The Word became Flesh and dwelt among us ( Jn 1:14)

[DHK]

You are demonstrating your excellent Talent ! which is typical to CREATE the Heresies by your own condemnation ! How many times have you said that? and how long will you continue to exercise such excellent talent?

Are you upset because I made this statement:

" Your conclusion seems to imply that Jesus was not virgin born but rather virgin created. That, of course would be a heresy, for Christ is not and was not a created being."

If you don't agree with it say so. Do you, as the J.W.'s and Mormons' believe that Christ is a created being? Do you believe that it is a heresy to believe that Christ is a created being? Is there anything wrong, then, in what I said. If not, what are you upset about?

OTOH, if that is not what you believe, just clear up the facts on what you do believe. Make it simple and easy to believe. No need to present an angry post.

You brain could not fathom that God can create another flesh for the second Adam. If God created another flesh for the second Adam, then He becomes a Heretic as well?

One has to think of the prophecies that need fulfilling in the OT. Can God do as you say, and still be true to His Word? God said in Isaiah 7:14 that a virgin would conceive and bring forth a son. He never promised that He would create.

Should God create the universe only once?

Answer the question for yourself. The answer is found in His Word. What has he promised? He will not break His Word.

What will you do to God if He created a new flesh inside the womb of Mary? Will you try to kill Him? or condemn Him as a Heretics?

The Bible says:
"By thy words thou shalt be justified and by thy words thou shalt be condemned."
Why are you speaking foolishly? God acts according to His Word, and according to His nature.

What about the flesh that God wore when He visited Abraham in Genesis? Didn't the flesh exist at all but a delusion only? Was the Flesh created or brought from the invisible Heaven? Why is it OK if you disagree with the creation of new flesh ?

That is apples and oranges. How did Elijah and Moses appear on the Mount of Transfiguration when the resurrection has not even taken place yet. There are many examples of angels temporarily taking on flesh. And some of those examples are Christophanies and theophanies as well. But the flesh was not the same, was it? It was that type of flesh that could walk in a furnace heated seven times hotter than normal and not be hurt. It was that type of flesh that appeared and disappeared at will. Have you that power? They took upon flesh, much like a glorified body has. It was not the same human flesh as ours, or as Jesus later took upon himself.

Did the Virgin create the Flesh? Did I say so? You are manufacturing false accusations !

No, I said you implied it. It sounds like it. So if you don't believe that, make it clear what you do believe.

You can call my thoughts a Heresy any time. Then I would remember you as a Heresy Manufacturer because often from your brain Heresy comes out !

I stated that if you believe Christ is a created being, then that is a heresy. Do you agree? Or do you believe in the heresy that Christ is a created being? All you have to do is make yourself clear and set the record straight. No need to get upset.

Sins are not inherited thru women but only thru males, Isn't that a Heresy? Of course you may deny it.

No, it is not a heresy; it is a truth. Here is what the Bible says:

Romans 5:12 Therefore, as sin entered into the world through one man, and death through sin; and so death passed to all men, because all sinned.
Sin, and likewise death, came through Adam. The Bible is very clear on this point. Read all the verses from 12 to 19 and you will see that it is impossible for Adam here to refer to mankind. He is compared to the second Adam who is not mankind.

I have never met any heretics who admit they are heretics, and therefore we should leave that judgment to the Lord who is the Great Judge eventually.

Now you are turning to personal attacks which are not necessary.

What you can do is that you point out the contradiction with the Bible verses if God created another flesh for Jesus. Could you find any problem or contradiction like that? Seed of Woman, Genealogy is an issue but it is still satisfied by the Surrogacy.

I have already done that.

 

[Eliyahu]

Are you upset because I made this statement:

" Your conclusion seems to imply that Jesus was not virgin born but rather virgin created. That, of course would be a heresy, for Christ is not and was not a created being."

If you don't agree with it say so. Do you, as the J.W.'s and Mormons' believe that Christ is a created being? Do you believe that it is a heresy to believe that Christ is a created being? Is there anything wrong, then, in what I said. If not, what are you upset about?

Don't you know I am so-called PB's ? Do you believe that God created the world? How are you different from Roman Catholics who claim that the Mary is the Biological Mother of Jesus and Mary was sinless? Do you really believe in God who can create another human if He wants? Please answer my questions first, then you will find the answer!

OTOH, if that is not what you believe, just clear up the facts on what you do believe. Make it simple and easy to believe. No need to present an angry post.

