Clearing my name!!

[DHK]

DHK, I'm sorry, but that is a ridiculous argument. Mary being a virgin does not change the fact that Joseph was descended from Coniah. And if Jesus would have been born of Joseph, he would not be the Son of God.

You still don't get it do you.
First, there is more than one reason why Jesus was born of a virgin.
This is just one of them.
The two genealogies had to reflect Jesus as being heir to the Throne of David.
Although Joseph's genealogy appears to look like it, on closer inspection it doesn't meet the requirements. His line has been cursed disqualifying him from inheriting the Throne.
Thus Jesus' genealogy must come from Mary and _________?
The answer is the Holy Spirit. It could not come from Joseph. It had to come from the Holy Spirit. Jesus had to be born of a virgin for Joseph was disqualified through Coniah. This is one of the evidences of the necessity of a virgin birth. Otherwise Jesus would be from a cursed line.

Do you understand yet?

 

[percho]

Thing is that Apostle paul taught the doctrines of original Sin, inherited Sin, Fall of Man, being spiritually dead etc...

You keep referencing the catholic Church as oroginating these doctrines, but it was Jesus and His Apostles that actually established these biblical truths!

Adam was created sinless nature chose to Sin, Fall of Adam causing ALL after him to be born sinners, and spiritually dead before God

jesus second Adam, born with sinless nature, just as Adam, and did NOT sin, so all in Him are spiritually alive

Natural born humans "IN Adam" , born with sin natures, spiritually dead
Reborn human "In Jesus" spiritually alive

Bible truth!

Paul taught that the sin of Adam brought death to all mankind. Even to those to whom sin was not imputed for there was no law showing them their sin. They still died. Nature and or natural does not mean sin. It means one subject to corruption and so was Jesus but God the Father raised him up from the dead, [now] no more to return to corruption. That is to the nature/natural state that he was born of Mary in.

That which is born of the flesh is flesh. Not flesh therefore sinful. AND
That which is born of the spirit is spirit.

Jesus: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead;
Howbeit that not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual. the last Adam a quickening spirit.

Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.

That in all he might have the preeminence.

 

[DHK]

DHK, I'm sorry, but that is a ridiculous argument. Mary being a virgin does not change the fact that Joseph was descended from Coniah. And if Jesus would have been born of Joseph, he would not be the Son of God.

The Jews had to see it on paper.
Why is the genealogy given in Matthew? What is its purpose? Why was Joseph's genealogy even recorded if it is not important? Think about it.

But... if Joseph and Mary would have had relations before Jesus was born, nobody would believe he was the Son of God, they would have believed him to be the son of Joseph. Being born of a virgin was a supernatural sign confirming Jesus had no earthly father, but was born of God.

No one denied it was a sign. It was much more than a sign. Do you use one finger to type at your keyboard or all of them? Is that the only purpose your fingers have? Are they one-purpose fingers? Why then do you assign only one purpose to the virgin birth. As I told you Machen wrote 400 pages on the Virgin birth not just one sentence.

And it is not me falling for false Catholic doctrine. The church did not hold to Original Sin until Augustine.

Perhaps it was Augustine that gave it that name. But the sin nature of man has always been recognized by believers. Those that have rejected it have stood outside the realm of orthodox Christianity. We have a depraved nature inherited from the fall of Adam. It is called the curse. I did a full exposition on Romans 8 explaining in detail how it could not be otherwise. Did you not pay any attention to that. It proves beyond any doubt that we have a sin nature, and not only we but all of creation is under a curse waiting for the coming of Christ when the curse will be lifted.

Many did not accept this doctrine, the Eastern Orthodox church rejected it. They argued that Augustine erred using a flawed Latin text of Rom 5:12. The EOC had Greek texts and held that Rom 5:12 did not teach that Adam's sin passed on man. To this day they disagree with Augustine.

And many of them have a flawed view of the gospel.
What they preach and teach is not my concern.
What does the Bible teach. It teaches that man has a sin nature, and you reject that, even though we have set forth scripture after scripture.

