How human was Jesus/how much like Jesus are we

[Inspector Javert]

You did not answer my question.
Romans 5:13
(For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.
So if no one, prior to the law, had imputed sin why did they die and why did some go into hell?

The idea behind Romans 1 and 2 is that there IS no such thing as "PRIOR" to the law. All men have the law written on their hearts.
Even heathens have the same basic notions of right and wrong, and always have. It is Universally accepted that murder is a sin ditto theft, infidelity bearing false witness etc....

Men did not need the Mosaic law to have a basic understanding of right from wrong. That is what Paul is teaching in Romans 1 and 2......That no such scenario exists as someone who is altogether WITHOUT law. This is why Paul harps specifically on judges and teachers.

Rom 2:1
Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same things.

Rom 2:3
And thinkest thou this, O man, that judgest them which do such things, and doest the same, that thou shalt escape the judgment of God?

Rom 2:14
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:
Rom 2:15
Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts,

There is a reason that there are striking similarities between the code of Hammurabi and the Mosaic Law..............
It's because ALL MEN have the law. And it is a law sufficient enough to condemn them. There is no such thing as "BEFORE" law. Only before the Mosaic Law.
"Thou shalt not kill"
and
"Thou shalt not commit adultery" weren't exactly ground-breaking principles.....
They were reiterations of Universally held principles.

 

[Judith]

The idea behind Romans 1 and 2 is that there IS no such thing as "PRIOR" to the law.

The passage does not say that. It says that though they sin their sins are not imputed to them. If the original sin is not true then how are these people sent to hell?

 

[Inspector Javert]

The passage does not say that. It says that though they sin their sins are not imputed to them. If the original sin is not true then how are these people sent to hell?

NO....it says sins aren't imputed if there is no law.

But.............
There IS LAW.

Romans chapters 1 and 2 clearly explain that they have the law and are therefore guilty of breaking it.

They KNOW THE LAW...................THEY BROKE IT.

There is no scenario wherein the law does not obtain.
That is the point Paul is making in Romans. When Paul speaks of a scenario "without the law", he speaks of a scenario which does not exist.

If I said: "In a perfect World, no one would ever have to eat liver" I am not suggesting that such a scenario exists....only what a perfect world would look like.

Paul tells us that without law, no man would be condemned, but he clearly already told us in chapters 1 and 2 that there are no persons who do not have the law.

 

[Judith]

NO....it says sins aren't imputed if there is no law.

But.............
There IS LAW.

Romans chapters 1 and 2 clearly explain that they have the law and are therefore guilty of breaking it.

They KNOW THE LAW...................THEY BROKE IT.

There is no scenario wherein the law does not obtain.
That is the point Paul is making in Romans. When Paul speaks of a scenario "without the law", he speaks of a scenario which does not exist.

If I said: "In a perfect World, no one would ever have to eat liver" I am not suggesting that such a scenario exists....only what a perfect world would look like.

Paul tells us that without law, no man would be condemned, but he clearly already told us in chapters 1 and 2 that there are no persons who do not have the law.

That is not what I read.

 

[Inspector Javert]

That is not what I read.

In Romans 1 and 2?

Do you believe that Romans 1 and 2 tell us that all men have the Law of God written upon:
1.) Their hearts
2.) The creation
3.) Their conscience
4.) The former intentionally forgotten knowledge of God
Do you not think that is so?

If not, what do you believe Paul is saying there?

 

[Yeshua1]

I agree with you Judith that all sin is a choice.

That said, I think a good analogy is baseball. Is it possible for a batter to get a hit every single time he comes to bat? YES. It is POSSIBLE, but it is not likely or probable.

Likewise, it is always possible for us to obey God's commandments. We do not have to lie, we do not have to steal, etc... It is POSSIBLE for us always to do right. But just like baseball, it is not probable.

In baseball, the odds are completely against getting a hit every time you come to bat. You have the pitcher, who can really throw, and he is sending difficult pitches your way. Also, being human, it is nearly impossible to always judge the ball perfectly, or swing perfectly.