Answer my queastions then you will find the answer automatically.

One has to think of the prophecies that need fulfilling in the OT. Can God do as you say, and still be true to His Word? God said in Isaiah 7:14 that a virgin would conceive and bring forth a son. He never promised that He would create.

Didn't I answer you on this? If the virgin give birth to a surrogate son, then is it not fulfilling the prophecy that the virgin bring forth a Son?

The Main problem is that your brain cannot fathom that God can still send His Son in the human flesh while He prepare the body for Himself ( Heb 10:5-) and let Him come out of the virgin. What is wrong with that scenario?

Is the Heb writer a JW? does He say that God created Son ?
Heb 10
5 Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me: 6 In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin thou hast had no pleasure.

Answer the question for yourself. The answer is found in His Word. What has he promised? He will not break His Word.
The Bible says:
"By thy words thou shalt be justified and by thy words thou shalt be condemned."
Why are you speaking foolishly? God acts according to His Word, and according to His nature.

Please stop your childish accusations. You already uttered the childish accusations, then you are claiming " speak the words, why are you speaking foolishly?" etc.

That is apples and oranges. How did Elijah and Moses appear on the Mount of Transfiguration when the resurrection has not even taken place yet. There are many examples of angels temporarily taking on flesh. And some of those examples are Christophanies and theophanies as well. But the flesh was not the same, was it? It was that type of flesh that could walk in a furnace heated seven times hotter than normal and not be hurt. It was that type of flesh that appeared and disappeared at will. Have you that power? They took upon flesh, much like a glorified body has. It was not the same human flesh as ours, or as Jesus later took upon himself.

Didn't I tell you that there are many different types of fleshes referring to 1 Cor 15?

No, I said you implied it. It sounds like it. So if you don't believe that, make it clear what you do believe.

I stated that if you believe Christ is a created being, then that is a heresy.

Do you agree? Or do you believe in the heresy that Christ is a created being? All you have to do is make yourself clear and set the record straight. No need to get upset.

No, it is not a heresy; it is a truth. Here is what the Bible says:

Yes, It is absolutely a Heresy denying Romans 3.

Romans 5:12 Therefore, as sin entered into the world through one man, and death through sin; and so death passed to all men, because all sinned.

Only the foolish people cannot understand when I repeatedly explained that Romans 5: 12- doesn't mean that only thru the males, the sins are inherited or transmitted because Anthropow means the human beings,not the males only. That is the typical problem with the Greek illiterates.

Sin, and likewise death, came through Adam. The Bible is very clear on this point. Read all the verses from 12 to 19 and you will see that it is impossible for Adam here to refer to mankind. He is compared to the second Adam who is not mankind.
Now you are turning to personal attacks which are not necessary.
I have already done that.

Your theology is based on the absolute ignorance of what Anthropow means and therefore ignore that the sperms and eggs are equally responsible for the genetics of the next generations. I asked you the question whether Eve was a sinner after she picked up the Fruit until Adam picked up the one for him, then you never answered.

Are you still saying Women are not carrying the sins forward to the next generation?

(Edited to remove numerous personal attacks.)

Please abide by the posting rules you agreed to when you joined.

We do not call another member a heretic.

If you have a problem with another poster...take it private, please.

Further personal attacks will not be tolerated.

Thank you,
§ue
Administrator

 

[Eliyahu]

Dear DHK and Administrator,

I am not too much ashamed to apologize for my excessive statements.
Certainly there were some excessive statements which were more than what the Respondent deserved. For that I would like to apologize to DHK and Administrator and all others.

For this type of disagreements we do not need any lengthy excuses or clarifications but as the issues are outstanding and I would not post any more, please allow me to drop few words more.

I usually do not make any personal attacks first unless I am attacked first.
I was quite often criticized as a Cult, Cult, Heresy, or like JW etc, and it prompted me to give a stronger and more impressive denial to that.

As for my belief on the Deity of Jesus Christ, I have been a strong defender for Johanine Comma of 1 John 5:7 and you can confirm this if you check the previous threads in Bible Translation/Version Thread regarding Johnine Comma and you will find I was the strong defender for the COMMA more than anyone else there. I believe that Trinity is better expressed nowhere in the Bible than in Johnine Comma.

Moreover, even recently on the thread of Mariolatry, I strongly objected to the Theotokos, Mother of God theory. At that time I expressed my belief that Jesus Christ is God the Creator, and Mary was the mother of Jesus but she cannot be called the Mother of God since she was not the Mother of God the Father nor of God the Holy Spirit, nor gave the divine nature to the God the Son Jesus Christ.

