Clearing my name!!

[Winman]

You refuse context.
Verse 18 and 20 go together.
Not verse 20 and 27.
Even the KJV translators put a paragraph marker at the beginning of verse 21.

I disagree again, chapter 18 is one continuous theme that shows a man dies for his own sin. And if you read carefully you will see it is speaking of the eternal state.

In vs. 9 it says, "he is just, he shall surely live"

This is not civil law, but speaking of being just before God.

Vs. 18 "even he shall die IN HIS INIQUITY"

26 When a righteous man turneth away from his righteousness, and committeth iniquity, AND DIETH IN THEM; for his iniquity he hath done shall he die.

All these verses are speaking of dying IN SIN, as when Jesus said;

Jn 8:24 I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die IN YOUR SINS: for if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die IN YOUR SINS.

Ezekiel 18 is using the same language as Jesus, it is speaking of our eternal state, not civil law.

 

[Aaron]

It is impossible for God to die, but Jesus died on the cross didn't he?

We're told that God is love, and dying for a beloved one is the ultimate expression thereof. In fact, to die unto one's self and live unto another is the ultimate end of genuine love. So, it was not impossible for God die. It is impossible that He should not die. However, the pains of death could not hold Him, because He is God.

This is what happens when you try to deny Jesus came in the flesh as 1 Jn 4:1-3 warns us some will do.

No, your argument is what happens when we change the uncorruptible God into an image made like unto corruptible man, and confuse that image with the Incarnation.

 

[webdog]

Wow...it's not impossible for God to die?!?

 

[Aaron]

Utterly false. In Ezekiel 18:20 God himself said the son shall not bear the iniquity of his father.

This is speaking concerning the punishments dealt out by man upon the earth.

Do you deny that? Do you believe we bear Adam's sin?

Adam's sin IS my sin. But it's interesting. In all the billions of people who've walked the earth, all you would need is just one natural man who was never corrupted to prove your position true.

Where is he?

In denying one form of predestination, you're in essence affirming another, that God destined Adam to sin. If it is impossible that any born after Adam could not sin, how is it possible that Adam could not have sinned?

 

[Aaron]

Wow...it's not impossible for God to die?!?

[offensive remark deleted]

 

[Winman]

We're told that God is love, and dying for a beloved one is the ultimate expression thereof. In fact, to die unto one's self and live unto another is the ultimate end of genuine love. So, it was not impossible for God die. It is impossible that He should not die. However, the pains of death could not hold Him, because He is God.

No, your argument is what happens when we change the uncorruptible God into an image made like unto corruptible man, and confuse that image with the Incarnation.

You're not getting it. While Jesus IS God, he came in the flesh and was subject to the same conditions as a man. He had to eat and sleep, neither of which God needs to do. He could be tempted, and he had to actively resist temptation as we do. He could die, while the Father cannot.

He was made like his brethren, the seed of Abraham in ALL THINGS. Those that say he was made like Adam before the fall are directly denying what the scriptures plainly say.

If Jesus could not sin, what is the point of the Holy Spirit leading him into the wilderness to be tempted?
There would be no test or trial. He had to overcome the temptations of the devil which all other men have failed to do.

When the Jews took an unblemished sheep to offer for a sin sacrifice, it was a sheep just like the others. Jesus had to be 100% man to atone for man.

 

[webdog]

deleted.

Picture of maturity. Lets see, it's somehow reprehensible for Christ to be fully human as we are...but something truly her....umm...."unbiblical" like God being able to die is not?! There must be a full moon on this board...

 

[DHK]

I disagree again, chapter 18 is one continuous theme that shows a man dies for his own sin. And if you read carefully you will see it is speaking of the eternal state.

In vs. 9 it says, "he is just, he shall surely live"

This is not civil law, but speaking of being just before God.

It is civil law.
Verse five:
But if a man be just, and do that which is lawful and right, (Ezekiel 18:5)
--The just are the just found before a court of law and declared so by their innocence in a crime. Spiritually a man does not become just by doing that which is lawful and right. Salvation is by faith not by works. You are promoting a works salvation by not taking heed to the context. When one disobeys the law he pays for it, possibly with his life. Many of the penalties of the Old Testament ended in physical death--capital punishment.

Vs. 18 "even he shall die IN HIS INIQUITY"

Exactly what it means.
If he murders he will die because of his murder. That goes right back to Gen.9:6. It is civil law. You can disagree, but if you do you ignore context.

 

[percho]

God forsaw ALL of us to be born in the future as being "in Adam" that Adam stood for physical humanity, so when he fell, we fell with him!

Jesus is second Adam, head over spiritual humanity, those been redeemed by His blood!

Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.

Jesus came (that is was born) exactly as the first man Adam was created.

A living soul. Flesh blood and bone from the ground with the breath of life from God who beget him in the virgin Mary.

He was different from those born from Adam in that he was begotten of God by the Spirit of the living God and therefore was indwelt with the Spirit of God from his being begotten in the woman.

