Consider Jack and Joe - who is worse?

[convicted1]

Jesus Christ was fully God and fully man.

Colossians 2:9. For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.

Now you tell me who was tempted since Scripture tells us God can not be tempted?

Well, why does water look blue in a lake/pond, and in a glass, it's clear?


Jesus was God manifested in the flesh. He made Himself a little lower than the angels. Do you agree with this?

Jesus, in His Spiritual form in heaven, could not die, seeing He was/is sinless. He took upon Himself the seed of Abraham, in that He came through Isaac's lineage. He could not be nailed to the cross unless He took upon a "fleshly frame", and then was made in the likeness of sinful flesh. He became sin for us, when the sin of the world was placed upon Him, and His Father had to forsake Him for a short time. This is the cup that He dreaded drinking.

 

[DiamondLady]

So we need not be concerned with sound doctrine, or discipleship of believers, or church polity or anything except winning the lost? Surely that is not what you mean to say. Surely, you allow room for discussing other topics except evangelism, right? I'm just not sure your point is clear. I think my point was perfectly clear.

I resent the implication that because I enjoy spending a relatively small amount of time on this forum discussing soteriology that I am not 'trying to win loved ones, friends, and even acquaintances.' The truth is that I've devoted my life and career to just that cause. I wasn't necessarily addressing you, personally, but rather the whole endless topic as a whole.

Should I find you shopping, fishing, exercising, watching a movie, playing, or engaging in any other hobbies of life; would it be appropriate for me to presume that you spend all your time doing that to the neglect of evangelism? Of course not. That is how your comment comes across to me.
I did not say that either. If that's the way you took the comment then look at yourself, because that's not at all what I meant.

How sweet. Edify much? wasn't MEANT to be edifying, was merely a picture I saw in my mind's eye as I looked at yet another 15+ page, never ending regurgitated discussion of this topic.

If you really believe that then why are you hear talking to me? And I best not see you enjoying any hobbies. Stop reading this forum and get to work! Another soul just slipped into hell because you stopped to rebuke me. How dare you.

How does that feel? I'm amused because that's not what the comments meant at all, and you know it.

What does shopping, catching a fish or riding a bike around block even matter when compared to winning the lost? I'd say a discussion about the doctrines of God's Grace in Salvation ranks much higher than most things Christians spend time doing in this world, wouldn't you? How many tv shows are being watched, websites being surfed, lawns being mowed or windows being washed? Get out there and tell them to stop wasting their time...or better yet, stop wasting yours! I generally do NOT waste my time on these debates, because there's never a winner....only losers. This topic was innane enough for me to comment, and I'm sorry I did because here I am...wasting my time trying to explain myself to someone who obviously has little sense of humor or reason

Good, because it kind of sounds like it....

I average about 2-3 posts a day at 15-20 minutes, discussing the doctrines of how we are saved. Don't you think there may be some bigger fish to fry out there? Go on Facebook and guilt them into winning more lost people for a while. I've got some more chest-puffing, head butting, and snorting to do. :laugh:

Now THAT was funny!

 

[DiamondLady]

I'm going to have to side with IC this time. Depending on the translation it can say all time.

Not in MY Bible... and I only use 1. I know y'all tend to use others, but I stick to the 1.

 

[webdog]

Not in MY Bible... and I only use 1. I know y'all tend to use others, but I stick to the 1.

Thats fine, and I even agree with your implication, just pointing out many translators don't agree on that particular text and I agree.

 

[OldRegular]

Well, why does water look blue in a lake/pond, and in a glass, it's clear?


Jesus was God manifested in the flesh. He made Himself a little lower than the angels. Do you agree with this?

Jesus, in His Spiritual form in heaven, could not die, seeing He was/is sinless. He took upon Himself the seed of Abraham, in that He came through Isaac's lineage. He could not be nailed to the cross unless He took upon a "fleshly frame", and then was made in the likeness of sinful flesh. He became sin for us, when the sin of the world was placed upon Him, and His Father had to forsake Him for a short time. This is the cup that He dreaded drinking.

That doesn't prove that God the Son was tempted with evil. He is God before the Incarnation, He is God during his stay on earth, He is God now and eternally! Scripture says God cannot be tempted with evil!

 

[OldRegular]

And you are absolutely ignoring scripture in Hebrews 2 and 4 that said Jesus took on the nature of the seed of Abraham (not Adam), that he was made like his brethren (the Jews) in all things, that he suffered being tempted, that he could be touched with the feelings of our infirmities, and that he was tempted in all points like as we are, yet without sin.

You can't simply pick and choose which scriptures you like.

That doesn't prove that God the Son was tempted with evil. He is God before the Incarnation, He is God during his stay on earth, He is God now and eternally! Scripture says God cannot be tempted with evil!