To such a person as me believing the deity of Jesus, condemnation as the cult or JW or as person believing Jesus as a creature was a grievous libel and ad hominem. I can still believe that Jesus Christ was not created while I believe that He was enfleshed by God when He came into this world as we read Heb 10:5. I never denied the Virgin Birth either, never claimed the Virgin created Jesus either.

When I mentioned the flesh of Jesus could have been created from another dust, it was based on Heb 10:5 and I am sure it doesn't jeopardize the Deity of Jesus equally as the theory that the Egg of Mary was used, does not either. The Almighty God, the Creator could have the created flesh by His own and if the Egg of Mary was used to become the flesh of Jesus, the ovum of Mary was the creature as well, and her ovum was created by Jesus too. So, the Creator can have a created human flesh.

The more possibility would have been that Jesus Christ appeared in human flesh many times during OT times and therefore His flesh could have been evolved from the Word of Life ( Jn 1:3) and the flesh of Jesus could have been minimized to become the Human Embryo and the embryo was born into the womb of Mary ( Mt 1:20). The flesh of Jesus would have been free from sins which He offered to God as the sinless sacrifice at the Cross.

If the Egg of Mary was used for the flesh of Jesus, it contradicts Jn 1:14 Word became Flesh as the Egg was not the Word. Moreover the sinful nature of Egg of Mary could not form the sinless flesh of Jesus as the Egg is a part of flesh. I have pointed out this problem all the time.

These thoughts above will still satisfy the prophecy that the Messiah would come as the descendant of Woman or from the seed of Abraham as the sons of the surrogate mothers are still called the sons or children.

I am not very different from you all and never denied the deity of Jesus nor claimed that Jesus was created, but that the flesh of Jesus could have been created as the Egg of Mary was created too. Even that is one of the plausible scenarios, less likely than that the Flesh came from the Word Himself ( Jn 1:14).

This was my thought and reasoning. I have been with DHK on so many issues and have acknowledged him as a truly born again believer as the same as many other posters on this thread though they disagreed with me greatly on many issues. I hope DHK and Administrator accept my apology and hope DHK will do a good job continuously on this site.

However, this event has just relieved me from spending too much time on the arguments and debates without success and therefore I am quite happy to leave here, in the Lord Jesus Christ. May God bless you all.

 

[DHK]

Dear DHK and Administrator,

I am not too much ashamed to apologize for my excessive statements.
Certainly there were some excessive statements which were more than what the Respondent deserved. For that I would like to apologize to DHK and Administrator and all others.

For this type of disagreements we do not need any lengthy excuses or clarifications but as the issues are outstanding and I would not post any more, please allow me to drop few words more.

I usually do not make any personal attacks first unless I am attacked first.
I was quite often criticized as a Cult, Cult, Heresy, or like JW etc, and it prompted me to give a stronger and more impressive denial to that.

As for my belief on the Deity of Jesus Christ, I have been a strong defender for Johanine Comma of 1 John 5:7 and you can confirm this if you check the previous threads in Bible Translation/Version Thread regarding Johnine Comma and you will find I was the strong defender for the COMMA more than anyone else there. I believe that Trinity is better expressed nowhere in the Bible than in Johnine Comma.

Moreover, even recently on the thread of Mariolatry, I strongly objected to the Theotokos, Mother of God theory. At that time I expressed my belief that Jesus Christ is God the Creator, and Mary was the mother of Jesus but she cannot be called the Mother of God since she was not the Mother of God the Father nor of God the Holy Spirit, nor gave the divine nature to the God the Son Jesus Christ.

To such a person as me believing the deity of Jesus, condemnation as the cult or JW or as person believing Jesus as a creature was a grievous libel and ad hominem. I can still believe that Jesus Christ was not created while I believe that He was enfleshed by God when He came into this world as we read Heb 10:5. I never denied the Virgin Birth either, never claimed the Virgin created Jesus either.

When I mentioned the flesh of Jesus could have been created from another dust, it was based on Heb 10:5 and I am sure it doesn't jeopardize the Deity of Jesus equally as the theory that the Egg of Mary was used, does not either. The Almighty God, the Creator could have the created flesh by His own and if the Egg of Mary was used to become the flesh of Jesus, the ovum of Mary was the creature as well, and her ovum was created by Jesus too. So, the Creator can have a created human flesh.