It was Original Sin that led to Immaculate Conception, as it was obvious Jesus inherited his flesh from Mary, God does not have a body of flesh and therefore cannot be tempted. Jesus could be tempted, obviously inherited from Mary. Now they had to explain how Jesus did not inherit a sin nature from Mary, thus they invented IC.

It was also the Catholics that said because salvation was preached in the household of the Philippian jailor that infants were baptized and therefore the doctrine of baptismal regeneration was true. This is your logic. Do you always follow the abysmal logic of the RCC?

You are the one that holds to Catholic doctrine, I reject Original Sin. Adam and Eve were "very good", yet they could be tempted and sin. This proves you do not have to have a sin nature to be tempted or sin.

The inherited sin nature of man is not a RCC doctrine, any more than the trinity is (though they like to claim that one too). Do you reject the doctrine of the trinity also. Again if you follow their logic or your own, you must reject the trinity, for they claim it to be their "discovery." Your denial of the sin nature of man is as much as a denial of the trinity. Both are connected with the RCC in the same way.

Besides that, I can show you many verses that says man is born alive, not dead in sin. Rom 7:9 being a good example, where Paul said he was ALIVE ONCE without the law, but when the commandment came, sin revived and he DIED. This would be impossible if a man is born dead in sin.

I will take you through Romans 7 if you wish. You are taking the verse out of context.

 

[percho]

You still don't get it do you.
First, there is more than one reason why Jesus was born of a virgin.
This is just one of them.
The two genealogies had to reflect Jesus as being heir to the Throne of David.
Although Joseph's genealogy appears to look like it, on closer inspection it doesn't meet the requirements. His line has been cursed disqualifying him from inheriting the Throne.
Thus Jesus' genealogy must come from Mary and _________?
The answer is the Holy Spirit. It could not come from Joseph. It had to come from the Holy Spirit. Jesus had to be born of a virgin for Joseph was disqualified through Coniah. This is one of the evidences of the necessity of a virgin birth. Otherwise Jesus would be from a cursed line.

Do you understand yet?

Correct me if I am wrong. Jesus could not be the Messiah if Joseph were his Father, yet the ruling Jews supposed Joseph to have been his father conceived prior to marriage. That is because Joseph being of the line from Coniah. Mary also was of the line of David making Jesus the fruit of the loins of David. Jesus had to be a son of David to be the Messiah and in Luke God said he would give him the throne of his father David. However I believe the throne was established in Solomon unto all generations.

Acts 15:14-18 Simeon hath declared how God at the first did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name. And to this agree the words of the prophets; as it is written. After this, I will return, and will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down; and I will build again the ruins thereof, and I will set it up: That the residue of men might seek after the Lord, and all the Gentiles, upon whom my name is called, saith the Lord, who doeth all these things. Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world.

Is God presently still taking out of the Gentiles a people for his name?
Is there a point in time when this ceases to be?
I wonder what after this refers to? The balance of the verse is kind of a quote from Amos 9:11 which begins in that day.
I will return. Who will return? Return from where to where?
Just what is the tabernacle of David?
Just what are the ruins thereof or as Amos has it close the breaches? What breaches?
Just what is being set up?
Just why is this relative to the residue of mankind?
Do you think God is following an age old plan?
Just what was and is that plan and did it have to do with two houses, The House of Judah and The House of Israel?

 

[DHK]

Correct me if I am wrong. Jesus could not be the Messiah if Joseph were his Father, yet the ruling Jews supposed Joseph to have been his father conceived prior to marriage. That is because Joseph being of the line from Coniah. Mary also was of the line of David making Jesus the fruit of the loins of David. Jesus had to be a son of David to be the Messiah and in Luke God said he would give him the throne of his father David. However I believe the throne was established in Solomon unto all generations.

And after they were brought to Babylon, Jechonias begat Salathiel; and Salathiel begat Zorobabel; (Matthew 1:12)

Jesus came from David through Mary, not through Joseph.
We know that because:
1. He was born of a virgin--a necessity for this reason.
2. Joseph's line was cursed.
The line was established by Solomon. That doesn't mean that Coniah didn't descend from them both.