 

[Skandelon]

Nope, pretty sure I've got it exactly correct Icon. It doesn't say for all TIME it says once for ALL. Think that's about as clear as a statement can get.

Why aren't you out winning the lost instead of wasting your time on this endless, no-winner debate? :applause:

Hi Pot, meet Kettle... :laugh:

 

[Skandelon]

I wasn't necessarily addressing you, personally, but rather the whole endless topic as a whole.

Oh, I wasn't replying to you personally. I was replying generally on behalf of all us time wasting, snorting types who enjoy endlessly discussing soteriology. :wavey:

 

[quantumfaith]

That doesn't prove that God the Son was tempted with evil. He is God before the Incarnation, He is God during his stay on earth, He is God now and eternally! Scripture says God cannot be tempted with evil!

What precisely do we mean by "being tempted"? Do we mean that evil cannot present it wares before Christ, scripture indicates that was the case. Do we mean even though presented with evil options that there was absolutely no way possible that Christ would entertain and follow through with the temptation?

 

[Iconoclast]

Nope, pretty sure I've got it exactly correct Icon. It doesn't say for all TIME it says once for ALL. Think that's about as clear as a statement can get.

Sorry DL,
You do have it wrong.....exactly wrong.....It is speaking about the once for all sacrifice....never to be repeated....as here-

Topic: Once (at; for all)
<1,,530,hapax>
denotes (a) "once, one time," 2 Cor. 11:25; Heb. 9:7,26,27; 12:26,27; in the phrase "once and again," lit., "once and twice," Phil. 4:16; 1 Thess. 2:18; (b) "once for all," of what is of perpetual validity, not requiring repetition, Heb. 6:4; 9:28; 10:2; 1 Pet. 3:18; Jude 1:3, RV, "once for all" (AV, "once"); Jude 1:5 (ditto); in some mss. 1 Pet. 3:20 (so the AV).

<2,,2178,ephapax>
a strengthened form of No. 1 (epi, "upon"), signifies (a) "once for all," Rom. 6:10; Heb. 7:27, RV (AV, "once"); Heb. 9:12 (ditto); 10:10; (b) "at once," 1 Cor. 15:6.


Not only that.....Hebrews 10:14 seals the deal for all who do not think theology is important;

10 By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

11 And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins:

12 But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God;

13 From henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool.

14 For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.


Glad to help:type:

Greek: en o thelemati egiasmenoi (RPPMPN) esmen (1PPAI) dia tes prosphoras tou somatos Iesou CHristou ephapax
Amplified: And in accordance with this will [of God], we have been made holy (consecrated and sanctified) through the offering made once for all of the body of Jesus Christ (the Anointed One). (Amplified Bible - Lockman)
Barclay: It is by this way of “the will” that we have been purified through the once and for all offering of the body of Christ. (Westminster Press)
NLT: And what God wants is for us to be made holy by the sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ once for all time. (NLT - Tyndale House)
Phillips: and in that will we have been made holy by the single unique offering of the body of Christ. (Phillips: Touchstone)
Wuest: by means of which will [God’s will that His Son should be the sacrifice for sin] we stand permanently set apart for God and His service through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. (Eerdmans)
Young's Literal: in the which will we are having been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once,

 

[Bronconagurski]

That doesn't prove that God the Son was tempted with evil. He is God before the Incarnation, He is God during his stay on earth, He is God now and eternally! Scripture says God cannot be tempted with evil!

Agree that God can not be tempted with evil. Dr. Elmer Towns, of whom I do not always agree, said that Jesus was tempted to do what he could do by Satan- turn stones into bread, etc., but that he wasn't tempted to commit adultery, steal, murder, etc. The incarnation is the most disputed doctrine there is in my mind. I don't see how humans can fully understand all there is to know.

 

[Iconoclast]

I'm going to have to side with IC this time. Depending on the translation it can say all time.

:wavey::wavey:...Thank you for being objective Webdog:thumbs:

 

[DiamondLady]

Oh, I wasn't replying to you personally. I was replying generally on behalf of all us time wasting, snorting types who enjoy endlessly discussing soteriology. :wavey:

Now you're just being annoying and lost the funny. THIS is why I rarely spend any time anymore in the debate forum....because no opinions are ever changed and it's a waste of effort...so I'm moving on down the line. Enjoy yourselves. :wavey:

 

[Iconoclast]

Now you're just being annoying and lost the funny. THIS is why I rarely spend any time anymore in the debate forum....because no opinions are ever changed and it's a waste of effort...so I'm moving on down the line. Enjoy yourselves. :wavey:

Coming to truth is not a waste of effort.Learn the truth about Hebrews 10:10 in post 170....it is a great verse to learn the truth about:thumbs:

 

[Winman]

What precisely do we mean by "being tempted"? Do we mean that evil cannot present it wares before Christ, scripture indicates that was the case. Do we mean even though presented with evil options that there was absolutely no way possible that Christ would entertain and follow through with the temptation?