I accept your apology. I ask you not to conside leaving. At this point in our conversation I asked you to clarify your position as to whether or not you believed Christ was a Christ was a created being. I stated by what you had said one could infer as much. So I wanted clarification. At that point you became upset. The statement in regards to Christ "so the Creator can have a created human flesh," still bothers me to some extent.
You see, even in his flesh he wasn't created. There is a big difference between created and born. Mary produced an egg. That is not creation. It is a natural process of the human body. Christ was born of a virgin fulfilling OT prophecy. There was no creation involved, not even of the body. Therein lies my objection.

The more possibility would have been that Jesus Christ appeared in human flesh many times during OT times and therefore His flesh could have been evolved from the Word of Life ( Jn 1:3) and the flesh of Jesus could have been minimized to become the Human Embryo and the embryo was born into the womb of Mary ( Mt 1:20). The flesh of Jesus would have been free from sins which He offered to God as the sinless sacrifice at the Cross.

This is apples and oranges. In fact another thread could even be started on the nature of theophanies and Christophanies in the OT. These OT Christophanies have nothing to do with the virgin birth. It is a red herring. God is able to appear to Abraham (for example) in human form, without violating any principle of the virgin birth. The flesh was not the same and has no bearing on the virgin birth.

If the Egg of Mary was used for the flesh of Jesus, it contradicts Jn 1:14 Word became Flesh as the Egg was not the Word. Moreover the sinful nature of Egg of Mary could not form the sinless flesh of Jesus as the Egg is a part of flesh. I have pointed out this problem all the time.

However what you have pointed out is in error.
First, you concentrate on the deity of Christ and not the humanity of Christ by focusing in on the Word becoming flesh. That is not what we are talking about as we are all in agreement that the Word did become flesh. That speaks of his deity.
Second, you assume that the egg of Mary is sinful. That is your assumption which has no Biblical basis. Most of us do not agree with you on that fact. So why go on about it?

These thoughts above will still satisfy the prophecy that the Messiah would come as the descendant of Woman or from the seed of Abraham as the sons of the surrogate mothers are still called the sons or children.

But they do not satisfy Isaiah's prophecy that a virgin will conceive and bring forth a son.

I am not very different from you all and never denied the deity of Jesus nor claimed that Jesus was created, but that the flesh of Jesus could have been created as the Egg of Mary was created too. Even that is one of the plausible scenarios, less likely than that the Flesh came from the Word Himself ( Jn 1:14).

When stated that way your position is close, if the flesh came from the egg of Mary. The difference being that you believe that the egg was created and not naturally produced. I would leave the conception to the Holy Spirit, that is "conceived by the Holy Spirit" to God, and leave the miraculous part of the miracle of the virgin birth in God's hands. It was miraculous in nature and none of us can fully understand everything about it. The objection most of us have to your view is that Jesus was completely human. To be fully human it would be logical that his life would begin where every human's life began--a fertilized egg.

This was my thought and reasoning. I have been with DHK on so many issues and have acknowledged him as a truly born again believer as the same as many other posters on this thread though they disagreed with me greatly on many issues. I hope DHK and Administrator accept my apology and hope DHK will do a good job continuously on this site.

Apology is accepted. No need to leave. As the Bible says: "Iron sharpens iron." Please don't take offence.

However, this event has just relieved me from spending too much time on the arguments and debates without success and therefore I am quite happy to leave here, in the Lord Jesus Christ. May God bless you all.

The decision is yours. Again, there is no need to leave. You have much to offer. Sometimes we speak past each other because of a difference in definition of terms which causes misunderstandings. Don't let that be a reason to leave.

 

[Matt Black]

That is replaced by the coming out of the first Adam's race, Mary.

I do not rule out the possibility of using another dusts for Jesus. In that case, the similarity exists between the first Adam and the second Adam.

Yes, but that would mean that Jesus was a created being...so we're back to the heresy of Arius. "Begotten, not made", remember?

 

[Agnus_Dei]

As a former fundamental Baptist, I never heard the debate concerning the human nature of Christ, but out of curiosity, I asked my parents last night their view…well they really didn’t understand what I was saying…I noticed that like myself once was, their view of the Trinity is very elementary that almost any heresy can fit their view.

They’re “no eggers” as well…they don’t believe that even an umbilical cord was used…get this…Jesus was full-term in “that woman’s” womb! I was floored!

Of course now, this comes from their preacher who has no formal biblical education what so ever, and he doesn’t believe dinosaurs ever existed…their all fake.