Acts 15:14-18 Simeon hath declared how God at the first did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name. And to this agree the words of the prophets; as it is written. After this, I will return, and will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down; and I will build again the ruins thereof, and I will set it up: That the residue of men might seek after the Lord, and all the Gentiles, upon whom my name is called, saith the Lord, who doeth all these things. Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world.

Yes, this refers to this time when the gospel is going out to the Gentiles.

Is God presently still taking out of the Gentiles a people for his name?
Is there a point in time when this ceases to be?

God is continuing to do so, and will cease at the time of the rapture, the time when this age of grace will be over. The Tribulation will begin and seven years later Christ will come for the Jewish nation.

I wonder what after this refers to? The balance of the verse is kind of a quote from Amos 9:11 which begins in that day.
I will return. Who will return? Return from where to where?

He will return for his people--the Jews.

Just what is the tabernacle of David?
Just what are the ruins thereof or as Amos has it close the breaches? What breaches?
Just what is being set up?

The temple will be rebuilt again and will be the center of worship in the Millennial Kingdom.

Just why is this relative to the residue of mankind?
Do you think God is following an age old plan?
Just what was and is that plan and did it have to do with two houses, The House of Judah and The House of Israel?

God is following his own plan. It is outlined for us in the Bible. In the MK, the house of Israel will be one. We, as believers will rule and reign with Christ according to our faithfulness to Him.

 

[Winman]

DHK, the context of Romans 7 shows a man is first alive.

Rom 7:5 For when we were in the flesh, the motions of sins, which were by the law, did work in our members to bring forth fruit unto death.

Rom 7:10 And the commandment, which was ordained to life, I found to be unto death.
11 For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it slew me.

In verse 5 Paul says sin brought forth fruit UNTO death.

In verse 10 again he says UNTO death.

In verse 11 Paul says sin SLEW him.

Exactly how do you slay or kill something that is not alive?

Nevermind that Paul directly says he was ALIVE once in vs. 9.

I've noticed anytime someone disagrees with you, you accuse them of pulling scripture out of context. Baloney. Perhaps you should accept scripture for what it directly says.

 

[DHK]

DHK, the context of Romans 7 shows a man is first alive.

Rom 7:5 For when we were in the flesh, the motions of sins, which were by the law, did work in our members to bring forth fruit unto death.

Rom 7:10 And the commandment, which was ordained to life, I found to be unto death.
11 For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it slew me.

In verse 5 Paul says sin brought forth fruit UNTO death.

In verse 10 again he says UNTO death.

In verse 11 Paul says sin SLEW him.

Exactly how do you slay or kill something that is not alive?

Nevermind that Paul directly says he was ALIVE once in vs. 9.

I've noticed anytime someone disagrees with you, you accuse them of pulling scripture out of context. Baloney. Perhaps you should accept scripture for what it directly says.

First, most of the time it is out of context, just as we will prove it is here. You are simply trying to make the verse say something it doesn't say--fitting your pre-determined ideas into a verse that teaches the opposite of what you believe.

Context:
What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet. But sin, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence. For without the law sin was dead. (Romans 7:7-8)
Verse 7 begins a new paragraph in the chapter. So this is where we find the context. Paul makes some unusual statements that are seemingly hard to understand unless we remember what he had said in other parts of the Bible.
Remember that he said:
He had persecuted the church of God, but ignorantly. In other words he thought that it was the will of God. He was honestly seeking to do God's will when persecuting Christians.

Who was before a blasphemer, and a persecutor, and injurious: but I obtained mercy, because I did it ignorantly in unbelief. (1 Timothy 1:13)
--It was for this reason he obtained mercy.

I verily thought with myself, that I ought to do many things contrary to the name of Jesus of Nazareth. Which thing I also did in Jerusalem: and many of the saints did I shut up in prison, having received authority from the chief priests; and when they were put to death, I gave my voice against them. (Acts 26:9-10)

Concerning zeal, persecuting the church; touching the righteousness which is in the law, blameless. (Philippians 3:6)
--He was zealous, righteous, and though he persecuted the church, in the law he was blameless. This is what Paul is referring to.