This man the Son of the Living God said, "That which is born of the flesh is flesh." Not a word about sin implied relative to this statement. Was Jesus born of the flesh?

Paul later on says this in the quote unquote resurrection chapter.
And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam a quickening spirit. Howbeit that not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual. Afterward what? The first man Adam has not yet been made spiritual. After the resurrection. This is speaking of the last Adam, Jesus who came in the figure of the first Adam being a new creation by being, the beginning, the firstborn from the dead;

That which is born of the spirit is spirit.

Thou will not leave my soul in Hades. OT Sheol. Neither neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption. A quickening spiritual being.

This passage needs to be re-thought.

For thou hast possessed my reins: thou hast covered me in my mother's womb. I will praise thee; for I am fearfully [and] wonderfully made: marvellous [are] thy works; and [that] my soul knoweth right well. My substance was not hid from thee, when I was made in secret, [and] curiously wrought in the lowest parts of the earth. (Sheol) Thine eyes did see my substance, yet being unperfect;

So also Christ glorified not himself to be made an high priest; but he that said unto him, Thou art my Son, to day have I begotten thee. Who in the days of his flesh, when he had offered up prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears unto him that was able to save him from death, and was heard in that he feared; Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered; And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him;

This is speaking of the resurrection of Jesus the Christ the Son of the Living God.

From imperfect flesh bones and blood to perfect flesh bones and spirit.

That in all he might have the preeminence.

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




Disagree if you like but show from scripture if any thing is wrong or out of context.

 

[DHK]

Ezekiel 18 is using the same language as Jesus, it is speaking of our eternal state, not civil law.

Instead of going to Ezekiel 18 why not answer post #134?

 

[Skandelon]

Another article--actually a video--by John Piper.

Very helpful discussion about Jesus' two natures.

http://www.desiringgod.org/resource-library/ask-pastor-john/was-it-possible-for-jesus-to-sin

By the way, Richard Phillips and John Piper are both on the council of the Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals. So, no one should make the mistake of thinking that Phillips speaks for the group.

Let the record show that both Phillips and Piper's articles support the distinction I drew regarding Christ's "being able but not willing to sin," yet I once again was ridiculed and slandered for stating it. Go figure.

 

[convicted1]

to Brother Webdog.....

Brother, I was not calling you out. I started this thread because someone stated that I believed something I didn't. Sorry if you thought I was calling you out/slandering your name. That was not my intent whatsoever. Please forgive me Brother!!!

 

[Winman]

Instead of going to Ezekiel 18 why not answer post #134?

How in the world does Mary being a virgin affect that Joseph was related to Coniah? That argument is non-sensical.

If Mary had not been a virgin, nobody would believe Jesus was born of God.

Jesus had the ability to be tempted just like us, you cannot deny that. He could not have inherited this ability from his Father, as his Father does not have the ability to be tempted. The Catholics figured this out, and so had to invent the false doctrine of Immaculate Conception to say Mary was born without Original Sin. One false unscriptural doctrine leads to another.

 

[webdog]

Brother, I was not calling you out. I started this thread because someone stated that I believed something I didn't. Sorry if you thought I was calling you out/slandering your name. That was not my intent whatsoever. Please forgive me Brother!!!

No problem....probably not intentional, but you do have to realize when you say you don't believe something so "heretical" it indirectly alluded that what I stated was.

Water under the bridge...

Would be interested in some of the challenges I put forth, not just to you but anyone who wishes to answer.

 

[JesusFan]

[

QUOTE=Winman;1725010]You're not getting it. While Jesus IS God, he came in the flesh and was subject to the same conditions as a man. He had to eat and sleep, neither of which God needs to do. He could be tempted, and he had to actively resist temptation as we do. He could die, while the Father cannot.

He was made like his brethren, the seed of Abraham in ALL THINGS. Those that say he was made like Adam before the fall are directly denying what the scriptures plainly say.

jesus was BOTH God and a man, and he had/has a dual nature residing in one Being...

God cannot be tempted to sin, but Humanity can be, but jesus was sinless NOT due to him not choosing to sin, but due to Him Being born w/o a sin nature as we ALL have!

IF you want to hold to your understanding, than either

Jesus had a sinless nature, and we ALL are born sinless like he was OR
jesus born as a sinner, chose Not to sin, we can also be as Him and chose never to sin

Which is it?

If Jesus could not sin, what is the point of the Holy Spirit leading him into the wilderness to be tempted?
There would be no test or trial. He had to overcome the temptations of the devil which all other men have failed to do.

As a man, Jesus tasted ansd experienced ALL things common to man, yet did NOT ever sin!

That was in order for Him to have direct experience in man condition, in order to be a faithful high priest who can sympathise with us in our weaknesses!

When the Jews took an unblemished sheep to offer for a sin sacrifice, it was a sheep just like the others. Jesus had to be 100% man to atone for man.