You also have the other team out there. You can really smash the ball sometimes, but the other team can make a great catch and rob you.

Likewise, we are born in a sinful world that is throwing tough temptations at us night and day. Just like baseball, our judgment is not always perfect or our reaction. And sometimes you take a pitch and it is called strike and you strike out.

This may all sound silly, but I believe it is a very accurate analogy. We could always choose to do the right thing and not sin, but we have a lot of strong temptation competing against us, and we are weak and human. So, it is almost impossible for a person to never sin.

That said, on a single incident basis, a person NEVER has to sin.

Jesus was born in our likeness, NOT sameness, as he is God and perfect Humanity, NO sin nature, so he was and is like us as once had physical body just as we all have, faced same thoughts and desires as we all do, yet was/is sinless/perfect, and NOT because he chose not to ever sin, but due to Him being the unique/only begotten God of very God!

And NNE who ever has lived can be perfect as he was/is, as our natures will never allow for that to happen!

 

[Winman]

Jacob and Esau had not come out of the womb and committed any good works.....or any sin.Both were considered as fallen in Adam when God elected Jacob. Paul had already established this.rom3. Rom5....You misunderstand as is the norm ......it will not stop you anyway....you will cut and paste the same verses over and over....

Your view has Paul directly contradicting his own self. You claim that Paul is teaching that ALL MEN sinned "in Adam" in the garden as we were all present in his loins. You claim the Greek says all men sinned this one single time in Romans 3:23 and Romans 5:12. You have made this argument many times.

But then Paul would directly contradict his own self when he said Esau and Jacob had done no evil in their mother's womb in Romans 9:11.

Romans 9:11 absolutely refutes your false interpretation of Rom 3:23 and Rom 5:12. Paul was not teaching we all sinned "in Adam" in these verses or else he could not say Esau and Jacob had done no evil.

Busted. :wavey:

 

[Winman]

Jesus was born in our likeness, NOT sameness, as he is God and perfect Humanity, NO sin nature, so he was and is like us as once had physical body just as we all have, faced same thoughts and desires as we all do, yet was/is sinless/perfect, and NOT because he chose not to ever sin, but due to Him being the unique/only begotten God of very God!

And NNE who ever has lived can be perfect as he was/is, as our natures will never allow for that to happen!

No, Jesus came in THE SAME flesh and blood. It is the flesh that everyone considers the seat of evil.

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;
15 And deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage.
16 For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham.
17 Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people.
18 For in that he himself hath suffered being tempted, he is able to succour them that are tempted.

Jesus did not take on a "likeness" of our flesh, he took on THE SAME.

Jesus did not take on the nature of Adam as many falsely teach, he took on the nature of the seed of Abraham who was born after "the fall"

Jesus was make like his brethren the Jews IN ALL THINGS.

To deny that Jesus came in the flesh and was completely human like us is the spirit of antichrist.

1 Jhn 4:1 Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.
2 Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:
3 And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.

Try the spirits folks and see what people teach about Jesus coming in the flesh. Then you will know who is of God and who isn't. :thumbs:

 

[Iconoclast]

you were just being obtuse very clear to text saying they didn't do any good works they didn't do any bad works of their own like that's what it's talking about it wasn't like one guy was a good guy and one guy was a bad guy then God chose them before they leave out of the womb that doesn't mean that Adam Sin was not imputed to them

 

[Winman]

you were just being obtuse very clear to text saying they didn't do any good works they didn't do any bad works of their own like that's what it's talking about it wasn't like one guy was a good guy and one guy was a bad guy then God chose them before they leave out of the womb that doesn't mean that Adam Sin was not imputed to them

I am quite aware that God's election was not based on works, but his "calling" which always applies to faith. Jacob had faith and desired the birthright, Esau did not have regard for his birthright and sold it. God in his foreknowledge knew what Jacob and Esau would do before they were born.

Nevertheless, Romans 9:11 very clearly and plainly tells us that Jacob and Esau had done no evil while they were still in their mother's womb. This absolutely refutes your view that Paul taught all men sinned "in Adam" in Romans 3:23 and 5:12.