For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died. (Romans 7:9)
--Being alive is a reference to the days of his ignorance, that time in his life where he considered himself "in the law blameless." He had not known the commandment until Christ revealed it to him. He deemed himself a righteous man and therefore entitled to life eternal life.

And the commandment, which was ordained to life, I found to be unto death. (Romans 7:10)
--The very law that he thought was giving him eternal life was actually condemning him. And so Paul continues to explain.

 

[Winman]

Unbelieveable, you accuse me of taking Rom 7:9 out of context, and then you explain it by going to other books Paul had written. You are doing the very thing you accuse me of!

Paul said he had not KNOWN sin except for the law. He is speaking of learning in time. When he was a small child he could not know and truly understand the law. When he learned the law he was convicted by it and so died.

It is you going out of context to explain away this passage of scripture because it disagrees with your presuppositions.

 

[convicted1]

I was off here this weekend, and just found this thread started by Willis. Since it is apparent he is calling me out on this thread, it is my duty to respond.

First off, thank you for accepting my sincere apology. I did not mean for it to come across that way, but apparently it did, and for that, again, I am sorry. Now on to your post.

First I will say that I am on the fence regarding this. I have ALWAYS believed Jesus to NOT have a sin nature. I also have no problem admitting that there is a clear tension and mystery here that NOBODY understands no matter how many people on this thread have took a stab at it. I see nothing but subjectivity based on our finite minds, and I admit my understanding is based on the same thing.

I, too, believe that Jesus didn't have a sin nature. There are "depths" and "heights" to the Trinity that none of us can ever get to. So, as much as we study, there is always going to be more to the bible than what we will ever learn.

I first challenge Willis or anyone to prove that merely having a sin nature (what the Bible refers to as flesh) makes one a sinner.

Granted, the phrase "sin nature", as far as I know, doesn't exist in the bible. Neither does conviction, or Trinity, but we use these terms to give a description of what we "believe" them to mean. For Jesus to have a sin nature would mean for Him to have the ability to give in to sin. It's not that He clouldn't sin, but that He could, but chose not to. That's were the rubber meets the road for me, if I have this correct. To say that Jesus could have sinned, and chose not to, is like saying God could lie, but He chooses not to. Do you understand what I am trying to say, Brother Webdog??

I also would like Willis or anyone to prove that for Jesus to have a sin nature (what the Bible refers to as the flesh) would be heretical. Nobody is saying Jesus was a sinner, btw, so leave presuppositions out of it.

I agree that Jesus came in the same flesh that we have today. I agree that He was bombarded with sins while He was here. But, He who knew no sins, became sin for us. There was no deceit found in His mouth. He was/is God manifested in the flesh. God in the flesh could sin, but chose not to? I find that impossible for God to do. Is there any unrighteousness with God? God forbid.

I also would like Willis to back his claim that for Jesus to have a sin nature would have lessened His sacrifice made on behalf of us and how it would have violated Him being the perfect sacrificial lamb. The symbolism of having no blemish pertains to NOT sinning...not having a sin nature. If memory serves me correct, the High Priest still chose a lamb that was under the curse, and based on what we know about death entering creation through sin, animal life did not die pre-fall.

A sin natured man's blood being shed for a sinful world would not be sufficient. Someone innocent died for the guilty for their sins to be atoned. look back in Exodus 12, and the lamb. That lamb was innocent, meaning it died for the sins which it did not commit. Jesus did the exact same thing. He was innocent, and yet He died for the guilty. If someone with a sin nature could have done the job, then Moses, Aaron, Caleb, Joshua, David, Solomon, Peter, James, John, Philip, Matthew, Luke, Paul, Timothy, etc. could have done it, and God could have spared His Son from being slaughtered. In Rev. 5, it says that the heavens, earth, and even beneath the earth was searched, and no man was found worthy to open and look upon the book that was in God's right hand as He sat upon the Throne. If Jesus had the same sin nature, then, in the flesh, He was on level ground with the prophets, and they, in turn, could have accomplished what He did, IMHHO.