The scriptures say Jesus "suffered" being tempted, and that he could be "touched" with the "feeling" of our infirmities. He literally felt the temptation just like we do, but never sinned. He was not oblivious to the temptation.

Heb 4:15 For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.

When Jesus had been fasting 40 days, he was hungry, he was starving. He desired to eat like any man would. This is why the devil tempted him to turn stones to bread. Jesus could feel this temptation as strong as any man could, but he refused to obey Satan.

The desire to eat originates from within, Jesus's hunger originated within himself from his flesh. Satan simply appealed to this natural desire in an attempt to tempt Jesus. The scriptures say "every man" is tempted when he is drawn away of his "own lust" and enticed. This is exactly how Jesus was tempted.

The Father in heaven can feel no such temptation, he does not get hungry nor need to eat. Jesus inherited his flesh and the ability to be tempted from his mother Mary, not God the Father.

 

[Iconoclast]

Not in MY Bible... and I only use 1. I know y'all tend to use others, but I stick to the 1.

Unless you are reading from a greek text.....your bible does not say what you think it says. Some of the words translated into english....have more detailed meanings in the greek language.

In the english we have the word another....

In the greek there are two words for another.....allos ,or heteros...

One means another of the same kind....the other means another of a different kind. So knowing which word was used can change the understanding of a verse dramatically.
We have very fine translations and can thank God for them.
However we can also thank God that he used the greek language as it is a deeper and more nuanced language to express divine truth for us:wavey:

Some verses require advanced study. :wavey: When someone like archangel posts...read carefully as he is trying to open up some of these fine points.

 

[HeirofSalvation]

Per the OP

No one can reasonably escape the obvious conclusion of the OP....it is so simple...."Jack" is more the non-pitied reprobate deserving of wrath and "Joe" was merely the poor wretched soul God was vicious enough to create in the first place.
It were truly better for poor "Joe" that he were never born. Joe never asked God to make him, Joe never asked God to grant him the "daily graces" that make his misery on Earth palatable, and "Joe" were much better off had God merely left him alone and "passed-over" even creating the poor wretch...than to have made him at all...."Joe" was born irreparably hardened against God, and "Joe" was born irreparably sinful, and "Joe" was born irreparably a child of wrath...The REAL problem for poor "JOE" isn't the Calvinistic twists that he wasn't "willing" to be saved, and therefore he should be blamed...the problem is that the God of Calvinism is vicious and cruel enough to have ever created the poor wretched "Joe" in the first place....GOD were much more merciful to have merely "passed-by" creating poor Joe, than having "passed-by" saving the man. Joe was, in the Calvinistic system, irreparably pre-disposed to sin. Joe was irreparably un-willing (except God make him so via regeneration) to believe in Christ. Joe was given NO option..ZERO, NONE, NADA....whether he simply have never existed, or accept God's "Grace"....God never offered "Joe" grace...and "Joe"....had no ability to accept it, were it offered to him. He had NO choice....

Better the God of Calvinism had never Created poor wretched "Joe" than God created the obstinate toy soldier that he condemned for his crimes.....Crimes, that God has (of his Sovereignty) decreed he commit, and crimes God has (of his Sovereignty) chosen to punish him for. No escape from the obvious...."Joe" has sinned because God has "Sovereignly" decreed he sin...and "Joe" is an object of God's wrath because God made him an object of his wrath...."Joe" was "BORN".. that way, and he has NO CHOICE, or ability to be what he is not, than a robot or puppet can choose to be what they are not. Either God is God, or he is not.... and God chose, to create "Joe" to be a reprobate before he was born with no capacity whatsoever to choose otherwise.....and God will punish "Joe" for having no option other than to "BE" what "Sovereign God" has chosen him to be.

"Jack" deserves his punishment...he has made his choice..."Joe" merely wishes that the "Gracious" god of Calvinism had deferred ever creating him in the first place.

 

[Aaron]

How is that question begging? I didn't presume true a point up for debate.

Of course you did. Your premise depends upon a view of justice based upon that point. Your argument is ever and anon, "Why doth He yet find fault, for who hath resisted His will?"

Paul smacked you down 2000 years ago. :jesus:

 

[Aaron]

No one can reasonably escape . . . blah, blah, blah . . .

See my post above.

 

[Iconoclast]

Of course you did. Your premise depends upon a view of justice based upon that point. Your argument is ever and anon, "Why doth He yet find fault, for who hath resisted His will?"

Paul smacked you down 2000 years ago. :jesus:

:thumbsup::wavey::thumbsup: