YOU are Satan...

[Molly]

But don't you see Molly, isn't the Jesus I'm proclaiming much more of a man then yours?  The one I'm proclaiming could have lust in His heart but not allow it to bring forth sin.  The Jesus I'm proclaiming never sinned but was in every way (and more so) tempted then I am and yet is as much as a man as I am.

Paul

well, he can be tempted--satan stood in front of him and offered him the whole world (fine print: if you bow down and worship me).   That's a temptation.   So he was tempted.  How would you respond to that?  Would you start thinking about all the power and money and throw the rest of us under the bus?

I can't personally see Jesus desiring that or even entertaining it for a minute, and he certainly doesn't seem to pause before his reply.

What we are watching there is a spiritual warfare, which Jesus wins.

[trettep]

But don't you see Molly, isn't the Jesus I'm proclaiming much more of a man then yours?  The one I'm proclaiming could have lust in His heart but not allow it to bring forth sin.  The Jesus I'm proclaiming never sinned but was in every way (and more so) tempted then I am and yet is as much as a man as I am.

Paul

well, he can be tempted--satan stood in front of him and offered him the whole world (fine print: if you bow down and worship me).   That's a temptation.   So he was tempted.  How would you respond to that?  Would you start thinking about all the power and money and throw the rest of us under the bus?

I can't personally see Jesus desiring that or even entertaining it for a minute, and he certainly doesn't seem to pause before his reply.

What we are watching there is a spiritual warfare, which Jesus wins.

Sure he was under temptation but my question is - Is not my Jesus (the one I'm proclaiming) more of a man than yours? 

Paul

[Seth]

Wait, let's back up.  You haven't answered to James yet.  You have not yet told me why James says when lust conceives it brings forth sin.  You keep trying to tell me that lust is sin.  You have yet to explain why James had to say that lust BRINGS FORTH SIN.  You haven't told me why James doesn't call Lust itself sin.

James is not saying that lust comes first and sin comes second: According Romans 7:8 SIN WITHIN produces lust. If anything, sin within first produces lust, then lust conceived produces sin, and death is when sin slays us. Is lust sin of itself? I suppose it depends on how it is manifested: dead or alive? Lust to the one with the Spirit is dead and therfore not only not a sin, but not felt. But lust to the one without the spirit is alive, and is a committal of sin in the heart.

This is to say that  in response to your words: "when Satan was tempting Jesus then it would mean that the thoughts of disobedience originated in Jesus' mind and thus not some external entity." and "I think bad thoughts so if Jesus is a man like me then He did to." The "thinking of bad thoughts" is when lust is seized upon and become sin, which is when the sin of lusting is alive to us. You say: "For our flesh has these urgings.  That is what flesh does.  It has urges and you make the wonderful point that if Jesus overcame then what did He overcome if not His own urges."

The urge after a woman is a sin committed in the heart already. If your mind is not in the flesh then lust is does not produce the sin of "bad thoughts" and therefore is dormant. But does the urge occur in the mind or the flesh? According to Romans 7, the struggle in our flesh is in the mind, and is when the law of sin in our members wars with the law of our mind. If our mind is not in our members but is in the Spirit, then the the war is ceased. This is why Christ was touched with the feeling of our infirmities, and in all ways tempted like us .... here is the exception....without sin.

So what your saying Seth is that Jesus cannot sympathize with our feebleness in having lust in our hearts? 

Paul

Can he sympathize? He can sympathize. He can have compassion regarding our feebleness in having lust in our hearts. He was tested and we are tested.

Hebrews 2:14-18
Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; IN THAT through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil; And deliver them who through FEAR OF DEATH were all their lifetime subject to bondage. Wherefore (SO THEN) 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. For in that he himself hath suffered being tempted, he is able to succour them that are tempted.

With what was Christ tested? With what are we tested?  Reference 1 Thessalonians 3. Christ was a partaker of flesh and blood, IN THAT (ie to the intent that) THROUGH DEATH he might destroy him who the power of death, the devil. Christ was made like unto his brothers in those ways. The problem you have is that you are not recognizing the exceptions provided in scripture.

If I say I ate "all apples" except the ones in Washington. You can't take "ate all apple" and say that I ate all apples in the world. There are many ways that Christ is not like his brothers, which I covered, and one of them is being WITHOUT SIN. Are YOU without sin? No? Well then you have one way that Christ is not like you. You have sin in your members. Christ was without sin.

Christ was made a partaker of flesh and blood so that through death he might destroy him who had the power of death. He meant to deliver them who through fear of death were subject to bondage. SO THEN in all things he was made to be like his brethren, concerning what he was just talking about: mortality and fear of death, not a carnal mind. He wasn't even talking about temptation of lust at all! At least apply the right temptation to the context. That is why he is able to make reconciliation to the people, because he was tested with the suffering of death, and he passed the test and died. It is by his death we are reconciled (Romans 5).

The reconciliation is not in that Christ felt lust and overcame it. It is in that he overcame the test of DEATH and now can succor them who are tested the same.

What we have established is that MY Jesus is one that is a man like I am.  Yours is NOT a man like you are - since you can have lust in your heart.  My Jesus was capable of sin. 

Paul

As I have said Paul and as I have continually said: recongnize exeptions when they are presented. Don't ignore them. Jesus was like you in me. Exception: We have sin. Jesus was without sin. Sorry Paul but that is a MAJOR exception in to how Christ is like us.

[Seth]

Here comes a suprise to Molly and Seth:

Rom 8:3  For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:

Sinful flesh.  Is this a mistake?  Could Jesus really have had flesh that was CAPABLE of SINNING?

Paul

Yes he could have flesh. But not sin. The flesh is not capable of sinning. PEOPLE are capable of sinning. The flesh does nothing without agreement in the mind first. That is why it is the warring of the law of the mind, with the law of the sin in our members that produces lust. So he came in the LIKENESS of sinful flesh and was also WITHOUT sin. He came in the likeness of sinful flesh but was not in the flesh because the Spirit of God was in him. Read the rest of the chapter.

It says He came in the likeness of sinful flesh.  But you say flesh is not capable of sinning. 

Paul

What is capable of sinning is the MAN, the PERSON that yields to the lust produced by sin.

But doesn't "likeness" mean the "same type of" which would mean that Jesus had sinful flesh?

Paul

It just means similitude, similar which does not require "same."

[trettep]

Wait, let's back up.  You haven't answered to James yet.  You have not yet told me why James says when lust conceives it brings forth sin.  You keep trying to tell me that lust is sin.  You have yet to explain why James had to say that lust BRINGS FORTH SIN.  You haven't told me why James doesn't call Lust itself sin.

James is not saying that lust comes first and sin comes second: According Romans 7:8 SIN WITHIN produces lust. If anything, sin within first produces lust, then lust conceived produces sin, and death is when sin slays us. Is lust sin of itself? I suppose it depends on how it is manifested: dead or alive? Lust to the one with the Spirit is dead and therfore not only not a sin, but not felt. But lust to the one without the spirit is alive, and is a committal of sin in the heart.

This is to say that  in response to your words: "when Satan was tempting Jesus then it would mean that the thoughts of disobedience originated in Jesus' mind and thus not some external entity." and "I think bad thoughts so if Jesus is a man like me then He did to." The "thinking of bad thoughts" is when lust is seized upon and become sin, which is when the sin of lusting is alive to us. You say: "For our flesh has these urgings.  That is what flesh does.  It has urges and you make the wonderful point that if Jesus overcame then what did He overcome if not His own urges."

The urge after a woman is a sin committed in the heart already. If your mind is not in the flesh then lust is does not produce the sin of "bad thoughts" and therefore is dormant. But does the urge occur in the mind or the flesh? According to Romans 7, the struggle in our flesh is in the mind, and is when the law of sin in our members wars with the law of our mind. If our mind is not in our members but is in the Spirit, then the the war is ceased. This is why Christ was touched with the feeling of our infirmities, and in all ways tempted like us .... here is the exception....without sin.

So what your saying Seth is that Jesus cannot sympathize with our feebleness in having lust in our hearts? 

Paul

Can he sympathize? He can sympathize. He can have compassion regarding our feebleness in having lust in our hearts. He was tested and we are tested.

Hebrews 2:14-18
Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; IN THAT through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil; And deliver them who through FEAR OF DEATH were all their lifetime subject to bondage. Wherefore (SO THEN) 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. For in that he himself hath suffered being tempted, he is able to succour them that are tempted.

With what was Christ tested? With what are we tested?  Reference 1 Thessalonians 3. Christ was a partaker of flesh and blood, IN THAT (ie to the intent that) THROUGH DEATH he might destroy him who the power of death, the devil. Christ was made like unto his brothers in those ways. The problem you have is that you are not recognizing the exceptions provided in scripture.

If I say I ate "all apples" except the ones in Washington. You can't take "ate all apple" and say that I ate all apples in the world. There are many ways that Christ is not like his brothers, which I covered, and one of them is being WITHOUT SIN. Are YOU without sin? No? Well then you have one way that Christ is not like you. You have sin in your members. Christ was without sin.

Christ was made a partaker of flesh and blood so that through death he might destroy him who had the power of death. He meant to deliver them who through fear of death were subject to bondage. SO THEN in all things he was made to be like his brethren, concerning what he was just talking about: mortality and fear of death, not a carnal mind. He wasn't even talking about temptation of lust at all! At least apply the right temptation to the context. That is why he is able to make reconciliation to the people, because he was tested with the suffering of death, and he passed the test and died. It is by his death we are reconciled (Romans 5).

The reconciliation is not in that Christ felt lust and overcame it. It is in that he overcame the test of DEATH and now can succor them who are tested the same.

What we have established is that MY Jesus is one that is a man like I am.  Yours is NOT a man like you are - since you can have lust in your heart.  My Jesus was capable of sin. 

Paul

As I have said Paul and as I have continually said: recongnize exeptions when they are presented. Don't ignore them. Jesus was like you in me. Exception: We have sin. Jesus was without sin. Sorry Paul but that is a MAJOR exception in to how Christ is like us.

You see Seth, your Jesus didn't sin and neither did mine.  But MY JESUS was CAPABLE of SINNING and yet did NOT sin and thus His victory over SIN is greater than those that are NOT CAPABLE of SINNING.

Paul

[willieH]

willieH: Hi Seth...  

Before I answer your reply, I saw this... and I have problems with it...  

Wait, let's back up.  You haven't answered to James yet.  You have not yet told me why James says when lust conceives it brings forth sin.  You keep trying to tell me that lust is sin.  You have yet to explain why James had to say that lust BRINGS FORTH SIN.  You haven't told me why James doesn't call Lust itself sin.

James is not saying that lust comes first and sin comes second: According Romans 7:8 SIN WITHIN produces lust.

Sorry to immediately disagree, but I do...    

Lets break James 1:14-15 down... a bit at a time...

James 1:14 -- but EVERY MAN is TEMPTED -- [This is defining TEMPTATION of EVERY MAN, which does not disinclude ANY which are considered MEN... including CHRIST]

James 1:14 -- WHEN  [the "TEMPTATION" is NOW on the scene] he [any man] is DRAWN AWAY of HIS OWN LUST [desire] and ENTICED...

James  1:15 --  THEN [the LUST has already "drawn away" and "enticed" the subject] WHEN [another "when" or moment in the chronology of this process] LUST has CONCIEVED [which means "SEIZED"], it bringeth forth SIN [LUST must CONCEIVE/SEIZE the subject, before SIN enters]

James 1:14-15 definitely poses an ORDER to the manifestation of SIN... SIN is not present IN TEMPTATION... desire is prompted from within MAN, and thereby is the TEMPTATION presented... then ...THEN ...it moves to the next step which is "seizing or concieving", then SIN is realized.

If anything, sin within first produces lust, then lust conceived produces sin, and death is when sin slays us. Is lust sin of itself?

Sorry bro, but this is all over the place... the way you put it, we have SIN within, and that SIN produces LUST, which produces SIN...  

That is NOT the process the Bible notes...

I suppose it depends on how it is manifested: dead or alive? Lust to the one with the Spirit is dead and therfore not only not a sin, but not felt. But lust to the one without the spirit is alive, and is a committal of sin in the heart.

Now you are really confusing the issue bro...  It is a SIMPLE process... which begins with the NATURAL MAN, and the desires within each of us, as created by YHVH...

This is to say that  in response to your words: "when Satan was tempting Jesus then it would mean that the thoughts of disobedience originated in Jesus' mind and thus not some external entity." and "I think bad thoughts so if Jesus is a man like me then He did to." The "thinking of bad thoughts" is when lust is seized upon and become sin, which is when the sin of lusting is alive to us.

That we who are NO LONGER innocent are endeavoring to view the process from a SINFUL standpoint is part of our dilemma...  

That a "bad thought" was presented to JESUS (either via your perception "satan" or mine) does NOT mean that hearing that proposal either in thought or presented in words by an external entity, does not mean that HEARING it is SIN...

You say: "For our flesh has these urgings.  That is what flesh does.  It has urges and you make the wonderful point that if Jesus overcame then what did He overcome if not His own urges."

The urge after a woman is a sin committed in the heart already.

I disagree... urges are NATURAL... it is the UNLAWFUL gratifying of those URGES, that enters into SIN.

If your mind is not in the flesh then lust is does not produce the sin of "bad thoughts" and therefore is dormant. But does the urge occur in the mind or the flesh? According to Romans 7, the struggle in our flesh is in the mind, and is when the law of sin in our members wars with the law of our mind. If our mind is not in our members but is in the Spirit, then the the war is ceased. This is why Christ was touched with the feeling of our infirmities, and in all ways tempted like us .... here is the exception....without sin.

Sorry bro, ...I just do not see your very "orthodox-like" vision as true... This is one way the "church" is decieved of itself... giving POWER to a being that does not exist... and spending WAY too MUCH attention on that (mythical) "being"...

CHRIST was NOT "tempted" as are we, unless He endured and progressed through the VERY SAME process concerning TEMPTATION that WE DO...  

I agree that His outcome was different and FAR BETTER than ours... but the scenario was the SAME... which gives Him credit for OVERCOMING that process, where WE ...did NOT.

...willieH  

[Seth]

You see Seth, your Jesus didn't sin and neither did mine.  But MY JESUS was CAPABLE of SINNING and yet did NOT sin and thus His victory over SIN is greater than those that are NOT CAPABLE of SINNING.

Paul

It isn't just that he did not sin. He was WITHOUT sin (hamartia). Where does Paul say the sin is: within. That is the sin that produces lust.

[trettep]

Here comes a suprise to Molly and Seth:

Rom 8:3  For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:

Sinful flesh.  Is this a mistake?  Could Jesus really have had flesh that was CAPABLE of SINNING?

Paul

Yes he could have flesh. But not sin. The flesh is not capable of sinning. PEOPLE are capable of sinning. The flesh does nothing without agreement in the mind first. That is why it is the warring of the law of the mind, with the law of the sin in our members that produces lust. So he came in the LIKENESS of sinful flesh and was also WITHOUT sin. He came in the likeness of sinful flesh but was not in the flesh because the Spirit of God was in him. Read the rest of the chapter.

It says He came in the likeness of sinful flesh.  But you say flesh is not capable of sinning. 

Paul

What is capable of sinning is the MAN, the PERSON that yields to the lust produced by sin.

But doesn't "likeness" mean the "same type of" which would mean that Jesus had sinful flesh?

Paul

It just means similitude, similar which does not require "same."

Ahh, so since the word is also used here:

Php 2:7  But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:

So since you say this means similiar then we can just plug that in and see that similiar doesn't mean "same" as you said.  So that verse would mean that he was made SIMILIAR to men but as you said not same.

We obviouisly have a different perspective.  I believe He was INDEED and DEFINATELY a MAN.

Paul

[Zeek]

Here comes a suprise to Molly and Seth:

Rom 8:3  For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:

Sinful flesh.  Is this a mistake?  Could Jesus really have had flesh that was CAPABLE of SINNING?

Paul

Yes he could have flesh. But not sin. The flesh is not capable of sinning. PEOPLE are capable of sinning. The flesh does nothing without agreement in the mind first. That is why it is the warring of the law of the mind, with the law of the sin in our members that produces lust. So he came in the LIKENESS of sinful flesh and was also WITHOUT sin. He came in the likeness of sinful flesh but was not in the flesh because the Spirit of God was in him. Read the rest of the chapter.

It says He came in the likeness of sinful flesh.  But you say flesh is not capable of sinning. 

Paul

What is capable of sinning is the MAN, the PERSON that yields to the lust produced by sin.

But doesn't "likeness" mean the "same type of" which would mean that Jesus had sinful flesh?

Paul

It just means similitude, similar which does not require "same."

Ahh, so since the word is also used here:

Php 2:7  But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:

So since you say this means similiar then we can just plug that in and see that similiar doesn't mean "same" as you said.  So that verse would mean that he was made SIMILIAR to men but as you said not same.

We obviouisly have a different perspective.  I believe He was INDEED and DEFINATELY a MAN.

Paul

So Paul, do you believe Jesus biological father was Joseph?

[Beloved Servant]

I gotta tell you guys that this thread is doing nothing for the Glory of God our Father and His beloved Son, our Brother and Friend, The Lord Jesus Christ.
Where is your treasure?

[Zeek]

I gotta tell you guys that this thread is doing nothing for the Glory of God our Father and His beloved Son, our Brother and Friend, The Lord Jesus Christ.
Where is your treasure?

Perception is our reality.   As a man thinketh....

[Beloved Servant]

WHERE IS YOUR TREASURE?

[Zeek]

WHERE IS YOUR TREASURE?

within

[trettep]

You see Seth, your Jesus didn't sin and neither did mine.  But MY JESUS was CAPABLE of SINNING and yet did NOT sin and thus His victory over SIN is greater than those that are NOT CAPABLE of SINNING.

Paul

It isn't just that he did not sin. He was WITHOUT sin (hamartia). Where does Paul say the sin is: within. That is the sin that produces lust.

The Jesus I'm preaching is WITHOUT sin.  Again, the Jesus I'm preaching is CAPABLE of Sin and doesn't sin.  That is a greater victory than the Jesus that isn't capable of sin.

Paul

[Beloved Servant]

Amen. Zeek. Amen.

[Seth]

Lets break James 1:14-15 down... a bit at a time...

James 1:14 -- but EVERY MAN is TEMPTED -- [This is defining TEMPTATION of EVERY MAN, which does not disinclude ANY which are considered MEN... including CHRIST]

James 1:14 -- WHEN  [the "TEMPTATION" is NOW on the scene] he [any man] is DRAWN AWAY of HIS OWN LUST [desire] and ENTICED...

James  1:15 --  THEN [the LUST has already "drawn away" and "enticed" the subject] WHEN [another "when" or moment in the chronology of this process] LUST has CONCIEVED [which means "SEIZED"], it bringeth forth SIN [LUST must CONCEIVE/SEIZE the subject, before SIN enters]

James 1:14-15 definitely poses an ORDER to the manifestation of SIN... SIN is not present IN TEMPTATION... desire is prompted from within MAN, and thereby is the TEMPTATION presented... then ...THEN ...it moves to the next step which is "seizing or concieving", then SIN is realized.

WillieH I went through the same stepts. I said that every man is tempted WHEN he is drawn away by lust. Then lust when conceived brings forth sin. This means that in order to BE TEMPTED by lust, lust must exist within. What produces lust? According to Paul, Sin produces lust according to warring of the law of our mind versus the sin in us. Then lust produces sin. YOu don't agree that sin can produce sin? Example: The sin in the members produces lust, sexual thoughts to a woman - adultery in the heart. Lust seized upon produces sin (like engaging in forinication). Fornication can then produce other kinds of sin and so forth.

If anything, sin within first produces lust, then lust conceived produces sin, and death is when sin slays us. Is lust sin of itself?

Sorry bro, but this is all over the place... the way you put it, we have SIN within, and that SIN produces LUST, which produces SIN...  

That is NOT the process the Bible notes...

Actually it is:

Romans 7:5-8
For when we were in the flesh, the motions of sins, which were by the law, did work in our members to bring forth fruit unto death. But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter. What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet. But sin, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought (brought forth, produced) in me all manner of concupiscence (lust). For without the law sin was dead.


How does lust get into us? Where does it come from? It is by being carnal, sold under sin. Being "we are in the flesh" is when these motions of sin work in us producing forth lust in us, when a man is in the flesh and not the Spirit. Lust cannot be worked forth within Christ because he was not in the flesh but 100% in the Spirit. Lust is produced within man by the sin within him, the carnal mind (which is automatically at emnity with God and his law). Without this sin in us, whence lust? Here is how that works:

Romans 7
Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me. I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me. For I delight in the law of God after the inward man: But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members.


It is the law of sin in our members warring against the mind which is carnal by which lust is produced within us. BY that lust we are tempted. That is how lust is produced within us by sin. Again, it is when we are in the flesh that these motions of sin occur, and when lust is worked into us by that sin. But we are not in the flesh but in the Spirit if the Spirit of God dwells in us, like Christ.
  

That a "bad thought" was presented to JESUS (either via your perception "satan" or mine) does NOT mean that hearing that proposal either in thought or presented in words by an external entity, does not mean that HEARING it is SIN...

The difference here is that with your version of satan being the nature of natural man in Christ, the thought is internal. By an external entity the thought need not enter in to the mind of Christ whose mind was kept by God in his rest.

I disagree... urges are NATURAL... it is the UNLAWFUL gratifying of those URGES, that enters into SIN.

Romans 7:7
What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known LUST (epithumia), except the law had said,Thou shalt NOT covet (epithumio - lust).

Lust is unlawful Willie. And sin taking occasion by the commandment brings forth lawlessness in us. This is why when Jesus references "you shalt not commit adultery" he says if a man lusts after a woman, he has already committed lawlessness in his heart.

BTW, since when is what is natural to man automatically lawful to God? It's natural to blink. But it is also natural for men to lust. Blinking is not against God's law, but lust is. It is in our nature, as Paul establishes. God is in the business of CHANGING us from our natural selves into the image of His Son, which is why little ol' natural us, must die and be reborn. The reason God made something natural to us unlawful, is because that gives us the ability to SEE the lust being produced by the sin in us, so that he can deliver us from the urges which are contrary to Him.

The carnal mind is EMNITY with God. Did you or I have a choice in the mind we were given? Of course not. The carnal mind is NATURALLY at emnity with Him, which is why he delivers us from it.

Sorry bro, ...I just do not see your very "orthodox-like" vision as true... This is one way the "church" is decieved of itself... giving POWER to a being that does not exist... and spending WAY too MUCH attention on that (mythical) "being"...

CHRIST was NOT "tempted" as are we, unless He endured and progressed through the VERY SAME process concerning TEMPTATION that WE DO...  

Actually when I was young I thought as you did. I thought that Christ had feelings of lust but did not actually act on them. I was taught that by my very traditional church. Then I changed when I saw what the Word said, that Christ was tempted in all ways like us apart from sin. Christ being without sin in him, sin could not produce lust which is unlawful. Without lust, he was never drawn away and enticed by it within himself. This is why Paul provides the exception: Christ was in God's rest.

I agree that His outcome was different and FAR BETTER than ours... but the scenario was the SAME... which gives Him credit for OVERCOMING that process, where WE ...did NOT.

The Word gives Christ credit for overcoming the world. However it gives his Father credit for all that Christ did. So, the credit goes to the Father for overcoming sin on Christ's behalf by keeping him in God's rest. And the Father gets credit for comforting Christ and giving him power to overcome the world.
 

[Seth]

Here comes a suprise to Molly and Seth:

Rom 8:3  For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:

Sinful flesh.  Is this a mistake?  Could Jesus really have had flesh that was CAPABLE of SINNING?

Paul

Yes he could have flesh. But not sin. The flesh is not capable of sinning. PEOPLE are capable of sinning. The flesh does nothing without agreement in the mind first. That is why it is the warring of the law of the mind, with the law of the sin in our members that produces lust. So he came in the LIKENESS of sinful flesh and was also WITHOUT sin. He came in the likeness of sinful flesh but was not in the flesh because the Spirit of God was in him. Read the rest of the chapter.

It says He came in the likeness of sinful flesh.  But you say flesh is not capable of sinning. 

Paul

What is capable of sinning is the MAN, the PERSON that yields to the lust produced by sin.

But doesn't "likeness" mean the "same type of" which would mean that Jesus had sinful flesh?

Paul

It just means similitude, similar which does not require "same."

Ahh, so since the word is also used here:

Php 2:7  But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:

So since you say this means similiar then we can just plug that in and see that similiar doesn't mean "same" as you said.  So that verse would mean that he was made SIMILIAR to men but as you said not same.

We obviouisly have a different perspective.  I believe He was INDEED and DEFINATELY a MAN.

Paul

He definitely was a man. And he was in the likeness of a man in his appearance. Yet you ignore the exceptions, the ways in which Christ was like God in his mind and in his power.

[peacemaker]

A natural desire or urge (normal), temptation (enticement or allurement; draw), lust (of the flesh, eyes, and pride of life; covet), lasciviousness or licentiousness (unrestrained thought, or a disregard for the law; lawless), sin (willful act; disobedient), death (end of life; also called spiritual death).

Are all thoughts evil and/or sinful?

Or just those due to an immoral (licentious or lascivious) conduct or character?

When should we hold captive our thoughts, having restraint?

Where exactly is the line drawn in the sand?


peacemaker

[Beloved Servant]

Man,
you punks just can't give it up.

[Seth]

Beloved servant, why call us punks. We are just having a discussion dude. Relax.

[trettep]

Here comes a suprise to Molly and Seth:

Rom 8:3  For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:

Sinful flesh.  Is this a mistake?  Could Jesus really have had flesh that was CAPABLE of SINNING?

Paul

Yes he could have flesh. But not sin. The flesh is not capable of sinning. PEOPLE are capable of sinning. The flesh does nothing without agreement in the mind first. That is why it is the warring of the law of the mind, with the law of the sin in our members that produces lust. So he came in the LIKENESS of sinful flesh and was also WITHOUT sin. He came in the likeness of sinful flesh but was not in the flesh because the Spirit of God was in him. Read the rest of the chapter.

It says He came in the likeness of sinful flesh.  But you say flesh is not capable of sinning. 

Paul

What is capable of sinning is the MAN, the PERSON that yields to the lust produced by sin.

But doesn't "likeness" mean the "same type of" which would mean that Jesus had sinful flesh?

Paul

It just means similitude, similar which does not require "same."

Ahh, so since the word is also used here:

Php 2:7  But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:

So since you say this means similiar then we can just plug that in and see that similiar doesn't mean "same" as you said.  So that verse would mean that he was made SIMILIAR to men but as you said not same.

We obviouisly have a different perspective.  I believe He was INDEED and DEFINATELY a MAN.

Paul

So Paul, do you believe Jesus biological father was Joseph?

No, I don't.  I believe Jesus was born by the virgin Mary and the Holy Spirit.

Paul

[Beloved Servant]

It's gone on too long for the apostles of God.
This forum is read by non-members.
I mentioned earlier 2 Timothy.
Now humble yourselves before the Lord and wait on His Spirit.

[peacemaker]

Man,
you punks just can't give it up.

Not imprisoned, nor inclined to be sexually submissive.

[chuckt]

solution:.....((( for some here anyway )))

immaculate conception 

http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1T4ADBR_enUS248US254&q=immaculate+conception


chuckt

[willieH]

willieH: Hi Seth... 

No amount of further discussion shall find a change in either of us bro... You are welcome to believe as you do, and it is so ORDAINED that you do... just as my belief so ORDAINED to be as it presently, IS.

The biggest difference between us concerning this discussion, is that I once believed as DO you... that has changed... 

I also once believed for a time, in (the false doctrines of) HELL, Annhilation, Separation from God, "accepting CHRIST", the "millennium, Easter, Sinner's prayers, "going to Heaven", fallen angels (to mention just a few)...  Via prayer, study and time, ...these beliefs have been eliminated and replaced...

I (obviously) believe differently on this subject than do you, and much like speaking with another (which I often do), about the Salvation of ALL and find after a few posts, that  it is  "going nowhere",  (1) does not call to me to abandon what I now believe, because the other does not see Salvation as do I... and (2)  the other endeavors to preach to me, that which I have left behind... (been there, done that)...

Causes me to move on... I said what I needed to say... and leave it as information which can be accepted or rejected, and depart the discussion...

I guess there comes a time in discussion when we must agree to disagree, and leave what we have said for the considerations of others who are delving into the same areas of GOD's WORD...

IMO -- DELIVERANCE is not just from SIN... it is from FALSE TEACHINGS which live in the Natural mind, and can only be changed from FALLACY to TRUTH, by GOD, ...at HIS decision...

ALL have been CONCLUDED in UNBELIEF -- Rom 11:32 -- which does not "just entail" Salvation... but the detailed TRUTHS as well... 

GOD lives in our hearts bro, and it is in the SEARCH of our HEARTS that GOD avails the Scriptures to us, ...

Those that continue to fervently and faithfully SEARCH shall FIND -- Jer 29:13 -- but it is in DESIRE to SEARCH WITH the WHOLE HEART, that within a process, that WHOLE HEART which GOD LIVES IN, is REVEALED to us... For HIS WORD IS in our hearts, being REVEALED...

No worries bro... You are a great friend, and I am so glad you are once again here... Even though there will be positions of disagreement between us from time to time, ...it is only because we are both learning, and pursuing that our understandings might differ "in the moment", and it is up to God, when each "moment" of DELIVERANCE in any area (for either of us) takes place...

We have posted enough back & forth to see it is obvious, both of us shall not convince the other at this time...

One thing I do know, is that both our lives and hearts are BEING MOLDED in HIS HAND...

And am proud to name you as my brother! 



...willieH