Scripture states Jesus mas human in every way WE are human. There is only two ways this can be...NONE of us have a sin nature...or post fall ALL humanity has one. There can be no middle view on this which would lead to Jesus NOT being human in every way we are.

Yet, if Jesus had not chosen to take our sins upon Himself, He would be alive today. Why do I say this? The penalty for sin is death. What sin did Jesus do for the sentence of death to placed upon Him? When He took the sins of the world upon Himself, God had to seperate Himself from His only begotten Son, because of the sin that was placed upon Him. So, Jesus did have the same flesh as we did, in that He hungered, thirsted, hurt, slept, peed and pooped, etc., yet He was sinless, spotless, pristine, perfect, impeccable, above reproach, etc.

Pre-fall Adam did not have a sin nature, hence he was created not to die. Once he sinned, death and the curse spread to EVERY man, Jesus included (if He is indeed 100% man as Scripture states). Christ died. Now, if Christ had no nature like post-fall man, and instead had the nature of Adam...why was He affected by the curse, why was He not as the first Adam where death came ONLY by sinning?

The first Adam created a great gulf(sin) between man and God. The second Adam came and built a bridge for us so that we could get to God, and He paved this bridge with His blood. If Jesus had not have died, even the Prophets who were looking to the cross, would not have had access to the Father. So, it was necessary that Jesus come and die in the flesh, so that we could access to the Father.

Explain how one can be tempted if there is no temptation? I keep reading on here how Christ could NOT have sinned...yet he was tempted to do just that, and was tempted in EVERY way WE are according to Scripture. Impossible to be tempted based on the very definition...kind of like the cal's "choice" consisting of only one thing which also violates the very meaning. Temptation is defined as "A desire to do something, esp. something wrong or unwise". Was Jesus tempted...or wasn't He? Let's not add to the definition, or add an "yeah, but..." to it...was He tempted, or was He not? Should be a clear answer based on what Scripture says.

I may be wrong with this analogy, so if I am, please accept my apology beforehand. Say you hate pizza. Now, you are on a diet and you go over to someone's house. They know you are on a diet, but not that you hate pizza. So, they then start eating their pizza in front of you, and talking about how good it tastes, smells, etc. But, this doen't faze you because you hate pizza to begin with. I see Jesus being the same way. They could have tempted Him with the things of the world, but those temptations didn't bother Him because He hated sin to start with. IOW, just because you are tempted, doesn't mean you are going to give in. Jesus hated sin, and came to die and be risen so that He could blot out your sins with His precious blood. I hope this helps.

 

[Aaron]

It's basically being asserted in this thread, that Christ could not have been tempted unless He had a desire to sin, and the "power" to sin. (Sinning is actually the lack of power.)

Jesus is the uncorruptible God. Adam was corruptible. Not Jesus. Adam and Eve were confronted by a liar, and they fell. They could no more prevent their own fall than iron can prevent its own rust. If there were a leper instead of a liar, and they touched him, or a dead body, and they touched it, they would have become unclean.

Jesus is confronted by liars, and we know Him as the Truth. He touched lepers and they were made clean. He touched the dead and they were made alive. He is the uncorruptible God.

The assurance of our salvation is based on the immutable fact that it is impossible for God to lie. God cannot sin. Jesus could not and cannot sin.

If Christ could sin, how do you know He didn't? If He could sin, and did, who would be better at hiding it from man than He? You have no basis for believing anything He said.

 

[JesusFan]

It's basically being asserted in this thread, that Christ could not have been tempted unless He had a desire to sin, and the "power" to sin. (Sinning is actually the lack of power.)

Jesus is the uncorruptible God. Adam was corruptible. Not Jesus. Adam and Eve were confronted by a liar, and they fell. They could no more prevent their own fall than iron can prevent its own rust. If there were a leper instead of a liar, and they touched him, or a dead body, and they touched it, they would have become unclean.

Jesus is confronted by liars, and we know Him as the Truth. He touched lepers and they were made clean. He touched the dead and they were made alive. He is the uncorruptible God.

The assurance of our salvation is based on the immutable fact that it is impossible for God to lie. God cannot sin. Jesus could not and cannot sin.

If Christ could sin, how do you know He didn't? If He could sin, and did, who would be better at hiding it from man than He? You have no basis for believing anything He said.

Think some here hold mistaken view IF Jesus could not really sin, than no real tempting...

I think that jesus was indeed temted in the sense that he would experience ALL that we do as humans, and that would allow Him to be our perfect high priest, as unlike the other 2 of the Godhead, Jesus has 'real" dealings with this world...

God the father and HS know this in a ""theoritical" sense, Jesus knows it in a real sense!

 

[DHK]

Unbelieveable, you accuse me of taking Rom 7:9 out of context, and then you explain it by going to other books Paul had written. You are doing the very thing you accuse me of!

You ignored the immediate context preferring instead to jump to the beginning of the chapter and skip to the end of the chapter. That is not context.
You also ignore other Scripture. To get the meaning of Scripture it has to be in harmony with other Scripture. For example the Bible does say, "There is no God." But the Bible doesn't teach that concept. It is taken out of its context. To find out what Paul meant you must seek other Scriptures about his life. He is giving personal testimony. Personal testimony about what? He tells us in other parts of Scripture what his testimony is.

Paul said he had not KNOWN sin except for the law. He is speaking of learning in time. When he was a small child he could not know and truly understand the law. When he learned the law he was convicted by it and so died.

But sin, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence. For without the law sin was dead. For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died. (Romans 7:8-9)

Compare:
Concerning zeal, persecuting the church; touching the righteousness which is in the law, blameless. (Philippians 3:6)

Does Paul contradict himself? Does the Bible contradict itself?
He was alive without the law once.
He was righteous in the law, blameless. The two phrases mean the same thing. You are trying to make it mean something that it doesn't mean. You are reading you pre-determined ideas into it, which are not Biblical.

What happened?
When Paul got saved, he realized fully that what he was doing, and had done was absolutely wrong, and immediately he began to preach the gospel (after he met Annanias and was baptized). The law which previously justified his actions, now condemned them. The law always condemns.

It is you going out of context to explain away this passage of scripture because it disagrees with your presuppositions.

No, Scripture must harmonize with other scripture.
You have scripture contradicting scripture. It doesn't work that way. The Bible does not contradict itself. Paul does not contradict himself in his own testimony.

 

[Iconoclast]

You ignored the immediate context preferring instead to jump to the beginning of the chapter and skip to the end of the chapter. That is not context.
You also ignore other Scripture. To get the meaning of Scripture it has to be in harmony with other Scripture. For example the Bible does say, "There is no God." But the Bible doesn't teach that concept. It is taken out of its context. To find out what Paul meant you must seek other Scriptures about his life. He is giving personal testimony. Personal testimony about what? He tells us in other parts of Scripture what his testimony is.

But sin, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence. For without the law sin was dead. For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died. (Romans 7:8-9)

Compare:
Concerning zeal, persecuting the church; touching the righteousness which is in the law, blameless. (Philippians 3:6)

Does Paul contradict himself? Does the Bible contradict itself?
He was alive without the law once.
He was righteous in the law, blameless. The two phrases mean the same thing. You are trying to make it mean something that it doesn't mean. You are reading you pre-determined ideas into it, which are not Biblical.

What happened?
When Paul got saved, he realized fully that what he was doing, and had done was absolutely wrong, and immediately he began to preach the gospel (after he met Annanias and was baptized). The law which previously justified his actions, now condemned them. The law always condemns.

No, Scripture must harmonize with other scripture.
You have scripture contradicting scripture. It doesn't work that way. The Bible does not contradict itself. Paul does not contradict himself in his own testimony.

Solid post DHK.....it would be nice if this was welcomed as it is the truth of God.:thumbs:...To oppose this is to oppose oneself as it will keep someone from coming to truth.