare occasion, jump to an incorrect conclusion, but it is quite rare. Your use of the term "Elected" is awkward and out of place here. It would only ever come out of a Calvinist in that manner, especially capitalized and so no, it wasn't "just a comment". It is you sneaking in your Calvinism using terms that sound biblical but that have meanings that only exist inside the mind of a Calvinist and that turn the God who is Justice into an arbitrary tyrant.

I don't mean to imply that you're being underhanded, although I get why you'd think that (I'll try to be more judicious in my wording). I have no doubt that this manner of speaking comes quite naturally to you and that it seems like a perfectly normal thing to say to your hearing. If so, it means that you spend too much time with people who worship a Pagan Greek version of God.

 

More precisely, it argues against the false doctrine that all flesh is corrupt - per se. It argues against the idea that flesh, in and of itself, is corrupt.

Actually, the text says....

"γὰρ ἐποίησεν ἁμαρτίαν ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν"
"gar (for) poieō(made) hamartia(sin) hyper(for) hēmōn(us)"

Adding in the proper antecedents that are required in English, The King James gets it right....

"For he hath made him to be sin for us,..."

It's correct even to the point of indicating, by use of italic letters, that the words "to be" are added. And so, according to the scripture, He very definitely was "made sin!"


As for your translation of "poieō" into "treated", that simply is not correct AT ALL!

The term appears 579 times in the New Testament. Here is how the King James translates the term across its various contexts...

do (357x), make (113x), bring forth (14x), commit (9x), cause (9x), work (8x), shew (5x), bear (4x), keep (4x), fulfil (3x), deal (2x), perform (2x), not translated (3x), miscellaneous (43x), variations of 'do' (3x).

The terms "do" and "make" comprise fully 81% of those various translations. The English word "treat" or "treated" doesn't appear at all in the King James as a translation for ANY word whatsoever.

The only English version of the bible I've found that uses the word "treated" is the Contemporary English Version, which I had never heard of before I looked this up. It translates the verse like this....

"Christ never sinned! But God treated him as a sinner, so Christ could make us acceptable to God."

A clearly incorrect and doctrine driven "translation" in a version that practically no one has ever heard of before and that even fewer actually use.

The modern Greek word for "treat" (behave towards) is ορισμός, which does not appear in the New Testament. The word is found in the Septuagint but not in the New Testament. It is used once in Numbers 30:10.

 

In two parts.
First by the Word becoming flesh per John 1:2-3, John 1:14. Second, the Son receiving death for sin on the cross on our behalf, per Isaiah 53:6, prior to John 19:28, . . . Jesus knowing that all things were now accomplished, . . . Etc. This being prior to His physical death for His bodily resurrection.

 

If I understand your question correctly, the transaction was planned for (not predestined) prior to creation but the transaction itself happened at Calvary. Jesus' death was the price for sin and it was paid when He was forsaken by the Father (Matthew 27:46) and physically died (Matthew 27:50). Thus, "It is finished." (John 19:30).

 

And yet none but the most obscure "translations" do so with that term in the passage in question.

No there doesn't seem to be any such thing.

Except that every major translation and virtually every translation of this passage that exists does not translate it the way you want for it be translated.

That is your interpretation and perhaps it is an accurate one and perhaps it is not. It most definitely is not how the text reads.

Saying it doesn't make it so.

 

Controversy? Since when?

Jesus is the only begotten Son of God. Before He became a man he was Logos, according to the scripture. "God the Son" is not a term that is found in scripture. It is simply a title that we use to refer to Him Who is the Logos of God, through whom all things were created and Who became a man, dwelt among us, died and rose from the dead.