What's scary is there's no checks and balances...one man decides what they should and shouldn't believe and if you don't believe, then go start your own church.

Sadly
InXC
-

 

[BobRyan]

I usually do not make any personal attacks first unless I am attacked first.
I was quite often criticized as a Cult, Cult, Heresy, or like JW etc, and it prompted me to give a stronger and more impressive denial to that.

...
To such a person as me believing the deity of Jesus, condemnation as the cult or JW or as person believing Jesus as a creature was a grievous libel and ad hominem.

This part of your post deserves comment. The frequent temptation to resort to pure ad hominem attacks when someone shares a POV that "differs" from someone else's is embarassing to the entire group.

Slamming the pulpit, calling people names, tossing dust in the air, rantiing etc -- does absolutely nothing by way of building a "compelling argument". In this case I do not agree with you on the microbiology of the proposal you are making - more because I am not sure I find good grounds for taking one side or the other on the "microbiology of incarnation".

But I can hardly imagine that one way to "convince you" of my POV is simply to rant.

I can still believe that Jesus Christ was not created while I believe that He was enfleshed by God when He came into this world as we read Heb 10:5.

True.

Like this and almost every doctrinal position raised on this board -- "opinions my vary"

Everyone knows I have no problem at all expressing an opinion that is not supported by a popular opinion poll on this board - and I don't mind when others do the same with opinions that differ from my own.

But we have to get beyond resorting to ad hominem every time we engage in a thread where everyone posting does not share our same POV and our own arguments may not be "doing as well" as we would have liked.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

As a former fundamental Baptist, I never heard the debate concerning the human nature of Christ, but out of curiosity, I asked my parents last night their view…well they really didn’t understand what I was saying…I noticed that like myself once was, their view of the Trinity is very elementary that almost any heresy can fit their view.

They’re “no eggers” as well…they don’t believe that even an umbilical cord was used…get this…Jesus was full-term in “that woman’s” womb! I was floored!

Of course now, this comes from their preacher who has no formal biblical education what so ever, and he doesn’t believe dinosaurs ever existed…their all fake.

What's scary is there's no checks and balances...one man decides what they should and shouldn't believe and if you don't believe, then go start your own church.

Sadly InXC
-

1. The biology of the incarnation is not fully documented in scripture - as you point out - wild guessing is not a reasonable substitute for scripture. However I gotta admit that the no "umbilical cord" guess is "pretty wild".

2. Dinosaurs do not contradict scripture any more than people do. Evolutionists will claim to find BOTH many 1000's of years BEFORE the Bible account will allow. The solution for that is not "then dinosaurs found didn't really exist" any more than the solution is "the people they find don't exist since they are claiming a date more than 6000 years old". The clear alternative is that the "dating assumptions are wrong".

But the real issue exposed in what you have posted is that for many Christians "they just want to hear a story that makes them happy" on certain topics and they don't have any interest at all in identifing the possible accuracy and viability of the story when compared to a detailed knowledge of scripture.

And when playing by such loose rules - almost anything goes - even the dark ages.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[standingfirminChrist]

Jeremiah 31:22 How long wilt thou go about, O thou backsliding daughter? for the LORD hath created a new thing in the earth, A woman shall compass a man.

KJV Defenders Study Bible
Jer 31:22
CREATED A NEW THING. This "new thing" can be nothing less than the coming miraculous conception and virgin birth of the promised Savior. The word for "compass" means "enclose," and no other interpretation of this promise would involve a "new thing." Note the reference also to a "virgin of Israel" in the preceding verse. The following verses lead to the great promise of the "new covenant" in Jeremiah 31:31 and following.
---------------------------------------------------------

My thoughts:
The 'woman shall compass a man' leads me to believe that the child was placed in Mary's womb beyond the embryonic stage. There is nothing new about a woman conceiving the natural way, nor for the fertilized egg to develop into an embryo.

It is, however, a new thing for a child to be placed in the womb beyond the embryonic stage.

 

[Danny Hurley]

The Word became Flesh and dwelt among us

Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man? And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee; therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.

This the work of God totally contrary to all nature, when we figure this out, then we can understand how we are born-again the same principle. But Jesus was the first born of many brethern.

 

[Matt Black]

I'm still waiting for a 'no-egger' to expound Romans 1:2-4 for me...

 

[DHK]

So we're back to docetism, then; Jesus only appeared to have flesh like ours. Same old, same old....

Romans 1:3 - Who as to the flesh was descended from David". Now, please one of you 'no-eggers' answer me this: If Jesus did not inherit DNA from His mother, how could this verse be true? According to the 'no-eggers', Rom 1:3 is a lie.

After much searching, way back on page six of this thread this is what Matt said.
But I agree with you Matt. Possibly the only one left that would disagree with your post that is left here is SFIC

 

[standingfirminChrist]

KJV Defenders Study Bible
Ro 1:3
ACCORDING TO THE FLESH. The central truth of Christianity is the incarnation of God in human flesh, in the person of His Son, the Lord Jesus Christ. He was a true man, 'made of the seed of David," as foretold by the prophets; His birth was completely natural from the point of conception, but His conception was altogether miraculous. He had no human father (although Joseph was his legal, adoptive father, conveying the legal right to David's throne) and His mother remained a virgin until after He was born. Mary herself was a descendant of David, and He grew in her womb for nine months, so He was indeed "made" of one who was of the seed of David. Nevertheless, He could have no genetic connection to either Mary or Joseph. Otherwise, there could have been no natural way in which "that holy thing" (1:35) could have been kept from inherited sin or inherited mutational defects. Thus, His conception necessarily involved the special creation of the cell placed by the Holy Spirit in Mary's womb. "A body thou has prepared me" (He 10:5). The body of the first Adam was specially created by God, without genetic connection to human parents; so also was that of "the last Adam" (1 Co 15:45). Yet He was no less fully human than the first Adam, the father of all other humans. Furthermore, His growing body was "made" through natural nourishment in Mary's womb as He grew, and Mary was "of the seed of David." Thus He was, indeed, "made of the seed of David according to the flesh," although the specification for the "making" of His body were contained in the DNA code programmed by God in the created cell.

 

[standingfirminChrist]

After much searching, way back on page six of this thread this is what Matt said.
But I agree with you Matt. Possibly the only one left that would disagree with your post that is left here is SFIC

God's Word also disagrees with Matt's post.

 

[annsni]

God's Word also disagrees with Matt's post.

No - the KJV Defenders Bible disagrees with Matt's post. That's not the Word, SFIC.

 

[standingfirminChrist]

God's Word says He prepared the body, not the egg.

God's Word disagrees with Matt's post.

Defender's explained perfectly how Romans 1:3 does not mean what many would have it to mean.

 

[DHK]

God's Word says He prepared the body, not the egg.

God's Word disagrees with Matt's post.

Defender's explained perfectly how Romans 1:3 does not mean what many would have it to mean.

Go back and study Heb.10:5. That which you keep on quoting in defence of your position is out of context. It is a quote from Psalm 40:4-6. The context is a contrast between the Levitical system of offering sacrifices and the sacrifice of Christ, the only sacrifice that needed to be sacrificed once and for all. The body that was prepared was prepared before the foundations of the earth. He is the Lamb slain before the foundation of the earth. Would you also literally say that the body is a lamb? Did Mary bring forth a lamb?
The context is OT sacrifices.
What is the verse immediately before verse 5?

Hebrews 10:4 For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.

But Christ, the Lamb of God, could take away our sins forever.
What is the verse after verse 5:

Hebrews 10:6 In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin thou hast had no pleasure.

A text taken out of context becomes a pretext for your own pre-conceived ideas.

 

[Agnus_Dei]

God's Word says He prepared the body, not the egg.

God's Word disagrees with Matt's post.

Defender's explained perfectly how Romans 1:3 does not mean what many would have it to mean.

Dr. Morris is not the final authority on God’s Word, the Defender’s Study Bible, which I have btw, is nothing more than his interpretation.

So in essence, God’s Word doesn’t disagree with Matt, Dr. Henry Morris does…Let’s keep the perspective here shall we?

InXC
-

 

[standingfirminChrist]

The Greek word for “prepared” is a strong word, connoting something like “made perfect” in most of its occurrences. It is used only one other time in Hebrews, in the very next chapter. “Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God”. This correlation assures us that God “prepared” the human body of His Son, to be placed in Mary’s virgin womb with the same perfect wisdom and care with which He had “framed” the worlds. Both were made “very good,” perfectly designed, created, and made to accomplish His great eternal plan. - Dr. Henry Morris

 

[standingfirminChrist]

God revealed these wonderful truths to my heart long before I read the same from Dr Henry Morris.

I pray one day you will not rely on the natural to understand the Spiritual. Until then, the truth of God placing that created body in Mary's womb will never be a reality to you.