[/QUOTE]

Also HAD to be 100 % God in order for His Death to be able to atone for ANY other than Himself( HE Did NOT atone for Himself, being without Sin, but if NOT 100 % God also that would have meant that His death would NOT atone for any one else!)

 

[DHK]

How in the world does Mary being a virgin affect that Joseph was related to Coniah? That argument is non-sensical.

No, it isn't.
Remember the census being taken. Where were they going? To the "city of David," as prophecy would indicate, where Jesus will someday sit. He is heir to that throne, as he later claimed in the gospels. The claim comes through the genealogy as far as an unsaved Jew is concerned. Remember that he is fully human and fully God. His human genealogy had to come from David. On paper it looked well enough to the Jew, as it is presented to the Matthew, a gospel written to the Jews presenting Jesus as King, as Messiah.
But in reality he was disqualified from inheriting the throne through Joseph, descendent of Coniah. He would never be able to inherit the throne through him. Thus it would be absolutely necessary for him to come through the genealogy of Mary, and only Mary who conceived him through the Holy Spirit, not through Joseph. The virgin birth therefore was an absolute necessity to remove him from this curse in this genealogy.

If Mary had not been a virgin, nobody would believe Jesus was born of God.

The Jews didn't believe it anyway. What did they say?
Sneeringly they accused Jesus:

Ye do the deeds of your father. Then said they to him, We be not born of fornication; we have one Father, even God. (John 8:41)
--They refused to believe the virgin birth, and thus the deity of Christ.

Jesus had the ability to be tempted just like us, you cannot deny that. He could not have inherited this ability from his Father, as his Father does not have the ability to be tempted. The Catholics figured this out, and so had to invent the false doctrine of Immaculate Conception to say Mary was born without Original Sin. One false unscriptural doctrine leads to another.

This is false reasoning. You limit God and your logic is totally false.
Christ "took upon himself the form of a man." He came in a human body.

But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law, (Galatians 4:4)
--His nature was just like man's nature but without sin, for he did not inherit the sin nature of man. He could be tempted as man was tempted just as he got tired, hungered, thirsted, and experienced other emotions. Al the tomb of Lazarus, he wept. He showed human emotion because he was a man. He was fully man and fully God at the same time. However, he chose not to demonstrate his divine attributes except at certain times to show to others that he was God.

The Catholics figured nothing out but a wild speculative and sinful imagination. Don't follow in their footsteps.
The virgin birth was necessary to avoid inheriting a sin nature. The fact that you don't believe man is born with a sin nature colors your theology at this point.

 

[Winman]

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

 

[JesusFan]

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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!

 

[Winman]

snip...

Also HAD to be 100 % God in order for His Death to be able to atone for ANY other than Himself( HE Did NOT atone for Himself, being without Sin, but if NOT 100 % God also that would have meant that His death would NOT atone for any one else!)

That is not what the scriptures say.

Jn 11:49 And one of them, named Caiaphas, being the high priest that same year, said unto them, Ye know nothing at all,
50 Nor consider that it is expedient for us, that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation perish not.
51 And this spake he not of himself: but being high priest that year, he prophesied that Jesus should die for that nation;
52 And not for that nation only, but that also he should gather together in one the children of God that were scattered abroad.

Caiaphas was speaking under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit here, he PROPHESIED.

Did the Spirit say God had to die for the people? No, he said ONE MAN.

Only an unblemished and pure man could atone for the sin of man. This is why Jesus came in the flesh.

When the Jews took a lamb from the flock for a sin offering, it had to be without blemish, representing the sinlessness of Christ. Yet, it was a normal sheep in every other way, it was not a DIVINE sheep.

A man has to die for man's sin, not God.

 

[JesusFan]

That is not what the scriptures say.

Jn 11:49 And one of them, named Caiaphas, being the high priest that same year, said unto them, Ye know nothing at all,
50 Nor consider that it is expedient for us, that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation perish not.
51 And this spake he not of himself: but being high priest that year, he prophesied that Jesus should die for that nation;
52 And not for that nation only, but that also he should gather together in one the children of God that were scattered abroad.

Caiaphas was speaking under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit here, he PROPHESIED.

Did the Spirit say God had to die for the people? No, he said ONE MAN.

Only an unblemished and pure man could atone for the sin of man. This is why Jesus came in the flesh.

When the Jews took a lamb from the flock for a sin offering, it had to be without blemish, representing the sinlessness of Christ. Yet, it was a normal sheep in every other way, it was not a DIVINE sheep.

A man has to die for man's sin, not God.

IF Jesus was not God upon the Cross dying as a man, than His blood and death would NOT be able to atone for sins of ALL of the elect of God, as ONLY blood of GOD/MAN himself could do that!!

Fopr a period of time, the second person of the truine God, God the Son, actually tasted REAL DEATH on our behalf on the Cross!