If Jacob and Esau sinned "in Adam" while in his loins before they were even conceived, then Paul could not say they had done no evil in Romans 9:11.

Original Sin is false doctrine. And your interpretation of Romans 3:23 and 5:12 is proved complete error.

 

[Iconoclast]

And your interpretation of Romans 3:23 and 5:12 is proved complete error.

You cannot change what the text actually says and teachs.When you do it shows you as rebellious against God and His word.

 

[Winman]

You cannot change what the text actually says and teachs.When you do it shows you as rebellious against God and His word.

Do you really believe folks fall for an argument like this?

Just saying you are right does not make it so. You need to present evidence. I have just shown evidence that Romans 9:11 refutes your view of Romans 3:23 and Romans 5:12. These verses cannot possibly be saying all persons sinned at one time with Adam in the garden, because Romans 9:11 says Jacob and Esau had done no evil. They did not sin with Adam in the garden.

That is called evidence, and it is evidence from the scriptures.

You on the other hand have NOTHING.

 

[Iconoclast]

Winman

. You need to present evidence. I have just shown evidence that Romans 9:11 refutes your view of Romans 3:23 and Romans 5:12. These verses cannot possibly be saying all persons sinned at one time with Adam in the garden, because Romans 9:11 says Jacob and Esau had done no evil. They did not sin with Adam in the garden.

That is called evidence, and it is evidence from the scriptures.

You on the other hand have NOTHING.

[/QUOTE]

Here is what is says in contrast to your nonsense"

8 The use of the aor. in both Romans passages, in their given context, point to an event, i.e., mankind did not simply inherit a sinful nature or tendency from Adam—“all have sinned,” thus referring to personal experience and activity, but “all sinned” in an event, a point in time (Rom. 3:23, pa,ntej ga.r h[marton kai. u`sterou/ntai th/j do,xhj tou/ qeou/. “For all sinned and are subsequently constantly coming short…” Rom. 5:12, …diV e`no.j avnqrw,pou h` a`marti,a eivj to.n ko,smon…evfV w-| pa,ntej h[marton. “by one man sin entered into the world…for all sinned.”). Every human being is a sinner by imputation, nature and personal activity.

 

[percho]

Do you really believe folks fall for an argument like this?

Just saying you are right does not make it so. You need to present evidence. I have just shown evidence that Romans 9:11 refutes your view of Romans 3:23 and Romans 5:12. These verses cannot possibly be saying all persons sinned at one time with Adam in the garden, because Romans 9:11 says Jacob and Esau had done no evil. They did not sin with Adam in the garden.

That is called evidence, and it is evidence from the scriptures.

You on the other hand have NOTHING.

For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; Rom 3:23

What is the glory of God they were short thereof?

Does that verse hold water?

Why did Adam sin?
Why have all, each and every one, sans one, sinned after him?

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. Romans 5:14

In what manner was Adam the figure?

Here is what I believe to be the figure of Adam that was to be of him to come. Thou made (created) him a little lower than the angels.

Why? The answer is given for the Christ and the same answer holds for the first man Adam, the living soul.

What had to happen to bring forth why man was created a little lower than the angels in order that him to come, in his figure, could suffer the same, yet be without sin?

Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world. Acts 15:18

Jesus the Christ, the Son of the Living God had, to be born of the woman taken from the man, created in the image of his creator, for the purpose of God his Father.

Rabbit trail.

I Am that I Am, Ehyeh asher ehyeh literally translates as "I Will Be What I Will Be".

God had a purpose before he said Let there be light. That purpose would require a Son subject to death. A Son without sin yet be subject to something God himself could not be subject to because Spirit the God is Life. To Be. Glory. Love. I Am.

Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD: Deut 6:4 The Father God told Moses; Ehyeh asher ehyeh literally translates as "I Will Be What I Will Be",
And Jesus of Nazareth, the Son of the Living God, stated, "I Am."

Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us. Matt 1:23

Jesus was as human as human can be and he was the Son of the Living God and was, God with us, as the Son of God.

 

[Winman]

Winman

Here is what is says in contrast to your nonsense"

8 The use of the aor. in both Romans passages, in their given context, point to an event, i.e., mankind did not simply inherit a sinful nature or tendency from Adam—“all have sinned,” thus referring to personal experience and activity, but “all sinned” in an event, a point in time (Rom. 3:23, pa,ntej ga.r h[marton kai. u`sterou/ntai th/j do,xhj tou/ qeou/. “For all sinned and are subsequently constantly coming short…” Rom. 5:12, …diV e`no.j avnqrw,pou h` a`marti,a eivj to.n ko,smon…evfV w-| pa,ntej h[marton. “by one man sin entered into the world…for all sinned.”). Every human being is a sinner by imputation, nature and personal activity.

You do not know Greek, so you have no idea if that is correct or not. And Greek scholars often disagree, so this proves absolutely NOTHING.

In contrast, Romans 9:11 directly tells us that Jacob and Esau had done no evil at the time they were in their mother's womb. This utterly refutes that they sinned with Adam in the garden as you falsely teach.

You can't go around saying that Paul taught that everyone sinned with Adam in the garden, and then believe that Paul somehow completely forgets this and says Jacob and Esau had done no evil a few chapters later. That would be Paul directly contradicting himself.

Scripture cannot contradict itself, therefore your interpretation of Romans 3:23 and 5:12 MUST be error. :wavey:

 

[Winman]

See, here is a scholar that disagrees with your scholar;

Joseph A. Fitzmeyer writes:

The vb. hemarton should not be understood as "have sinned collectively" or as "have sinned in Adam," because they would be additions to Paul's text. The vb. refers to personal, actual sins of individual human beings, as Pauline usage elsewhere suggests (2:12; 3:23; 5:14,16; 1 Cor. 6:18; 7:28, 36; 8:12; 15:34), as the context demands (vv 16, 20), and as Greek Fathers understood it.3

http://www.auburn.edu/~allenkc/openhse/original.html

Please note that Romans 3:23 is included in this list of verses. This scholar says this verb should not be understood as having sinned collectively or "in Adam".

So, your copy and paste proves nothing, while Romans 9:11 refutes your interpretation of Romans 3:23 and 5:12.

 

[Winman]

For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; Rom 3:23

Correct.

What is the glory of God they were short thereof?

Perfect sinlessness.

Does that verse hold water?

Yes.

Why did Adam sin?

Because he chose to.

Why have all, each and every one, sans one, sinned after him?

Because we chose to.

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. Romans 5:14

Correct, these persons DID NOT sin with Adam in the garden, they DID NOT sin a sin like his.

In what manner was Adam the figure?

He was the first to sin, which brought death, Jesus was the first to be sinless, which brought life.

Here is what I believe to be the figure of Adam that was to be of him to come. Thou made (created) him a little lower than the angels.

This is when Jesus became flesh and lived as a man.

Why? The answer is given for the Christ and the same answer holds for the first man Adam, the living soul.

He came to succeed where Adam failed. He came to redeem man from sin.

What had to happen to bring forth why man was created a little lower than the angels in order that him to come, in his figure, could suffer the same, yet be without sin?

He had to become flesh and live as a man.

Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world. Acts 15:18

Yes, but not really quite relevant to the conversation here.

Jesus the Christ, the Son of the Living God had, to be born of the woman taken from the man, created in the image of his creator, for the purpose of God his Father.

To redeem man, he had to become a man.

Rabbit trail.

I Am that I Am, Ehyeh asher ehyeh literally translates as "I Will Be What I Will Be".

OK, you are starting to drift off here.

God had a purpose before he said Let there be light. That purpose would require a Son subject to death. A Son without sin yet be subject to something God himself could not be subject to because Spirit the God is Life. To Be. Glory. Love. I Am.

God in his foreknowledge knew man would sin, and so God determined to save man through his Son Jesus Christ.

Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD: Deut 6:4 The Father God told Moses; Ehyeh asher ehyeh literally translates as "I Will Be What I Will Be",
And Jesus of Nazareth, the Son of the Living God, stated, "I Am."

Yes, Jesus IS God.

Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us. Matt 1:23

Jesus was as human as human can be and he was the Son of the Living God and was, God with us, as the Son of God.

Agreed.

Now what point are you trying to make?

 

[Iconoclast]

Winman

See, here is a scholar that disagrees with your scholar;

:laugh: This guy does not comment on the tense of the verb...he is clueless.The man I quoted teaches the language.
Listen I do not care if you remain in unbelief...as you keep quoting from any anti-cal source you can find, because these clowns are lame. They quoted from Finney as a source: laugh: Good find Winman...

No...my posts stand as written...romans 3:23 stands as written in all sinned at one point in time{the fall}...you can remain in your unbelief.

Please note that Romans 3:23 is included in this list of verses. This scholar says this verb should not be understood as having sinned collectively or "in Adam".

He has no idea what he is talking about...maybe that is why you like him:laugh:
Continue on in unbelief and see where it gets you:thumbs:

8 The use of the aor. in both Romans passages, in their given context, point to an event, i.e., mankind did not simply inherit a sinful nature or tendency from Adam—“all have sinned,” thus referring to personal experience and activity, but “all sinned” in an event, a point in time (Rom. 3:23, pa,ntej ga.r h[marton kai. u`sterou/ntai th/j do,xhj tou/ qeou/. “For all sinned and are subsequently constantly coming short…” Rom. 5:12, …diV e`no.j avnqrw,pou h` a`marti,a eivj to.n ko,smon…evfV w-| pa,ntej h[marton. “by one man sin entered into the world…for all sinned.”). Every human being is a sinner by imputation, nature and personal activity.

 

[Winman]

Winman

:laugh: This guy does not comment on the tense of the verb...he is clueless.The man I quoted teaches the language.
Listen I do not care if you remain in unbelief...as you keep quoting from any anti-cal source you can find, because these clowns are lame. They quoted from Finney as a source: laugh: Good find Winman...

No...my posts stand as written...romans 3:23 stands as written in all sinned at one point in time{the fall}...you can remain in your unbelief.

That article was from Auburn University, I assure you they have a clue. Whether the author was pro or anti Calvinist I do not know and do not care, my point was that Greek scholars often disagree, so copying and pasting someone who interprets a Reformed view does not prove anything.

The fact is, Romans 9:11 refutes your interpretation of Romans 3:23 and 5:12. These verses cannot possibly be saying all men sinned "in Adam" or else Paul could not say that Jacob and Esau had done no evil in their mother's womb. It is that simple.

He has no idea what he is talking about...maybe that is why you like him:laugh:
Continue on in unbelief and see where it gets you:thumbs:

You have no idea what that author knows. I do see he has written many books on Christian subjects, so he is a scholar.

8 The use of the aor. in both Romans passages, in their given context, point to an event, i.e., mankind did not simply inherit a sinful nature or tendency from Adam—“all have sinned,” thus referring to personal experience and activity, but “all sinned” in an event, a point in time (Rom. 3:23, pa,ntej ga.r h[marton kai. u`sterou/ntai th/j do,xhj tou/ qeou/. “For all sinned and are subsequently constantly coming short…” Rom. 5:12, …diV e`no.j avnqrw,pou h` a`marti,a eivj to.n ko,smon…evfV w-| pa,ntej h[marton. “by one man sin entered into the world…for all sinned.”). Every human being is a sinner by imputation, nature and personal activity.

You have no idea if this is true, you do not know Greek or the rules of Greek grammar, and as I have said several times, Greek scholars OFTEN disagree on interpretation of scripture, so your paste and copy proves nothing.

You want to ignore that Romans 9:11 refutes your view, but ignoring a problem does not make it go away.

 

[Iconoclast]

Because you cannot read with any comprehension, and seek to discredit truth does not change the teaching.